This Is A Scientist?
Dave Price
When you're working to advance science, the appropriate response when someone finds an error in your data or calculations is contrition (best expressed by an openness to further scrutiny and re-evaluation), and perhaps gratitude that truth has been served. James Hansen, on the other hand... well, read for yourself:
The contrarians will be remembered as court jesters. There is no point to joust with court jesters. They will always be present. They will continue to entertain even if the Titanic begins to take on water. Their role and consequence is only as a diversion from what is important.Hardly the model of dispassionate reason and logic; this is as polemic as anything written by Ann Coulter. I mean, really, calling your critics "jesters?"
The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children. The court jesters are their jesters, occasionally paid for services, and more substantively supported by the captains’ disinformation campaigns.
Court jesters serve as a distraction, a distraction from usufruct. Usufruct is the matter that the captains wish to deny, the matter that they do not want their children to know about. They realize that if there is no ‘gorilla’, then usufruct is not an important issue for them. So, with the help of jesters, they deny the existence of the gorilla. There is no danger of melting the Arctic, of destabilizing the West Antarctic ice sheet, of increasing hydrologic extremes, more droughts and stronger forest fires on one hand and heavier downpours and floods on the other, threats to the fresh water supplies of huge numbers of people in different parts of the globe. “Whew! It is lucky that, as our jesters show, these are just imaginary concerns. We captains of industry can continue with business-as-usual, we do not need to face the tough problem of how to maintain profits without destroying our legacy in our children’s eyes.”
I didn't know much about Hansen before this incident, but this does not inspire confidence in his work.
As has been noted before, if Hansen really cares about global warming as much as he claims, he needs to release all the GISS data and algorithms for public scrutiny. Someone reverse-engineered GISS' work to find this error, which as a programmer I can tell you is a very troubling harbinger, as it means it was fairly obvious. Maybe the rest of the GISS data is perfect, but sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Again, if global warming really matters to Hansen, he should be doing everything possible to ensure the integrity of the data and calculations his apocalyptic rhetoric is based on; that's the scientific method to dispel doubt, not calling your critics names when they find flaws in your work. As Glenn says, we'll believe this is a crisis when the people claiming it's a crisis start acting like it's a crisis.
Ironically I'm to understand he bought into the AGW hypothesis...
The writer misses the point while trying to score political coup. What he didn't address--and actually, I don't think he missed it; he's just ignoring it--is that if so basic a set of data can be flawed, how can one trust that other data sets are correct? If the data is flawed, then the conclusion must be flawed: GIGO, 'Garbage In; Garbage Out'.
Unless the scientific method has now adopted 'truthiness' as a principle, the mistaken data can only create doubt about conclusions.
Oh, it's okay to question scientists who take tiny amounts of money from oil companies like Richard Lindzen, but not okay to question scientists who pull in quite comfortable incomes pursuing research and assuring governments around the world that their research is vital and that they need more grant money and more support?
I further note the real truth: guys like Hansen acting like an unquestionable priesthood and club of saints are the real problem with the discussion over this issue. People who act like them do more to make me skeptical than anything else. When people react in blind rage and start calling names when a scientific hypothesis is questioned, you know that hypothesis's supporters are in trouble. Ditto when "this is too complicated for you rubes to understand" is their defense against tough questions.
etc etc.
As tempting as it is to answer Hansen's Marxism-for-dummies style moneypeople-are-evil rhetoric in that vein it's just arguing over which well is the most poisoned one.
What counts is the merits of the science itself.
If a scientist consistently does faulty science skewed in the same direction it might have to do with financial/ideological incentives, but it's still the science which is the important part.
Its like the Church not releasing Latin texts so we can translate and read it for ourselves.
What would be found is that ALL the wells are poisoned to some extent or another. And what we've got to go on isn't the testing of the water (say, Hansen's data and algorithims) but his word that his water is cleaner than the others (before he released them).
You have hit the nail on the head. We have a self annointed clerisy that is the controller of the mysteries of a new revealed religion.
And far be it that the damnable laity be allowed to question their closed and jealously guarded authority on those mysteries. The untutored masses should toil away, sow their fields, pay their mortages, and pay the
clerics salaries.....err, their taxes.And like the ancient priesthoods of the past, in exchange for a tithe from the state they provide the theological basis for state control over the masses.
Climatology is in desperate need of a Martin Luther of its own.
I agree completely.
My point is that in stead of countering one fallacy with another whether it's Hansen's idiotic smears against his opponents or his pathetic "I'm a scientist kiss my ass and worship the ground I walk upon" attitude we point the irrelevance of the (non)arguments themselves.
Any person with average intelligence and a decent high school education should be able to understand that. How its overlooked by so many intelligent folks with PhD’s is beyond me.
That's basically it right there. There are thousands of scientists in this field. It's impossible that they are all tainted.
But it is possible for one side to be wrong. And it's quite possible that side is the majority, not the minority.
I blame Global Warming...
Remember James Hansen is the NASA "scientist" who is violating NASA's rules by earning a second income through partisan activism for Al Gore(D) and John Kerry(D) including 1400+ interviews with the MainStreamMedia cheerleaders all while squealing he is being oppressed by the Bush administration...
In other words, the role of the jester is not that of the circus of "bread and circuses." The jester is the outsider, the one who says the things that should be said. So in a global-warming analogy, the jesters would be the ones bringing in the contrary information, not the confirming information.
Let me also recommend the ADAMANT blog, by Russell Seitz, where I found the link to the Dyson article. This is one of the most professional blogs writing on science that I know.
If it was a "Creation" then it was never within our control. If we have evolved in response to to natural forces within a natual world, we are rather controlled than controlling.
Only a Marxist would suggest that all the world should follow the demands of an unelected "vanguard". Or a slave owner who wants the rest of us to be obedient slaves on his plantation. But I repeat myself.
Not ordinary Marxism.
Scientific Marxism.
My post didn't get posted. I came here via a link from Instapundit.
As you can see from this wapo article in January of this year the "scientist" had a different view when in 2006 US temps were up but fail to mention that global temps were at a 4 to 6 year low (can't quite remember).
Climate Experts Worry as 2006 Is Hottest Year on Record in U.S.
Last year was the warmest in the continental United States in the past 112 years -- capping a nine-year warming streak "unprecedented in the historical record" that was driven in part by the burning of fossil fuels, the government reported yesterday.
According to the government's National Climatic Data Center, the record-breaking warmth -- which caused daffodils and cherry trees to bloom throughout the East on New Year's Day -- was the result of both unusual regional weather patterns and the long-term effects of the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
.......Average temperatures nationwide in 2006 were 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit higher than the mean temperatures nationwide for the 20th century, the agency said. It reported that seven months in 2006 were much warmer than average, and that last month was the fourth-warmest December on record. Average temperatures for all 48 contiguous states were above or well above average, and New Jersey logged its hottest temperatures ever.
......Climate experts generally do not make much of temperature fluctuations over one or two years, but Lawrimore said the record 2006 temperatures were part of a long and worrisome trend. For instance, NOAA said, the past nine years have all been among the 25 warmest years on record for the continental United States.
Advocates for more action to control carbon dioxide emissions also voiced concern.
"No one should be surprised that 2006 is the hottest year on record for the U.S.," said Brenda Ekwurzel, a climate scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, a public interest group. "When you look at temperatures across the globe, every single year since 1993 has been in the top 20 warmest years on record."
All GISS data is publicly available. As for algorithms, what do you mean? The adjustments are explained in Hansen's papers. If you are referring to the computer code, this is a red herring. If you want to validate the results, it is much better to write your own code. This is part of the replication process. People whining about the release of code never seem to understand this.
Do we really want to get in the way of that kinda progress?
No, their published, adjusted data is available. The raw data is not.
If you are referring to the computer code, this is a red herring. If you want to validate the results, it is much better to write your own code.
As a programmer, that's just ridiculous. You don't proof someone's code without reading it.
There's no valid reason for not releasing it. If they're saying the world is going to end based on this data and code, they should be dying to release it, to remove any doubt about the accuracy.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.