Tuesday, March 3, 2009

James Hansen - full-blown climate activist

Anybody with half a clue already new that NASA's James Hansen was more into politics than science. But his appearance at a protest rally yesterday (while freezing his ass off) proves he's "... complete[d] his transformation from scientist to political activist."


Sean Calder said...

((Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist Dr. John S. Theon, one of the former supervisors of Hansen, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen “embarrassed NASA” with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was “was never muzzled.”))


Just a little tidbit to mull over.

Anonymous said...

Were you in a coma for the last month? This story broke at the end of January, and it has already been bitchslapped.

I suppose that when you don't have any scientific background, or research experience in climate science, I guess the only thing left is to become a 'warming truther'. Good luck with that.

While we're talking about conspiracy theories, what's your take on 9/11?

Anonymous said...

BTW, my first comment above was directed at Sean Calder. The second one was for the blog author.


Anonymous said...

That would be the same James Hansen who told the world back in the '70s that we were all gonna perish in an ice age.

I don't doubt that he thinks he's a pretty flexible guy, eh?

Another good book worth a read is "Meltdown", by Patrick J. Michaels. Carves up all the myths and idiocy on global warming quite thoroughly.

Meanwhile, I'll keep working on clarification, too.

Sean Calder said...

Anonymous, I suppose if you consider age discrimination aka "bitchslapping" as a reasonable basis to disprove his knowledge or experience, that could be valid. But there are plenty of "young" folk too who are participating in that debate.

Just because you don't like what he has to say, doesn't mean he's wrong.

And, I suppose I may have been in a coma, induced by the sheer audacity of climate-change Chicken Littles who have endorsed and supported an "environment" of fear and intimidation against anyone who dares to attempt to publish results and findings that are contrary to the so-called consensus. The said "consensus" has since been proven to be a like-minded huddle of self-interested parties who simply decided that they were right and that everyone should agree with their high-minded selves. Nevermind that the models had huge and gaping holes in the logic processes which left the remaining calculations based on flawed, unproven "science".


JR said...

Interesting isn’t it? Hansen must have an army of anonymous ‘useful idiots’ trolling the web for any sign of AGW heresy.

Big City Loon’s so-called “bitch slapping” is a lame joke. When he has to resort to silly ageist bigotry to bolster his ‘case’ you know he’s got nothing useful to bring to the debate. And Hansen and his proxies are forever claiming he’s being “muzzled”. This too is a bad joke. Given Hansen’s ongoing alarmist political advocacy and activism he’s the least “muzzled” government employee on the planet. The idiot should really be fired outright. Not for his politicking, assuming it’s on his own time and dime, but for incompetence at his NASA job. As Anthony Watts has proven, he’s doing it spectacularly badly.

Also, Anonymous, you have no idea what my scientific background is. So you’re just blowing smoke. In any case as it relates to this post, which is about Hansen’s political activism, it’s irrelevant.

Anonymous said...

Please enlighten me about your science background. I'll make an attempt to be impressed.

Anonymous said...

As for BCL's post, please tell me what Theon's comments wrt Hansen in the NINETEEN EIGHTIES have to do with his muzzling by Bush II.

It's obvious that Theon has his own axe to grind, and has had for some time now, given that he's making comments about Hansen NOW based on his experience with him 20 years ago.

Following all of that, now, please explain to me your impeccable skills for research and critical thinking.

Anonymous said...

I've got an idea: How about you show me how you arrive at, say, the kink and anti-kink solutions of the simple 1D reaction-diffusion equation. Or explain to me what the Maximum Entropy Production Principle is, and how it might relate to far from equilibrium systems. I hope that you have the background to discuss this matter on a scientific level. After all, you wouldn't be making uninformed ideological decisions would you? That would be very intellectually irresponsible. That's something a hack would do.

Anyway, I have you pegged at best for an economist - probably a B.Econ. You've been overexposed to equilibrium systems based on rational agents.

At worst, you're a philosophy major with an inflated sense of self-importance.

JR said...

Whoa, Anonymous! Three comments in less than 10 minutes!

Though I hate to reward an excited anonymous troll I'll titillate your curiosity about my qualifications just a little.

My post graduate degree involved the study of stochastic processes and digital modelling of same with the aim of developing techniques for detecting and estimating signals in a noisy background - not a lot unlike the problem of detecting and estimating the 'signal' representing the human contribution to global temperature amid the 'noise' of natural variations.

The latter is by far the more difficult problem and many scientists argue that it remains largely unsolved. Hell, it seems difficult enough just to measure the current global temperature - which is one of Hansen's key jobs, the one at which he's proving so incompetent.

Anonymous said...

Well I will say that you sound like you've got at least some connection to science. So, is it an M.Eng, an M.A.Sc. or a PhD? I suspect that you are aware, then, that having knowledge of fancy filtering, or belief propagation on factor graphs, HMMs, ICA, or any other of various techniques related to detecting signals, errors or noise in discrete state systems probably doesn't actually relate very well to an immense and complex continuous system such as a global thermodynamic climate model.

But more importantly, I hope you can forgive my hesitation at your claims to scientific experience. Most scientists I know are careful not to over-extend themselves into other people's areas of research, primarily because they are acutely aware of the fact that, at the level of leading edge research, it is incredibly difficult to play catch-up to the degree necessary to contribute - that is, without having spent your whole life following, and contributing to, the particular research community.

You seem to very easily assume that the climate scientists don't know what they're talking about, and most scientists and engineers that I know aren't arrogant enough to presume that they know much outside of their highly specialized research interests.

Since you've voiced your opinion so vociferously, I presume you're aware of extremum principles of nonequilibrium thermodynamic systems that are proving very interesting in the analysis of complex systems. If you aren't even aware of basic avenues of research in the field, I'd suggest that you are being intellectually dishonest. You know as well as I that you don't get science research from second- or third-hand sources.

JR said...

"... immense and complex continuous system such as a global thermodynamic climate model."

Indeed. Some have described climate as a complex dynamic non-linear chaotic system ... to which you could add 'unpredictable' and 'poorly understood'. Therefore it is extremely nasty, unwise and unscientific to attempt to demonize as 'deniers' the many scientists whose work might cast doubt on the prevailing AGW orthodoxy. They could well be on the right track.

"...most scientists and engineers that I know aren't arrogant enough to presume that they know much outside of their highly specialized research interests."

Then of course we have 'climate' 'scientists' like Al Gore and David Suzuki upon whose every word the media dotes, takes as gospel and then spreads their AGW alarmism. And now James Hansen, who contributed to Gore's junk science project, has fully joined their ilk in furthering not science but its politicization.

"Since you've voiced your opinion so vociferously..."

I have?