January 28, 2009
Global Warming Hoaxer James Hansen Denounced as Fraud by Former Boss
Of all the cheap frauds pushing the global warming hoax, NASA's profiteering James Hansen is the most shameless, second only to Al Gore himself. Hansen has repeatedly been caught passing phony data. Despite granting 1,400 on-the-job (and on our dime) interviews, Hansen claims to have been muzzled by the Bush Administration. At the same time, he demands prison sentences for those who question the hoax.
Fortunately, the scientific community is beginning to pierce the veil of misinformation spun by Hansen, Gore, and their liberal establishment coconspirators. From a press release from the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works:
Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA's vocal man-made global warming fear soothsayer, 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." Theon joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of man-made global warming fears. …
"Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA's official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind's effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress," Theon wrote.
As for the computer models that constitute the sole evidence for global warming's validity:
Theon declared "climate models are useless." "My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit," Theon explained. "Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy," he added.
The bloom may be off the rose for Hansen, Gore, et al.'s preposterous campaign against human activity:
Gore faces a much different scientific climate in 2009 than the one he faced in 2006 when his film "An Inconvenient Truth" was released. According to satellite data, the Earth has cooled since Gore's film was released, Antarctic sea ice extent has grown to record levels, sea level rise has slowed, ocean temperatures have failed to warm, and more and more scientists have publicly declared their dissent from man-made climate fears as peer-reviewed studies continue to man-made counter warming fears.
Nonetheless, if Obama, Reid, Pelosi, & Co. have the audacity to flush $1 trillion down the toilet to "stimulate" the economy, they are certainly capable of pressing forward with plans to kneecap industry in the name of this farce.
Hat tip: Watts Up With That? On tips from Lou and Dave S.
Posted by Van Helsing at January 28, 2009 7:27 AM
James Hansen is a fruad and a liar just like that blabbering ninny greenfreak AL GORE and DAVID SUZUKI this whole MN MADE GLOBAL WARMING is a evil sinister plan by the evil sinister greens to reduce america to a miserble 3rd world exitence and JAMES HANSEN is a totaly sinister man
Posted by: Spurwing Plover at January 28, 2009 7:41 AM
i'm very interest with your information,
i've a lot of article about global warming
come on join with us to fight GLOBAL WARMING
we can exchange link for it..
my last posting tell about
"The UK Climate Impact Programme Forecasting Scoresheet"
Posted by: hernadi-key at January 28, 2009 8:21 AM
I have a question for our host. if "climate change" and "global warming" are hoaxes and mere facades behind which some environmentalists hide while working toi impose totalitarian controls on the economy, is the same true of all environmentalists? Is there, in fact, an environmental policy Van Helsing would support?
For example, acid rain was damaging northern forests and lakes. Air emissions controls (especially on sufur and its derivatives) have greatly reduced if not eliminated the problem. Worth the cost and effort?
Los Angeles was notorious for smog. Again, air emissions control m easures like the installation of catalyzers onn cars have reduced smog tot he point that Los Angeles is no longer famous forit - and t he rate of respiratory illness in Los Angles Countty has dropped significantly. Again, worth the cost and effort?
Posted by: metatron at January 28, 2009 9:43 AM
metatron: I don't speak for Van Helsing, who is quite capable of speaking for himself, but here is what I think is the general skeptic's stand on global warming. In both of the cases you mentioned there was a clear and demonstrable cause and effect. We can sample the air and sample the rainwater and see that the same toxins in the air are in the rainwater. Likewise, we can see that factory and automobile emissions accumulate around large cities, and can test and measure them in the same way. The problem with global warming is that it is based on a small set of incomplete data from an extremely complex system, yet attempts to project what the global climate will be like in 10, 20, even 100 years from now. We can't even figure out what the weather will be like next week, yet they want us to believe that they can predict temperatures, even if only averages, 10 years from now? It's a shaky proposition that doesn't justify crippling the world economy to accomplish, potentially, nothing of consequence.
In other words, before dumping trillions of dollars into "research" and "green energy" and other such boondoggles, and crippling the economy to the tune of trillions more, we want proof, not theories.
Posted by: CoderInCrisis at January 28, 2009 10:43 AM
metatron, I agree with Coder.
I see three levels of people who are behind the GW movement.
First, the True Believer. This person is 100% convinced it's happening. They have no idea about the scientific data and can't actually understand the complexity of climatology but have been convinced it's real.
Then there are the enviro-militants who aren't sure, but see this as another arrow in their quiver of reasons to push their radical environmental agenda (which is different than sound, reasonable pollution controls like the one's you cited).
Then there are the Evil Ones. AlGore, Pelosi, Hansen...politicians and "scientists" who damn well know they're fudging the facts, but for reasons of political power or huge grant money, keep the lie alive.
Everyone is for a clean planet. No one is opposed to sound environmental policy. But aside from the obvious, just check out all the stuff that could be happening right now (like the Air Car) and then see if any one of these phonies has done anything besides pushing a leftist agenda. They haven't.
Posted by: matt at January 28, 2009 11:23 AM
Jim Hansen is to science as Bernie Madoff is to investing, Michael Moore is to dieting, Al Franken is to decency and truth, and Nancy Pelosi is to bipartisanship.
Posted by: SnowSnake at January 28, 2009 11:35 AM
Continuing from matt et al, I am really twirled off by the secondary effects of these enviro-extremist-idealogues that push the AGW agenda. I speak of the tales of climate woe brought home by school kids indoctrinated by dingey moonbats. Another, just recently our church's Just Faith program initiated a series of discussion meetings on the global warming problem and responsible actions to "save the world" a la Pelosi. This liberal mental affliction is driving me nuts!
Posted by: Bergbikr at January 28, 2009 11:43 AM
Lets send this JAMES HANSEN wacko to the penal planet of ELBA II and leave him there for life or maroon him on TUARUS II where the natives are big scary gorillalike creatures that carry spears the size of telephone poles they would skewer hansen on their spears
Posted by: Spurwing Plover at January 28, 2009 12:36 PM
The usual mantra of the greenies is that if you are a AGW denier you want to destroy the planet. Nothing could be further from the truth. Any place on the planet where people are just existing from day to day, the environment will suffer. People will destroy their enviroment in order to survive. It requires energy to produce food, pump clean water and maintain a reasonbly good quality of life. When the the quality of life improves, people begin to clean up the environment. Nobody wants to live in a pile of filth (except if you live in downtown Milwaukee... but that is a different issue). If the greenies want to save the planet...fine. Lets begin by providing energy to improve the quality of life in third world countries. Hint: Carbon credits don't do that! Spending billions of dollars to remove an essential gas from the planet will go down as history's greatest mistake and will do more harm to the planet than burning oil.
Posted by: baldeagle390 at January 28, 2009 12:58 PM
Though I am not prepared in the least to argue about the science of the global warming debate, the following aspects of the Global Warming crowd's case have been a cause for skepticism from the get-go:
1. The primary evidence cited in favor of Anthropocentric Global Warming (AGW) continues to be computer models. You will struggle to find a group of people who view computer models with more skepticism than software engineers, my profession for 15 years. Computer models are just too easy to manipulate, and designing completely thorough and completely reliable ones is something that is rarely possible without some form of desired outcome in mind.
2. The proposed 'cure' for this oncoming catastrophy? The same tax-heavy, government-involvement-and-spending-heavy, regulation-heavy, environmentally-puritanical, economy-crushing, and, yes, socialistic measures that were the proposed 'cure' for the promised "population bomb" and the coming "ice age" touted in the '70s (with the proposing being done by the same groups then as now). To those of us old enough to remember the 70s, the AGW people today resemble a group of people with a solution (their socialistic measures) looking for a problem. Neither the "ice age" or "population bomb" panned out, and now the same measures are being proposed for AGW. If that doesn't pan out, they'll move on to the next "problem" that they insist requires immediate adoption of their "solution". Wash, rinse, repeat.
3. Not only must the US and world adopt their "solution", we must do it RIGHT NOW OR ELSE, because there is NO TIME TO DEBATE ABOUT IT. How many folks, who wouldn't be taken in by such tactics by a car salesman, nevertheless are making these proclamations about AGW? Why should I not be skeptical about admonitions for adopting radical measures made in such a fashion? Oh, because they say their data "overwhelmingly" supports it. See point 1. Round and round we go.
Whether or not AGW is a real threat or just how much of a threat it is something for others to argue. However, from my perspective, the AGW-touting crowd resemble too much a group with a "solution" looking for a problem for which they can justify its implementation.
Posted by: GeronimoRumplestiltskin at January 28, 2009 1:06 PM
When exactly was Theon the boss of Hansen ?? Why did he not publicly speak out on that matter at that time ? Bloggers like you see something ANYTHING that appears to support their position and they immediately post it without bothering to look any further into it. 2008 was the 8th warmest year on record .http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/ann/global.html
This was determined not by Al Gore but by the the government of the United States.
Posted by: John Ryan at January 28, 2009 1:45 PM
I have said many times that the "warmies" should have taken credit for the drop in tempatures, but instead they just kept crying "let it ride!" in the great "global warming" crap game. The time is near when WE will reply "SEVEN, you lose!".
Posted by: KHarn at January 28, 2009 5:13 PM
Did any of you guys catch Neil Cavuto today? He had a GW spokeshole on his show (and I can't remember the man's name). Cavuto kept after him about "but it's getting colder..."
The guy just spouted "well, it's not just about warming, but wild swings in temperature..."
Cavuto wouldn't let go and said "but you ALL told us that it would be warming up year by year." The guy just kept a smug attitude and hammered away with "it's all about chaos and change". (He also lied and kept up the "we've seen it get warmer EVERY year" when we all know it's been cooling since '98.)
Cavuto finally said something to the effect of "you've covered yourselves for cold OR warm now." He had no answer for that except "it's about chaos."
It was hysterical. That guy was such a tool.
Posted by: matt at January 28, 2009 6:57 PM
Just a look at Hansen tells you: the guy's a fraud, a tool, a moron, a Moonbat. 'Nuff said . . .
Posted by: jc14 at January 28, 2009 8:37 PM
You make some good points. Where I part is in the wording of your foundation, not that it affects your ending point. I believe in global warming but I also believe in global cooling. I believe in climate change because it is a large generalization and the one thing that is a fact it that the climate does indeed change. It always has and always will. I simply do not think that in a planetary scale what humans do has that much to do with global climate when compared to the effects of the Sun and orbital variations.
Where I agree are the issues of local problems that humans are indeed the cause such as smog, acid rain, and pollution of water supplies. We should focus our energies and resources towards local scale issues to keep our urban air less polluted and our water clean. At this scale we need to be aware that what may seem insignificant in the ecology may play a big role in the overall ecosystem. Plankton is a good example. They seem small and not essential but our pollution causing their loss can have cascading effects in the aquatic food chains. So at this scale we can and should move prudently but dollars spent here, as you pointed out, can have provable and beneficial results.
So I just think we need to focus our energies towards those things we know for sure we cause on a local scale and stop thinking that we can change things on a planetary scale. Our planet isn't in danger, it will be here heating and cooling when our entire history is crushed to a thin layer of plastic and aluminum in some geologic strata somewhere.
Posted by: IOpian at January 28, 2009 9:49 PM
Since I am in the middle of an area ravaged by an ice storm, it seems appropriate to talk about the weaknesses of the global warming theory.
Computer models forecasting global warming are not scientific
Posted by: The Intellectual Redneck at January 30, 2009 12:06 PM
John Ryan said: "2008 was the 8th warmest year on record."
While true, it's not the entire truth. 2008 was also the coolest year since 2001. The problem is that the news articles that report the first part fail to report the second.
While I think we do need to do something to combat pollution and use our natural resources more wisely, I think AGW is a scare tactic. It's the way they manipulate the facts to suit their agenda that really irks me.
Posted by: Muria at February 1, 2009 6:24 AM