James Hansen: Abusing the Public Trust

Government scientist testifying to a government panel about why you should pay more in taxes. Just a tad bit biased.

Who would have thought anyone would fall for the scam, pay more in taxes so government can PRETEND to control the weather. This was part of the pretend part, if you pay more, he will come back and testify that it is working, some, but we just need more taxes to save the planet, of course.

Why hasn't Hansen been canned? Clearly he is a liberal mole using his position to spew his propaganda despite the facts. Every time his facts are disputed he never answers to them, he seems to an incompetent boob who should be on someone else's payroll, just not mine

I've been calling on Dr. Hansen's dismissal for years. He sold out the scientific method years ago. Fortunately, there are many in NASA's vast number of scientists who are, as all scientists are supposed to be, sceptics (and not "deniers"). This AGW fraud has fattened the pocket of the bitter former Vice President to the tune of over $100 million, having left the Naval Observatory's Vice President's House worth $7 million, and all for touting the ridiculous idea that CO2 levels lead, rather than lag, a warming climate. Anyone out there not familiar with the truth is urged to visit Weather Channel founder John Coleman's http://www.icecap.us and, for some solid science, http://www.climateaudit.org

This is the biggest fraud since Earth passed through the tail of Halley's Comet in 1910, but it's great to see the tide reversing on this. The revised United Nation's IPCC is as dangerous to the UN's long-term credibility as Belgian peacekeepers in the Congo.

Coleman has suggested Gore be sued for the Carbon Credit scam. Martha Stewart was prosecuted for far less.

time to resign Mr. Hansen

I never heard any of this about Dr. Hanson's payola, though I am not surprised in the least. All you ever hear from the global warming enthusiasts about, for example, Dr. Fred Singer is "He's in the pocket of big oil!" Now we know that James Hansen is in the pocket of far left lunies. Thanks Brian.

Reality is that Hansen is just one more US taxpayer funded Leftist who is working to destroy individual liberty based on "global warming." AGW is just the latest and largest Big LIE that the Eco-Socialists have cooked up. DDT, Acid Rain, Deforestation, Alar, CFC nonsense, Endocrine Disruptors, ....
These lies have failed or succeeded on various levels but they have cost tens of millions of lives(DDT) and untold billions of dollars and damaged freedom world wide.

If he works for an organization that has a PAO, then it seems to be kind of a given that anything going out to the public needs to be approved by public affairs...otherwise, why is there a PAO?

Speaking as a Soldier in the United States Army, I can tell you that we, as Federal Employees, are reminded on regular basis of not only our rights, but our responsibilities when speaking publically. What is often stressed is that while we are allowed to hold and express any opinion we wish as a private citizen, as a member of the Unites States Military and employees of the Department of Defense, we are obligated to remain silent on some issues and matters, particularly those of politics. We may not endorse any candidate, or express support for any controversial issues as a Sergeant Joe Smith, for example, but may do so as Mr. Joe Smith.
This is standard policy for all Federal Employees, which includes, but is not limited to the Postal Service, The FBI, CIA, DNR, ect. It does not matter who one works for, they may not use their position to express or support politics.
This is related to something that has long troubled me about the liberal movement- their supposed truths are more important than rules, and they are not held accountable for their actions when they do violate them. Case in point is the incident in San Francisco when a group of pro-gay activists desecrated Mass and the Eucharist as form of protest. It points to a flagrant disregard for the rule of law public decorum. I am all for expressing dissent, and I so quite often, but I do so properly, and follow the policies and procedures set forth by my superiors. As a Federal Employee, Dr. James Hansen should be held to the same standard that Generals and Privates alike are held to.

All this despite the fact that GISS' own data clearly illustrates that the Earth's temperature has been flat since 1998 and recently has been dipping downward.

Actually, 14 of the past 20 years have been the hottest on record.

Get your facts straight.

He is in violation of the hatch Act. He won't be punished however. Libscum ALWAYS get over, i.e., Hanoi Jane Fonda in Vietnam, Hanoi John Kerry at the Paris Peace Talks, etc.

I thought his calls for trials for crimes against humanity and nature were telling. I had no ideas that Nuremburg style laws applied to the heads of legally run public corporations. This trend of the left to so openly vilify business is deeply troubling. Apparently these people are willing to destroy our entire economy and freedoms for any cause that allows it?
How easily these brats will toss the rest of under the bus.
I am really concerned about the trend. We are running the risk of taking away that which made this nation prosperous in the name of our own good.

If only we could be rid of him, it would be a just end to his unworthy career, but alas it cannot happen. If any move were made against him by any conservative the howling of the press would be deafening. The only way to remove him would be to have a Scientific review board discredit him for using falsified data. Guess what, that won't happen either. I am afraid we are all along for a very scary ride until reason prevails.

My wife is a VA employee, and she's not even allowed to accept dinner from drug rep. Hansen needs to be fired and caned. Contrast his position and rhetoric with that of the late nobel laureate Richard Feynmnan:

"It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty -- a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid -- not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked -- to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.

Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can -- if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong -- to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.

In summary, the idea is to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgement in one particular direction or another...

I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you're maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.

For example, I was a little surprised when I was talking to a friend who was going to go on the radio. He does work on cosmology and astronomy, and he wondered how he would explain what the applications of his work were. "Well", I said, "there aren't any". He said, "Yes, but then we won't get support for more research of this kind". I think that's kind of dishonest. If you're representing yourself as a scientist, then you should explain to the layman what you're doing -- and if they don't support you under those circumstances, then that's their decision.

One example of the principle is this: If you've made up your mind to test a theory, or you want to explain some idea, you should always decide to publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only publish results of a certain kind, we can make the argument look good. We must publish BOTH kinds of results.

I say that's also important in giving certain types of government advice. Supposing a senator asked you for advice about whether drilling a hole should be done in his state; and you decide it would be better in some other state. If you don't publish such a result, it seems to me you're not giving scientific advice. You're being used. If your answer happens to come out in the direction the government or the politicians like, they can use it as an argument in their favor; if it comes out the other way, they don't publish at all. That's not giving scientific advice."

Held up to Feynman's standard, Hansen has no business being called a scientist.

When the air is unbreathable, the watrer is undrinkable and Florida is under water... you can tell your grandchilden it was good for the economy...

Everyone has to be aware how out of line Hansen's GISS temp "translations" are (heavy massaging?). For instance, see http://tinyurl.com/4de3v7
being aware that this graph does not even include May, where the satellite (UAH and RSS) temps are .8* C BELOW the 30 year anamoly.
You can also see
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html
but that graph is skewed somewhat, as it contains only one satellite graph.

Everyone has to be aware how out of line Hansen's GISS temp "translations" are (heavy massaging?). For instance, see http://tinyurl.com/4de3v7
being aware that this graph does not even include May, where the satellite (UAH and RSS) temps are .8* C BELOW the 30 year anamoly.
You can also see
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html
but that graph is skewed somewhat, as it contains only one satellite graph.

"actually, 14 of the past 20 years have been the hottest on record" On what "record". The billion or so years the earth has been in existence? When my local weather forcaster (or any weather forcaster for that matter) can tell me what the weather (and temperature) is going to be on the second Thursday in November 150 years from now then, I will believe they have the slightest idea what they are talking about. I do believe that man has SOME impact on overall climate but this freakout over AGW has got to stop.

Courtney Hall needs to learn to differentiate between facts and propaganda. No, Courtney, none of the last 20 years is the hottest recorded. Stop looking at tree ring estimates and look at actual recorded temperatures. Or, if you insist on tree ring data, include the WIDE variation of probable temperatures they actually posit, rather than the point based linear lie you have been fed.
In other words, learn ANYTHING about Physical Geography, and gain some passing acquaintance with math before you open your mouth and prove what an ignorant twit you are.

Nice how you quote "facts" but provide no sources.

Seems that you are just scared that someone out there is speaking the truth on climate change. Sad, sad web site.

Related:
Somebody Please Get This Guy a Nice Strait Jacket
http://www.nicedoggie.net/2008/?p=1009

"Actually, 14 of the past 20 years have been the hottest on record.

Get your facts straight."

Courtney..check your facts. That was before the inconvenient truth was brought to the attention of GISS. Hansen was using bad numbers and had to revise them. 1934 became the hottest since 1880. 4 of the ten hottest years were in the 1930's while only 3 were in the past decade. Have to hand it to Hansen, he's like a Timex watch...he keeps on ticking

Good point Pat. It's like marketing not science.
Let's ask Obama this: If a large number of scientist, with no oil ties, will say the case is not closed on global warming and in-fact it may be wrong; will you speak of this now before the election?
At least McCain says: if we are wrong it is still good security and business policy to get off oil.
I don't think Obama can admit the possibility that global warming could be wrong.
Of course, if it were true we would be slapping up nuclear power and desalination plants as fast as possible.

To Courtney Hall

Don't know where you get your "facts" from, but this is from the NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

According to their data, only eight of the last 20 years were record highs, eleven if you go back last 30 years): 1981, 86, 87, 90, 91, 98, 99, 2001, 05, 06, 07.

The remaining nine record highs occurred before 1955: 1921, 31, 33, 34, 38, 39, 46, 53, 54.

So the number of years with record highs since the 1980's and the number of record high years prior to 1955 is basically a tie.

http://VocalMinority.typepad.com
Jewish AND Republican?? Oy gevalt

Courtney Hall said:

"Actually, 14 of the past 20 years have been the hottest on record"

So what? Whether or not they have been hot years in absolute terms has exactly NOTHING to do with the trendline of those years. As the article states, the TREND has been flat or down since 1998.

The facts are correctly stated. It would appear that your fervor has clouded your skills of comprehension.

Giss temp data 'flat since 1998 and recently dipping" IS FACT. NASA's Project Argo IS FACT, Courtney!

This is simply more of the same ...we know the truth but we continue to lose the elections to those who out number us and thanks to the socialist leftest teachers, run their lives on emotional basis...if it feels good...do it?

The "Green Movement" is all about money and nothing more. Curly light bulbs come to mind. CFC BS!! The government bans merthiolate because it had mercury in it... but sell us light bulbs full of mercury...made in CHINA...find out who got paid...uhh Algore??? Duh.

and to Ms. Hall...you are suffering from rectalinear occular occlusion. Your head is so far up that end of your body, 4 of your 5 senses aren't working. It is climate sweetie...nothing more. and it will swing back...I have lived here 66 years and we have had 3 droughts and interspersed with 5 15+ foot snow falls ...low on water? quit giving it to LA.

Congressman Issa is also paid by the american taxpayer. And he also speak his mind on the work time. And quite often I do not like what he says/thins. It goes both way

This article is hogwash. Hansen is a hump who doesn't know the limits of his expertise (his forays into economics - pro carbon tax/anti cap and trade - and law - calling folks climate criminals) but he does have the science correct on AGW and it's disappointing to see so many conservatives taken in by the frauds who have attempted to refute AGW by putting forward easily debunked garbage.

I challenge the other commenters in here to be American Thinkers. When you read an IBD editorial on global warming follow every claim they make and see if you can independently verify it. You won't be able to. Same thing with Newsbusters and various other places that put forward denialist crap.

You're being made to look like fools.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/ says "2007 Tied as Earth's Second-Warmest Year" so what's this about flat temperature? if hansen is the arbiter of temperature as the author points out, then why not heed his message? i think the graphic at the bottom of http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/temptracker/ pretty much says it all. to the soldier to wrote about how rules should trump the truth, i think we established at some trials nearly 60 years ago that perhaps truth *is* more important than rules.

Evan,

You are being ignorant. The congressman is elected to talk and give his opinion. That idiot Hansen was "hired" to do his job not talk about his "beliefs" which have nothing to do with science. PS. I can't stand anything anyone on the left says in congress, but that is their right.

Freedom of Speach. What a peculiar idea!

Also to Evan:

Issa is an ELECTED official, whereas Hansen was appointed to his job. Issa's constituents can throw him out the door anytime they decide he's not representing their interests. How do we dump Hansen, who obviously has some sort of "tenure" or "hold" on someone. The Soros connection is enough information for me to decide Hansen must be fired.

Hey, Mikey May, even the IPCC report was full of holes. There were about 2,500 scientists who purportedly worked on it but how many actually signed off on the work? Faulty temperature data was used and the computer models were tweaked to get a predetermined result. Computer models don't work when using historical data to try to predict the PRESENT, so how can we predict the future with inexact data and flawed computer models. The whole thing is a hoax and you are like a Nazi calling us "deniers" because we can think critically. It's the SUN, stupid. Besides, more CO2 is not a bad thing, it's good for plant life which is good for us mammals. Algore's a buffoon and anyone who believes in man-made global warming is a religionist.

@ hot under the collar:

Well, if 2007 is the same temperature as 1998 and no intervening years were hotter, then BY DEFINITION the temperature trend between 1998 and 2007 MUST BE at least flat. That's simple math.

Michael May said:

"I challenge the other commenters in here to be American Thinkers. When you read an IBD editorial on global warming follow every claim they make and see if you can independently verify it. You won't be able to."

Does "independently verify" mean to check the claims against real world data, like from GISS, NASA, USHCN, Hadley, etc.?

Because if so, then every fact claimed by skeptics (and it is 'skeptic' not 'denialist' no matter how much some may wish) is genuine. The contention is over what those facts mean. And when the facts indicate that Hansen's very own predictions from 20 years ago have not been borne out by the real world, there is every reason to be skeptical of his claims and to doubt his competence as a researcher.

It is you who would not be able to "independently verify" Hansen's, or any other 'alarmist' claims since the data simply do not support their hypothesis anymore. Predictions were made and the predictions failed to be realized. In REAL, ACTUAL SCIENCE, that is grounds for dismissing a hypothesis.

I live in the country and my temperature has not gone up ANY. The temperature increase is from city pavement go to Watts up with that and you will learn much about gore and hansens scam.

The criminalization of ideas and policies that oppose the hegemony of the radical left has been on going for many years. The idea that oil executives should be subject to prosecution because of their doubts about A.G.W., should send chills down every American. Sadly, that's not the case. Scooter Libby was the latest victim of this criminality concept, and half of America stills sees no problem with it. Hansen is a narcisist and a dangerous Marxist ideologue. This is very dangerous territory we are headed into.

Chris C. said:

"Well, if 2007 is the same temperature as 1998 and no intervening years were hotter, then BY DEFINITION the temperature trend between 1998 and 2007 MUST BE at least flat. That's simple math."

2005 was hotter, and the trend isn't flat.

Anthropogenic warming is real. You people sound like creationists. The National Academies of Science of the G8+5 just released another statement on climate change.

Conservatives need to fight back against crap like "News Busters" and "Junk Science" and take their place among the scientifically literate. This is embarrassing.

@ Michael May

Michael, it's convenient for you to glibly say what you say, and yet you've offered zero evidence with which to back it up. Much like Al Gore, you've presented the hypothesis that the science is irrefutable, but you've not shared any of that "irrefutable science" with us. Rather, you then shift to an emotive position. You lump all those who hold different interpretations of the data into the bin of "denialist crap". This is a clear indication of your emotionalised approach to the problem of climate change and a refutation of your contention that your support of AGW is just based on facts. You call us fools, just another emotional ad hominem attack that refutes the idea that you indeed have any irrefutable scientific evidence to support your position.

The proper "scientific" position for those who should be one of slight skepticism. Scientists should, by definition of what they do, remain skeptical toward most everything in order to keep an open mind.

Please keep in mind that we're talking about a minute change in one component of our atmosphere (a difference of 50 parts out of a million). And the chemical composition of the atmosphere is just one variable in a system with more variables than we know to measure. Further, these variables interact in ways that we don't understand, and since we don't even understand all the variables, it's impossible for us to grasp all of the interactions.

If you follow the news, you'll know that the head of the IPCC has recently indicated that climate change will be stalled for ten years or more largely because the next sunspot cycle has failed to start. What he failed to tell you is that there have been five periods in recorded history with minimal sunspot activity all of which coincided with periods of low temperature. The longest of these periods lasted 70 years and coincided with the "little ice age" period in which temperatures were significantly lower. This fact, more than any other should cause skepticism in most any rational intellect. It shows that there are other variables at play in the system that produces our climate, and that the best approach we can take is to keep our eyes and our minds open to learn more about all the variables and their interactions. Saying that the science is irrefutable is at best a premature conclusion, at worst it amounts to collectively burying our heads in the sands of ignorance.

The point is that a truly "scientific" approach to climate change, that is an approach that is focused on just facts, will be necessarily skeptical about assigning CO2 the sole causative role in observed changing temperatures. There are other things going on and it behooves us to learn more rather than to just shut our minds.

Mike May-

I recomend:

http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Review_Article.html

Typical of the information available there is the graph of GT for the last four centuries, since the Earth began recovering from the Little Ice Age. It illustrates that the long-term trend of GT increase, established before the mid-19th century, was roughly half a degree per century. The AGW types begin their data in 1850 and correlate the increase in CO2 with a long term GT increase of 0.5 degrees per century. Well, duh!!!

If the slope of GT increase has not changed from the early 19th century to the present, what does that say about the significance of CO2?

While Hansen's global warming hysteria gets ridiculous and should call his competence into question; his calling for prosecution of American citizens for exercising their First Ammendment rights is sinister. He did this while speaking as a senior government official in a formal statement before a Congressional committee.

That should be a firing offense. ACLU where are you? (Ha!Ha! That was a joke.)

I would truly enjoy seeing the chief executives of Big Oil to be tried for high crimes against humanity. A good defense attorney would rip Hansen a new a$$ and leave him a drooling wreck.

The truth would come out and AGW would be seen as the fraud it truly is. But this will never happen. Like Gore, Hansen will never argue with a knowledgable opponent. It is all bluff.

While Hansen's global warming hysteria gets ridiculous and should call his competence into question; his calling for prosecution of American citizens for exercising their First Ammendment rights is sinister. He did this while speaking as a senior government official in a formal statement before a Congressional committee.

That should be a firing offense. ACLU where are you? (Ha!Ha! That was a joke.)

Jon said:

"2005 was hotter, and the trend isn't flat."

Gosh, who would have though that Hansen's own website would have data supporting what he's saying.

Of course, his website ALSO shows data that indicates this warming that you claim was apparently only present in the northern third of the planet:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.B.lrg.gif

Temps for the low latitudes and the southern hemisphere have been flat or falling since 1998-2000.

Or how about this:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif

Which shows that, yes indeed, 2007 did have some very hot times. But this graph of 1998 to 2007 shows virtually no additional warming. That is to say, it is flat.

But let's move to a new source, the National Climatic Data Center:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.land_and_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat

This is raw monthly data from 1880 through May of 2008. A little graphing work in Excel will easily demonstrate that there has been virtually no additional warming since roughly 1998.

These are just a few sets of data, from GISS and NCDC, which clearly support the current projection that warming has stalled and flies in the face of Hansen's continually escalating rhetoric.

Again, if the data do not support the predictions of the hypothesis, the hypothesis is WRONG.

The biggest crime in this whole AGW fiasco is that Mr. Hansen is still on the public payroll and is still being run out by his leftist collaborators in Congress to spew his bilge. Despite overwhelming evidence that the data from the from surface temperature monitoring sites, which Hansen controls, has been biasing upward continually by the encroachment of urban heat island effects Hansen's adjustments to the data have been uniformly positive,using methodologies that until just recently he has refused to release for peer review by the scientific community, in clear violation of all precepts of scientific inquiry. The result has been that the GISS dataset has become an outlier, which despite all the manipulations can't match the predictions of those 'infallible' models on the basis of which we are supposed to undertake economically crippling energy reformations. One can only hope that when history comes to pass judgement on this disgraceful episode of human arrogance and stupidity that he and Algore are still around to take their place in the dock for their multitude of ' crimes against humanity'.

Michael May: you speak glibly of "easily debunked garbage".

Funny how that "easily debunked garbage" is in hundreds of peer-reviewed journals.

Funny how those reviewing "peers" were all so easily fooled as to let that garbage be published in the first place.

Funny, too, how many pro-AGW papers are reviewed by the same tiny coterie, again and again and again.

Funny how the "debunking" mostly does NOT go into peer-reviewed journals, but instead into press releases and blog entries.

Funny how scientists don't go about "debunking" each others' peer-reviewed articles by the hundreds in any field of science. Scientists challenge and disagree, or support and confirm, but "debunk"? Just how can Hansen do that, when he won't even release his own data sets and algorithms, which he fiddles with every six months or so and re-releases!!

Funny how 31,000 plus scientists, including world-class climatologists and more than 60 Nobelists, publicly challenge the theory of AGW.

Funny how guys like you will say "but they're not all climate scientists", when you gladly swallow the Kool-Aid for AlGore, who barely graduated from Divinity School.

Funny how in human history the AGW hypothesis is the ONLY ONE that is settled, finito, debate over ----even though it cannot be tested or falsified, basic criteria for a theory to be considered scientific.

Funny how AGW zealots are always talking about Big Oil funding the skeptics, when GOVERNMENT funds scientists by a ration of 100-to-1.

Funny....

James Hansen = histerical, leftist, bureacratic, CRACKPOT!! Mr. Hansen; please just go away. Take your leftist/socialist/communist grifters and con-men(Al Gore, Koffi Annen and the Hollywood self appointed "elite") with you.

@ Geoff Gale

What you said!!!

Also, Michael May and most people don't know that the head of the IPCC admitted to Lawrence Solomon, who's written a great book on the AGW controversy ("The Deniers"), that scientists didn't ratified the IPCC report's conclusions , because they weren't privy to it, and that hundreds who reviewde articles for it strongly objected to being tagged as agreeing with it AFTER it was published.

Also: notice the trend:

Oil prices rise sharply.

Public gets angry at liberals who have let our domestic oil production decline sharply the past 30 years.

Persistent scientific attacks against the dubious "science" of Hansen et al, plus new data showing no additional warming the past 12 years, and a prediction (NOW they tell us!) of ten or more cool years to come.

Result: Panic among the Greenies! Calls for Oil Execs to be tried as criminals!! Radial Dems talk of seizing refineries and the oil companies themselves ---- AS IF that would produce a drop of extra oil or gas!

LOL!!!

Hansen = Lysenko

A crackpot scientist whose flat-wrong theories are being enforced by raw political power as if they were valid.

Are there really large numbers of self-described conservatives who have fallen for AGW? From the vocal minority here that seems the case. And they complain that they are disgraced by the political company they keep for its ignorance? The IBD challenge is truly rich. I don't think I've ever seen a claim in that pub that is not referenced, in stark contrast to the NYT op/ed. In any event, there is plenty of evidence that Hansen has cooked his numbers to get his desired result; likewise the famous "hockey stick" fraud. We are fortunate that the last winter was so cold as to blow out previous averages, otherwise cap and trade would be the best we could hope for. Let's see the warmists live up to the standards they claim to endorse. Let's get a good look at the data in the IPCC report. Let's get a good look at the actual temperature readings used today. Sorry assorted numbnuts... temps are at least flat since '98 and that was until this last winter. Here's a proposal; let's see what this winter does. If it is above the old average Hansen was using then we outlaw all CO2 emitting activity. If not, well, we had better get the fire going and I don't think we will hear too much complaint at that point.

Anyone who wants to see the jiggery-pokery Hansen et al engage in should get over to

www.climateaudit.org.

Since hansen won't reveal his methology the guys there have been attempting to reverse-engiener his methods.

HIDING YOUR DATA AND METHODS IS NOT SCIENCE!

(another such AGW zealot refuses to release his data too, saying "I've worked 25 years on this, and you think I'm going to let anyone find fault with it"?

LOL!!

One would think that after calling AGW skeptics foolish "deniers" of the "facts", posters like Michael May and Courtney Hall would have the personal integrity to respond to counterclaims.

But naaahhhhh.... for AGW the science is "settled".

The "debate is over" --- because they don't DO debate!!!

Miskolczi quit NASA when they obstructed publication of his finding of a fatal flaw in the AGW hypothesis. In his paper which can be found at:

http://www.met.hu/idojaras/IDOJARAS_vol111_No1_01.pdf

he shows how the basic tenet of AGW rests on formulae that treats the atmosphere as being infinite in height. It is this flaw that allows for the continuous warming with greater levels of CO2. In simple terms, this amounts to nothing less than a perpetual motion machine. His analysis is that the atmosphere is finite in depth, that the total of all greenhouse gases are essentially at stasis so that as more CO2 is added, other greenhouse gases are washed out, mainly H2O. This leaves solar variability as the prime mover of climate changes and in that area, we are powerless to stop or even change climate.

Chris C. says:

"Gosh, who would have though that Hansen's own website would have data supporting what he's saying."

It isn't "his website"- it's NASA's.

"Of course, his website ALSO shows data that indicates this warming that you claim was apparently only present in the northern third of the planet:"

There is a warming trend for all three bands there. It's pretty obvious that if you peg the length of the trend to the outlying ENSO-boosted 1998 year, you can reduce it, but it is pretty obvious when looking at the moving averages.

"Which shows that, yes indeed, 2007 did have some very hot times. But this graph of 1998 to 2007 shows virtually no additional warming. That is to say, it is flat."

That data goes into the GISTEMP surface record and is supplemented by sat data. What is the point of just showing station data, which makes up GISTEMP, alone?

"But let's move to a new source, the National Climatic Data Center:"

Sure. Here is the NCDC global temp record. It also shows 2005 as the hottest year on record and an obvious warming trend.

"These are just a few sets of data, from GISS and NCDC, which clearly support the current projection that warming has stalled and flies in the face of Hansen's continually escalating rhetoric."

Right. There is no warming. That's why 2005 was the hottest year on record for both.

"Again, if the data do not support the predictions of the hypothesis, the hypothesis is WRONG."

Who hypothesized that warming would be monotonic? That's absurd!

No credible relevant organization (NASA GISS, NOAA/NCDC, Met-Hadley, CRU, UCAR/NCAR, etc.) supports this "warming stopped, global warming is 'wrong'" nonsense.

Again, the National Academies of Science of the most developed nations on Earth have released yet another statement on anthropogenic warming and climate change. But because some yahoo on the internet thinks anthropogenic warming must be monotonic over extremely short timescales, I'll just have to say no one knows for sure!

Like I said, you people sound like creationists. Conservatives need to take their place among the scientifically literate. You're embarrassing the rest of us.

"Miskolczi quit NASA when they obstructed publication of his finding of a fatal flaw in the AGW hypothesis."

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Do yourself a favor- contact NASA and ask about the circumstances of his employment. Hint: he wasn't employed in the capacity you seem to think he was and his departure had nothing to do with his ridiculous claims about the greenhouse effect.

If his contention was even remotely close to accurate there would be no ice ages because the inverse would hold true as well.

Where do you people get this crap from?

Jon and Chris C:

Hansen won't release his algorithm: yes or no.

Hansen keeps fiddling with his results: yes or no.

Not releasing his algorithm is inconsistent with being a scientist open to peer review and criticism: yes or no.

Are you in favor of relying on "secret science" as a justification for destroying human freedoms? Yes or no.

Is there any way possible humans might MEASURE the results of any steps they take to "hold back" global warming.

Yes or no.

If yes, please describe.

If no, you seem to be signing up to the idea that politicians, supported by a scientific priesthood, can limit freedom without anyone being able to challenge them.

You down with that?

Yes or no.

@ Jon:

"Where do you people get this crap from?"

Well, certainly not from "An Inconvenient Truth", which remains Holy Writ for the same liberals who wallow in every New Age nostrum that comes along: astrology, astral planes, aromatherapy, chiropractic, Rolfing, homeopathy, Harmonic Convergence....

Oh, but wait! It's CONSERVATIVES who need to become scientific literates!!!

Uh huh...

You can email James Hansen, and let him know there is an editorial here about him.
James.E.Hansen@nasa.gov
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/jhansen.html

Hey Jon, I am a scientist, am I a idiot to? Can I read statistics? Can I understand closed loop systems?
I am a staunch Conservative Jon, and I am highly literate and I think MMGW is utter BS.
Explain that Jon.
This is all about funding and socialism.
Maybe you can explain why 100% of the solutions are taxes, redistribution of wealth and the lowering of the world standard of living?
As to NASA, gee, lets see, create a crisis, get funding perpetuate a crisis, create fear, more funding.
Hmmm, do I see pattern of self preservation here?
Oh I forgot, government is above all this. Only private industry seeks a agenda...
Hey Jon, I am all for Hydrogen, clean energy, et al. However, I am also for realism and market based solutions that have some basis in realism and marketability.
You are not replacing oil in the next 50 years, get over it. If you think otherwise your a fool.

Oh and btw, Jon: what DOES cause Ice Ages, anyway? And what caused all that ice to disappear?

Just askin'....

Jon -

"It isn't "his website"- it's NASA's."

Ummm... He's the senior climate scientist at GISS, so he's going to have more control over the content of the website than just about anyone else. Sorry, didn't mean to imply that it was JamesHansen.com

"There is a warming trend for all three bands there. It's pretty obvious that if you peg the length of the trend to the outlying ENSO-boosted 1998 year, you can reduce it, but it is pretty obvious when looking at the moving averages."

Since my claim was that there has been no warming since 1998, where should I have started measuring?

And yes, 1998 was unusually warm because of a strong El Nino. It would seem that you are admitting that 1998 is an outlier. So, why did Hansen and others point to 1998 as PROOF POSITIVE that global warming was accelerating out of control if that year was an outlier? Are they incompetent or dishonest? Neither is a desirable trait in a scientist. Especially one with Hansen's clout.

"That data goes into the GISTEMP surface record and is supplemented by sat data. What is the point of just showing station data, which makes up GISTEMP, alone?"

Let me ask YOU why we should include satellite data in a dataset which extends back beyond the existence of satellites?

"Sure. Here is the NCDC global temp record. It also shows 2005 as the hottest year on record and an obvious warming trend."

Over the long term. But if you observe the extreme right of the graph (or better yet, graph out the actual data points I provided), there is a FLATTENING of temperature in the last ten years with 2005 as a lone anomoly. You cannot simultaneously argue against me using short term averages and then hang your refutation on the existence of a few outlying data points.

I never said that the Earth has not warmed in the past, nor that it is not likely to warm more in the future. What I pointed out to you is that there are data which support MY claim that there has been no warming in the past ten years. In fact, it HAS warmed quite a bit over the last century or so. However, the data which shows warming DOES NOT MATCH THE PREDICTIONS OF HANSEN ET AL!!!!

"Who hypothesized that warming would be monotonic?"

Well, Hansen for one... Go back and look at the NASA predictions made in the 1980's and 1990's.

"I'll just have to say no one knows for sure!"

That's probably the most sensible thing you've written in this exchange. And I would concur whole heartedly that NO ONE KNOWS why there has been so much warming over the last century. One thing I can say for certain is that the AGW hypothesis is invalid, simply because the outcome(s) demanded by the hypothesis have not been realized. There has been very good and important work done in testing and researching the hypothesis, but all that work has shown us is that the hypothesis is wrong. There are likely to be aspects of AGW which need to be incorporated into a new hypothesis, but it is increasingly obvious that a new hypothesis is needed.

"Do yourself a favor- contact NASA and ask about the circumstances of his employment. Hint: he wasn't employed in the capacity you seem to think he was and his departure had nothing to do with his ridiculous claims about the greenhouse effect.

If his contention was even remotely close to accurate there would be no ice ages because the inverse would hold true as well."

Jon, why don't you do us a favor and enlighten us as to the details of Miskolczi's employment and departure from NASA.

And could you also explain your assertion that "the inverse would be true as well"?

Because Miskolczi's claim is that the current GCMs grossly overestimate the greenhouse capacity of the atmosphere. It seems painfully obvious that if the atmosphere has less greenhouse capacity, the effect would be to make ice ages more common, rather than impossible as you claim.

Jon,

Leon Brozyna typed, "This leaves solar variability as the prime mover of climate changes and in that area, we are powerless to stop or even change climate."

Perhaps it's just my simple thinking but that seems to imply that the earth's temperature is correlated more with the sun. (A hotter sun means global warming and a cooler sun means global cooling.)

One web site all those involved in this great debate must visit is Anthony Watts' surfacestation.org site, as well as his "Watts Up With That?" ongoing article/blog series. He's a climatologist, not paid by big oil, and is leading one of most ingenious, and significant projects there is to this whole thing. Simple...get to some basic undeniable facts, easy to understand and grasp, and in doing so it is an amazing counter the IPCC, Al Gore, Hansen, etc. Those people, our Congress, and our next president should be required to view the web site as well before buying into the Global Warming theory.

Some things cannot be argued about, by anyone, when photographic evidence is gathered and shown, largely by volunteers finding these gauges and documenting them. The photos, site reports, etc., show how laughingly poor the location is of a majority of the U.S. Government's historic temperature gauges.

It's these gauges which provide the often used "historical record" or GISS data. When you hear, "The hottest year on record" or "in the last 100 years" its usually this data record being referred to.

Just a few looks (literally) at individual, official, temperature stations, and you'll start to see the trend. The photos and site descriptions generally show, over the last 50 years, urbanization or even limited growth in rural areas, has moved right up to, past, above, and below the temperature gauges themselves, or they've been moved significantly two or more times, etc.

Combine that "urban heat" with the most interesting problem as it also affects rural temperature gauges: the use of "modern" temperature gauge type (electronic/automatic MMTS thermometers)from the 1980s onward that were moved right up to buildings for their power cable connection, thus right beside not only the buildings, but air conditioners, roads, parking lots, or on roofs, or by barbeque grills (no kidding), etc., all creating false temperature readings, i.e., heat not caused by CO2, but stupid(or planned by...?)temperature gauge placement by, of all people, our own government.

This was done while the official "directions" for where (or how) to put these official gauges, written long ago, plainly say not to do this or the temperature readings will be thrown off.

That heat so many of these gauges show is not caused by CO2, but ridiculous placement and poor upkeep of the gauges (or MMTS). Where they are not affected by growth, and remain "trustworthy", the historical GISS readings usually seem to show no warming in the last half century, maintaining relatively normal temperature variations, or even cooler readings. Those with increasing readings can usually be traced to a station move, often to the exact year in the 1980s, 1990s, 2000s it was moved to sit beside an artificial heat source.

Plus, I must say there is nothing better than looking at the site photos for your own state, where it's closer to home. These photos are surprising, especially when knowing these sites are what Hansen, et al, have placed faith in without truly knowing the actual situation with these weather stations.

In other words, these people at surfacestations.org are doing what the IPCC, Hansen, and evidently most all the other scientists didn't do--physically examine, photograph, and analyze the true data source (this GISS type at least)to look for bias. There it is, for all to see and judge.

I found the surfacestations.org site a few months ago, when I started wondering exactly how the historic temperature data had been acquired. I was flat-out shocked, and still am, that this work had not been done long ago.

I'm now equally surprised that it isn't on the front pages of this argument yet. But, it is certainly is going to be, as when it's something in your own state, the local media starts to get interested in a way that the national Global Warming disaster media does not want to. When all these historic temperature data sites are finally documented, it will be time to "put the cards on the table." I'm looking forward to that.

The problem with making any attempt at "proving" manmade global warming is just that - it cannot be proved. There is no hardcore scientific evidence for it. Like everything else in science - it is a theory. That was something a biology professor drilled into our brains in college. Everything in science is a theoretically a theory - even something as supposedly sound as the fact that all living things are made of cells. Still a theory, even if every textbook and news media assumes it is a complete truth.

In science, you have to be able to test your theory. Manmade global warming can't be tested. There are thousands of different variables that go into our climate, our weather and how our atmosphere works. There is no way to simplify it and test a little bit of it here and there and come up with solid proof of anything.

And to say that a computer model is the official "test" for some theory is dangerous and unscientific. Who is programming the computer models? Humans with their own agendas and ideologies. So the computer models cannot be considered "proof" of any theory.

There is no consensus that manmade global warming exists. And because there are scientists out there who challenge the global warming "theory" does not make them less a scientist or some evil person.

The fact that the earth cools and warms and has been doing so forever is nothing new. Earth and its inhabitants can and will have to adapt to these trends. Earth is not so fragile that it can't handle a little bit of warming and cooling over the centuries.

"When the air is unbreathable, the watrer is undrinkable and Florida is under water... you can tell your grandchilden it was good for the economy"

As someone with children and grandchildren, I am far more worried about the future of their freedom than I am about Florida underwater. I worry about a future where authoritarians arrest those who dissent from the party line, where tyranny rules over freedom of thought and speech, where collectivism quashes individuality, where science is politicized, where economies are crippled, where opportunities for advancement are eliminated, with overweaning central authority, food riots, mass poverty, gulags, and killing fields, than I am about a warmer climate.

Warmer is better. Life evolved on a warmer planet. We live in the coldest era of earthly history on a geologic time scale, not the warmest. The hysteria over a possible warming is misplaced. It is coldness, darkness, ignorance, and oppression that ought to be feared, not warmth.

"When the air is unbreathable, the watrer is undrinkable and Florida is under water... you can tell your grandchilden it was good for the economy"

As someone with children and grandchildren, I am far more worried about the future of their freedom than I am about Florida underwater. I worry about a future where authoritarians arrest those who dissent from the party line, where tyranny rules over freedom of thought and speech, where collectivism quashes individuality, where science is politicized, where economies are crippled, where opportunities for advancement are eliminated, with overweaning central authority, food riots, mass poverty, gulags, and killing fields, than I am about a warmer climate.

Warmer is better. Life evolved on a warmer planet. We live in the coldest era of earthly history on a geologic time scale, not the warmest. The hysteria over a possible warming is misplaced. It is coldness, darkness, ignorance, and oppression that ought to be feared, not warmth.

Jon,they are a bloody disgrace to the Repoublican party, but why bother asserting some 'sound like creationists' when so many are- here is The American Thinker's decerebrate review of Ben Stein's brain dead polemic-by Bruce Walker:

"Ben Stein's new film, Expelled, should be seen by anyone interested in the new Dark Age of totalitarianism which seems to be creeping through our institutions of communication, information and education. Perhaps only Stein could properly portray the Kafkaesque persecution of scientists, journalists and other professionals who challenge the increasingly untenable proposition that an almost incomprehensibly complex mechanism -- the living cell -- could have evolved through the oafish mechanism of natural selection."

I have been pleasantly suprised while reading this blog. Thank God there are people out there with enough common sense and intelligence to seek out the truth for themselves instead of relying on mainstream media to dictate their beliefs. Having worked for a state agency where I observed the skewing of data on a regular basis to fit what the "researcher" thought was right, I know that any data can be manipulated. Of course the particular researcher I am referring to believed that she was doing it for a good cause and she was not receiving money from anyone to do it. Just a case of a tree-hugger who really loves the planet, but who was misguided enough to think that the ends justify the means. To all of you who take the time to research these important issues, please keep it up and share your information with as many people as possible.

Anna Keppa says:

"Hansen won't release his algorithm: yes or no."

No: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/

"Hansen keeps fiddling with his results: yes or no."

There are adjustments as new data is accumulated and biases are identified. That's good science, not something to shy away from.

"Not releasing his algorithm is inconsistent with being a scientist open to peer review and criticism: yes or no."

No. You don't seem to understand what "peer review" means or you wouldn't have brought it up in this context.

"Are you in favor of relying on "secret science" as a justification for destroying human freedoms? Yes or no."

Non sequitur. Stick to the science.

"Is there any way possible humans might MEASURE the results of any steps they take to "hold back" global warming. Yes or no."

Yes.

"If yes, please describe."

In the most basic route, we can reduce the amount of GHGs we put into the atmosphere and increase carbon sinks. We would be able to measure a drawndown of atmospheric CO2 for example, and be able to identify the ratio of combusted to natural CO2.

"If no, you seem to be signing up to the idea that politicians, supported by a scientific priesthood, can limit freedom without anyone being able to challenge them.

You down with that?

Yes or no."

This is a perverse conflation of scientific evidence and bizarre political paranoia.

It's pretty obvious why some of you can't understand the basic science underpinning anthropogenic warming- because you imagine that its real world consequence conflicts with your ideology.

DaveT says:

"Hey Jon, I am a scientist, am I a idiot to?"

You're making an excellent case for it with that lead off. ;)

"I am a staunch Conservative Jon, and I am highly literate and I think MMGW is utter BS.
Explain that Jon."

My guess would be that you've never actually studied the physics behind it and that you, like previous person I addressed, are letting your ideology preempt any rational discussion of the science.

"This is all about funding and socialism."

I am SHOCKED, SHOCKED to see that I was correct. Funding and socialism have nothing to do with infrared absorption by greenhouse gases, blackbody radiation, and atmospheric moist thermodynamics.

"Maybe you can explain why 100% of the solutions are taxes, redistribution of wealth and the lowering of the world standard of living?"

I thought you claimed it was "socialism"? Hansen proposes a carbon tax, which is a straight up market solution- a pigovian tax to correct the failure of the market to account for the negative externalities of GHG emissions. Why do you hate capitalism?

"As to NASA, gee, lets see, create a crisis, get funding perpetuate a crisis, create fear, more funding.
Hmmm, do I see pattern of self preservation here?"

This is simply bizarre- you are seriously accusing an entire branch of NASA of collective fraud and scientific misconduct in order to generate research funding?! If that was the goal why would Hansen state for 20 years that the question of attribution was over? Doesn't that strike you as counter intuitive in the least? If it was truly about drumming up funding, Hansen et al. would have been a lot better off claiming that attribution was still unknown and more funding was needed in order to determine it- which is actually what those who reject the findings of NASA, NOAA/NCDC, Met-Hadley, NCAR, and on and on are saying. Weird, huh?

"Oh I forgot, government is above all this. Only private industry seeks a agenda..."

Again, this bizarre obsession with government and industry has nothing to do with the underlying science.

"Hey Jon, I am all for Hydrogen, clean energy, et al."

Whether you are "for" these things or not has no relevance as to the reality that anthropogenic perturbation of the carbon cycle has driven the warming and is changing the climate.

"However, I am also for realism and market based solutions that have some basis in realism and marketability."

A carbon tax or cap and trade are both market-based solutions. As for "basis in realism" see the Acid Rain cap and trade program- one of the most successful (by regulatory and economic standards) programs of all time.

"You are not replacing oil in the next 50 years, get over it. If you think otherwise your a fool."

Of course not. Neither I, nor Hansen are ignorant of our dependence on oil in the short term. What would lead you to believe otherwise? And again, what does this have to do with the underlying science?

Anna says:

"Oh and btw, Jon: what DOES cause Ice Ages, anyway? And what caused all that ice to disappear?"

Orbital forcing and associated feedbacks provided that continental configuration somewhat inhibits equatorial-to-polar ocean heat transport; same, but in reverse. Increasing austral-spring insolation, for example, along with sea ice and GHG feedbacks.

Chris C. says:

Ummm... He's the senior climate scientist at GISS, so he's going to have more control over the content of the website than just about anyone else. Sorry, didn't mean to imply that it was JamesHansen.com

It's more than that. You're attributing to a single man what is the work of many people who have dedicated their lives to science and service to the American people. Many of the people at GISS could leave for much higher paying jobs in the private sector, but choose to stay because of their dedication to NASA and the public. It's easy to sit back and attack James Hansen because he has grown outspoken about this issue and bizarre claims from NewsBusters allege that he is on the take from the Vast Soros Left Wing Conspiracy (despite repeated debunking of this).

It's a little bit harder for people such as yourself to admit that when you make these claims about GISTEMP/GISS, you are defaming the careers of many people that have no ideological motive and simply want to do the best science possible.

Since my claim was that there has been no warming since 1998, where should I have started measuring?

It's up to you of course, but I assume that you recognize that any 10 year period isn't indicative of a meaningful trend when talking about something with as much inertia as the climate system. Right?

And yes, 1998 was unusually warm because of a strong El Nino. It would seem that you are admitting that 1998 is an outlier.

Admitting? It's plain as day when you look at the years prior and the years just after. It received a significant El Nino boost.

So, why did Hansen and others point to 1998 as PROOF POSITIVE that global warming was accelerating out of control if that year was an outlier?

The point is that natural variability can mask or enhance the anthropogenic signal, and that we can expect abnormally warm years from natural variability (like those due to strong El Ninos) to be even warmer. 1998 isn't "proof positive" that global warming is "accelerating out of control", it is evidence that the steady climb in temperature due to anthropogenic warming can be exacerbated by nature. As in, there will always be El Ninos, but as anthropogenic warming increases, El Nino boosts will mean higher temperatures than normally expected.

Are they incompetent or dishonest? Neither is a desirable trait in a scientist. Especially one with Hansen's clout.

Obvious neither which is why the continue to win awards and receive honors for their work. Just because you don't understand doesn't mean anyone is dishonest or incompetent.

"Let me ask YOU why we should include satellite data in a dataset which extends back beyond the existence of satellites?"

Huh? There certainly were satellites going back to 1998, which was the data set you claimed to be interested in. If you're asking why sat data goes into GISTEMP at all if GISTEMP stretches back farther than the existence of sat data, I don't have the time or space to give you a historical and methodological overview of how the data is compiled. You can find it with some digging over at GISS.

Over the long term. But if you observe the extreme right of the graph (or better yet, graph out the actual data points I provided), there is a FLATTENING of temperature in the last ten years with 2005 as a lone anomoly.

The trend is still positive for both GISTEMP and NOAA/NCDC.

You cannot simultaneously argue against me using short term averages and then hang your refutation on the existence of a few outlying data points.

I'm not. You were the one that claimed no year was warmer than 1998, remember? My citation of 2005 is a refutation of that. That isn't the same claim as that the trends are positive for that time period for GISTEMP and NOAA/NCDC, but obviously 2005 is part of the reason why it is so.

I never said that the Earth has not warmed in the past, nor that it is not likely to warm more in the future.

Okay?

What I pointed out to you is that there are data which support MY claim that there has been no warming in the past ten years.

No, there isn't. If there is no warming for a few more that will certainly be the case, but as of now, the trend is still positive. And I again have to question why you think such short timescales have anything to do with the longterm trend given the inertia in the climate system.

In fact, it HAS warmed quite a bit over the last century or so. However, the data which shows warming DOES NOT MATCH THE PREDICTIONS OF HANSEN ET AL!!!!

You can get all CAPSLOCK OUTRAGED as much as you want, but you're wrong.

Well, Hansen for one... Go back and look at the NASA predictions made in the 1980's and 1990's.

Okay. Here is the projection from 1988 along with recorded temps. Please explain how reality ended up being significantly different from the proper scenario projection. Also, if you could point out the monotonic warming, that would be swell. Or hell, if you can even track down a single reputable climate scientist claiming that anthropogenic warming would be monotonic. I won't hold my breath.

And I would concur whole heartedly that NO ONE KNOWS why there has been so much warming over the last century.

In the sense that anyone can know anything, yes, we do.

One thing I can say for certain is that the AGW hypothesis is invalid, simply because the outcome(s) demanded by the hypothesis have not been realized.

I'm not really sure if there is any more point in discussing this with you. You believe that anthropogenic warming is supposed to be monotonic, which is false. You believe that Hansen's projections in the past were not sufficiently borne out by reality, which is false. You believe that you understand anthropogenic warming sufficiently well to state that as a hypothesis it is "invalid", which is flat out strange. In order to invalidate anthropogenic warming, you would have to do one of two things- overturn the isotopic analysis and other methods we have for attributing the unprecedented spike in GHGs to human perturbation of the carbon cycle, or fundamentally rewrite if not outright disprove the physics of the greenhouse effect. Please.

There has been very good and important work done in testing and researching the hypothesis, but all that work has shown us is that the hypothesis is wrong.

Wait, the very good and important work that was done by Hansen who you people claim is guilty of fraud? And what is your basis for stating over and over again that anthropogenic warming "is wrong"?

There are likely to be aspects of AGW which need to be incorporated into a new hypothesis, but it is increasingly obvious that a new hypothesis is needed.

Based on what? Your ignorance of the underlying science? Your incorrect beliefs about Hansen's past projections? Your apparent belief that a ten year period is sufficient to overturn the long term trend despite the time lags in the climate system?

Here's my question to you- when it is patently obvious that you really have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to the meat and potatoes of climate, why do you feel qualified to make sweeping pronouncements about work you've obviously never studied and concepts you clearly don't understand?

The arrogance is matched only by the inanity of it all.

Chris C. again:

Miskolczi's claim is that the current GCMs grossly overestimate the greenhouse capacity of the atmosphere.

His claim is that physics used in the GCMs, which are the same as in the textbooks for atmospheric physics, grossly overestimate the greenhouse capacity of the atmosphere. Which is why he is treated as a bit of a nutter. Have you even read his "study"?

It seems painfully obvious that if the atmosphere has less greenhouse capacity, the effect would be to make ice ages more common, rather than impossible as you claim.

Painfully obvious, eh? It was pretty clear from what you had written previously that you have no concept of how the climate actually works, but it's nice that you can confirm it.

(Hint: if the greenhouse effect was a self-limiting as he claims, what would happen to its role as a negative feedback to orbital and ice-albedo changes, and in turn ice ages?)

Lydia wrote:

Perhaps it's just my simple thinking but that seems to imply that the earth's temperature is correlated more with the sun. (A hotter sun means global warming and a cooler sun means global cooling.)

Obviously the sun dictates our climate to a great degree. However, that is not to say that other factors have no effect, or even that other factors cannot have a greater effect. The simple example is catastrophic cooling caused by particulates via massive volcanism, a large impact event, thermonuclear war, etc.

The most basic response to this without getting too deeply involved is that while the sun of course has its role, solar trends went neutral/negative as the current warming increased, and when at times there was correlation, the amount of solar variability was insufficient to explain the amount of warming[1][2][3][4][5], while anthropogenic GHG forcing did.

That is not to say that if the sun entered into a quiet phase now that this would have no effect on temperatures- obviously it would. But it in no way clashes with the reality of anthropogenic warming.

Jon,

You keep on talking of the science. Ok lets talk about the real science. The real science in this debate is the caus