Hansen/NASA created US warming?

Aside from a few simple truths such as CO2 is a greenhouse gas there are few arguments that warmmongers make that are not pure logical fallacies.

The one that PD is engaging in now is called reduction to absurdity, A is true because if A wad false B would have to be true and B is a ridiculous state. This ignores that A can be false without B being true due to some C. This is considered a form of strawman argument.

The notion that the consensus cant be wrong because it would taje a massive conspiracy is reduction to absurdity. It is also easily falsifiable because for that to be true then no scientific consensus has ever bern wrong.

Here is a hint. Stop having other people form your arguments for you.

 

Which people said that, in what publication, and what was their exact quote? (Hint: if you're relying on WUWT for your information, you're doomed to lose this argument. Better to stop now, Hoos.)

 

You won't get anything he has been convinced by others that the "concensus" has to be true becauae if it weren't a massive conspiracy would have to exist. He has bought this reasoning hook line and sinker evrn though it is a classic logical fallacy. A tautology if there ever was one.

 

Well I too 2 seconds and found the quote on the Australian.

 

Of course I do. It's right there in his paper. In the science. Posted online. For public display.

If, as you claim, you're a scientist, you should have no trouble finding it. If you're just another hack from Denierstan, let me know and I'll post a link.

 

His paper? So he is the one who confirmed his own adjustment. This seems like a shell game. Hansen makes an adjustment, when challenged he says he us using the best peer reviewed science but it is just his own paper. They make a general appeal to science but they are really just appealing to themselves.

 

So your position is that Hansen said it, therefore it must be wrong? Regardless of the merit of what he did and why he did it?

Do you know what he did, and why he did it? Or is this just another part of the conspiracy theory?

 

The consensus angle might be reasonable in elections, and popularity contests, but it has nothing to do with science, what science is, how it works. I still haven't figured out why people pretend it is relevant in any way whatsoever, and the answer is generally...because they have never participated in science itself.

Sure. But even more interesting than the observation of how a system behaves, is WHY these folks buy something, hook, line and sinker? Is it a result of the American education in general, or these folks education specifically? At what point did they either not learn, or UNlearn, how to think for themselves, look objectively at both sides of the question, and not really pretend to understand even their own point of view without completing that process?

 

Excellent. Can you provide a link please, or even a general location, which organization did the work on reviewing his work, under what category of independent review it fell, that sort of thing? The reason I asked the original question in the first place was because I couldn't find the explanation, I was hoping someone knew where it was.

Please, post a link. And I won't take your attempt at humor seriously because, lets face it, you could have just posted the link without saying anything, but apparently enjoy trying to label folks. I don't know why that is such a common thing on web forums, religious training perhaps?

 

Well...that would be bad. And obviously doesn't even approach the level of independent review I've experienced on normal issues, let alone altering historical records, and would expect of Hansen and NASA.

Certainly this doesn't count in the least. The American Statistical Association is just a starting place for this kind of objective review. Hell, I think I've either faced them or their representatives like 3 different times before. And been through mutliple year reviews on at least 2 other topics with the geologic organizations.

And at no point in time was it acceptable to say "because I wrote a paper on it" as defense of what I was trying to accomplish. And it should be noted, NONE of those episodes were asking to alter historical data, they were for official review of new methods and procedures, making sure that there weren't objections on the use of proper statistical techniques and whatnot.

 

So, is what Windigo stated true or false? Did Hansen review his own adjustments?

I supposed at this time I just call out Bull S.......................................t

 

Now that would be hysterical. I wish I could have done that, just wave a wand, claim all my work is perfectly good, and nothing to see here...move along. Would have made my life far easier, hell, I could have said anything I wanted to!!

Lookee here!! I have proven it in my paper!! See, Look There!! 2+2=5 Ain't I brilliant!!

You guys are pulling my leg, right? Hansen didn't actually provide the basis for his own changes of historical information did he?

 

Kind of blows that whole conspiracy angke he hangs his hat on out of the water doesn't it.

 

PeakP is right on with his reply!!!

BTW kind of takes all the integrity out of it don't you think?

 

If you want to take a look at some bad science look at Hansen 87 where he established that he could extend a station out to 1200km calling a .5 correlation(coin flip) significant. That is just how bad the "science" is in this field. (*)(*)(*)(*) that bad gets published if your name is Hansen, Schmidt, Trenberth etc.

After all its well established that they can get editors sacked with ease.

 

LOL, you mean doomed like Hansen's failed predictions?

 

My point is that he is citing himself.

You screwed the pooch on this one and you know it.

You have a one man conspiracy. Ha ha ha.

 

Dr. Roy's recent paper (2013), in which Dr. Roy cites himself (2010).

https://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/18383638/244992896/name/10.1007_s13143-014-0011-z.pdf

So according to your own criterion, Dr. Roy is an untrustworthy charlatan. Unless, of course, you're the one who screwed the pooch on this one.

- - - Updated - - -

In other words, you spoke a pile of crap which you cannot back up. It's just never honesty time in Denierstan, is it?

- - - Updated - - -

What Windy said, and what you said he said are two different things. Try to keep up, jc.

 

And this from a guy who not only claims to be a scientist, but claims to do his own private research before making up his mind on anything? Someone who made up his mind on Hansen's work without even reading Hansen's papers on the subject, and indeed without even knowing where such papers might be found?

Such is the state of "science" in Denierstan.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1999/1999_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

I didn't label you, Peak, you labeled yourself. I'm simply pointing out that the label you used is obviously false.

 

Do you not even know how a scientist cites his own work when explaining how something was done in the past?

For example, I say that 2+2=4. I write it in a paper, and a year later, I write another paper demonstrating that 4+4=8. During my writing in Paper #2, I cite the work done showing that 2+2=4 in the first paper, referencing myself. This is perfectly acceptable.

However, I have been asking for validation of work, review by objective third parties, independent checks and quality control on the work done.

In this case, the original author does not get to participate other than to explain things, if there is ambiguity, on the part of the reviewers.

Do you have a link or reference this type of independent review of these changes to fundamental data done by Hansen/NASA, or not? ASA seems to me to be a perfect organization to review statical gyrations, and can also offer professional opinions on the uncertainty in estimates, as well as quality of any extrapolations done from such things as well. Anything?

 

What are you calling "private" research? I have access to informational sources costing more than 7 figures, I use them professionally, at night, on the weekend, as I puzzle my way through problems. I do not use this information to publish anything "privately", when I publish, it is peer reviewed science journals (Natural Resources Research being one), published in relation to presentations at national conferences and whatnot (AAPG for example), or in the normal publishing within the organizations themselves (and I won't mention those names), oftentimes available on the organizations website.

You can't read very well can you? You claimed to have these reviews, and I asked nicely, and you can't provide them. Hansen isn't the problem, the inability of climate scientists to police their own might be though. And I what do you mean, made up my mind? I posted a graph and asked a question. You are trying very, VERY hard to avoid the particulars.

That says something, either about your knowledge on the topic (I've already admitted mine when asking the original question) or the LACK of independent review on these kinds of changes in historical data.

Hansen cannot provide validation for changing the data he himself decided to change. Anything available from the ASA?

Can't say this is worth anything either.

I once wrote this thing absolutely DESTROYING the idea this economist-dude had assembled. Figures, tables, charts, the math, the aggregation problem, on and on and on. He was the third person I provided the paper to, in order that he might counterattack and show me where I was wrong, how I had put together poor logic, whatever. It is called science. The equivalent for Hansen would have been to hand those papers to Spencer or someone, and gone through it with them. Want to bet he didn't do that?

And then AFTER you give your best opponent his crack at it, THEN you take it to the professional board and lay not only YOUR idea out to them, but as honestly as you can the critique of your opponent. The board itself, consisting in the case I am thinking of, of some 6 professionals, then proceed to do their own beating up on the ideas. You either fix the issues, solve the problems, or the idea fails on its merits. And your paper doesn't even leave the BUILDING, let alone make it out to some rubber stamp journal or another. The top notch experts were on the professional assembly, there is no guarantee that the editors of some science rag are near as qualified. The ones I participated in were then written up by the board and posted by the professional society on their web page, to act as independent confirmation of the quality of the process, procedure, model, whatever.

It is called science.

I can get nearly anything I want published, some of the rags with the best titles are more than happy to have to make a contribution and they guarantee they will get your paper out. And you certainly can't tell from the peanut galleries view.

I realize that your experience in this regard is nil, but Hansen really is a scientist. Perhaps the science was already "settled" by 1999, and he didn't feel the need to actually DO some, right then? Just kick the thing out the door and let true believers do the rest of the advertising?

 

And the USA landmass represents how much of the planet's surface??

Conspiracy theory -

 

in what way? Or put another way, are you actually trying to be ignorant of the underlying issues? I am not trying to prove, disprove, or even verify whether or not the US was warming, or not, over the time period.

I assumed in the OP that Hansen may even have had a perfectly logical reason for changing the historical data. HIM saying he had a perfectly logical reason isn't acceptable. I can claim 2+2=5 just as fast as the next guy, and if you are dumb enough to BUY it, that isn't my fault you are gullible.

I would have been fired for altering historical information, without the kind of review I have previously described. Does such a quality control measure even EXIST in the climate change world? Did such a quality control measure exist when Hansen/NASA decided to change historical data, and to date the only proof provided is because they DECIDED to, and then they DID, and that is IT?

 

What you failed to do was actually show how Hansen purportedly did just that

Conspiracy theory

 

I don't have to know WHY Hansen decided to start changing all the historical information, I want to know WHO validated that this was just jim dandy fine. If the ASA examined his methods and wrote it up as a "grade A job, Hansen corrected all these past wrongs and we applaud him for it" then I shut up and move on. That isn't conspiracy, that is me wondering how in the hell HE as a scientist gets to change history, and I as a scientist risked being fired for doing it, if in fact I just wrote a paper saying "gee I "fixed" some stuff and look!! All the old numbers are bigger/smaller now!"