Tim Lambert (deltoidblog AT gmail.com) is a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales.
James Hansen replies to the deceitful IBD editorial:
The latest swift-boating (unless there is a new one among seven unanswered calls on my cell) is the whacko claim that I received $720,000.00 from George Soros. Here is the real deal, with the order of things as well as I can remember without wasting even more time digging into papers and records.
Sometime after giving a potentially provocative interview to Sixty Minutes, but before it aired, I tried to get legal advice on my rights of free speech. I made two or three attempts to contact people at Freedom Forum, who I had given permission to use a quote (something like "in my thirty-some years in the government, I have never seen anything like the present restrictions on the flow of information from scientists to the public") on their calendar. I wanted to know where I could get, preferably inexpensive, legal advice. Never got a reply.
But then I received a call from the President of the Government Accountability Project (GAP) telling me that I had won the Ridenaur Award (including a moderate amount of cash -- $10,000 I believe; the award is named for the guy who exposed the Viet Nam My Lai massacre), and offering pro bono legal advice. I agreed to accept the latter (temporarily), signing something to let them represent me (which had an escape clause that I later exercised).
I started to get the feeling that there may be expectations (strings) coming with the award, and I was concerned that it may create the appearance that I had spoken out about government censorship for the sake of the $. So I called the President of GAP, asking how the nomination process worked and who made the selection. He mentioned that he either nominated or selected me. So I declined the award, but I continued to accept pro bono legal advice for a while.
The principal thing that they provided was the attached letter to NASA. This letter shows me why scientists drive 1995 Hondas and lawyers drive Mercedes. I have a feeling that the reader of that letter had at least one extra gulp of coffee that morning.
Meanwhile Steinn Sigurðsson investigated the IBD claims himself:
So: Hansen got pro-bono legal advice, and possibly some media advice (though I doubt he needs that, he'll have his own AddressBook of contacts) from GAP, which got some of its funding (about 15%) from OSI, including $100k specifically to assist Science and Engineering whistleblowers. The Soros Foundation, of which OSI is part, spend $400 million in 2006.
One can find all this online in 30 seconds through Google.
Yet IBD considers this a "threat to democracy" because these organizations seek to affect public opinion and "lack transparency".
Do IBD op-ed columns attempt to affect public opinion? The column was not signed, btw.
I thought Investor's Business Daily approved of rich people being allowed to spend their money however they liked?
I should note that an additional seven seconds with Google showed that the Government Accountability Project didn't just reveal their relationship to Hansen, they sent out Press Releases SHOUTING this fact to the world
Contrast this with NewsBusters (part of Media Research Center), who have helped lead the swift boating of Hansen. They sure seem to keep very quiet about the hundreds of thousands of dollars MRC has received from Exxon, don't they?
Update: Robert McClure talked to GAP and OSI:
GAP's president Louis Clark and Rick Piltz, director of GAP's climate science watch program, say they helped Hansen in about February to April of 2006. Their 15-page grant proposal to the Open Society Institute in late July of that year had 15 lines that referred to Hansen, with seven lines recounting what they'd already done for him and two more that said they "remain available to defend Dr. Jim Hansen's job and to offer legal advice upon request." Said Clark:
This is happening because it's much easier to attack the messenger than it is to actually deal with and come to terms with what his message is. Some people have a vested interest in not dealing with the concerns he has raised.
Clark had a minor correction to Hansen's account: Hansen called them about representation after having been told he was nominated for the Ridenaur Award, rather than GAP calling Hansen to offer counsel.
Amy Weil, a spokeswoman for the Open Society Institute, e-mailed to say her institute is non-partisan and has never given any money to Hansen, adding:
However, OSI does support whistleblower protection agencies and we applaud Dr. Hansen for exposing NASA's attempts to silence his call for prompt reductions in the emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.
Environment
Politics
Comments
Care to define "swiftboating"? In my opinion, what happened to Kerry was legitimate, and tough bananas for his jerky past.
Posted by: ben | September 28, 2007 10:18 AM
Yeah, Kerry was such a jerk:
Posted by: Tim Lambert | September 28, 2007 10:31 AM
Care to define "swiftboating"
Given the rest of your post, I assume that would be a complete waste of time.
Posted by: Calton Bolick | September 28, 2007 10:38 AM
Nice, I see in that piece that not a single shred from his detractors appears.
Besides that, I'm referring to Kerry's B.S. throwing of "his" medals onto the White House lawn, and his lies about Cambodia and the other crap about the raping, pillaging and cutting off of ears etc. What a joke.
Posted by: ben | September 28, 2007 11:03 AM
Tim, you still have not fully understood how it works!
telling LIES about Kerry s military career: GOOD
telling the TRUTH about the petraeus report: BAD
http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2007/09/fuzzy-numbers-a.html
and in the same way:
Exxon funding "sceptic" global warming messages: GOOD.
Soros, giving money (and much less money than claimed) to a whistleblower organisation, who write a single letter for Hansen (to defend him from a political appointee, who faked his resumee..), while Hansen declines to take money directly from them: BAD.
wow, the term WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING is getting a whole new meaning. was this a concerted action by D. Cheney and Jc?
ps: anyone got some time at hand, to check the right wing blogs that Tim had linked to for some corrections and updates? surely they will NOT let all those FALSE claims stand as they were posted?!?
pps: note to self: if ever forming a political party, make the dimwits your electoral base!
Posted by: sod | September 28, 2007 11:07 AM
Not to mention that I've lost a lot of respect for Snopes since they came out with this characterization of Reagan's "If you've seen one Redwood, you've seen them all" as a paraphrase. Lame.
Posted by: ben | September 28, 2007 11:13 AM
Ben said" what happened to Kerry was legitimate, and tough bananas for his jerky past."
How do you know, Ben?
Were you THERE or did you talk to the people who were?
Do you know more about what happened than the Navy officers who investigated and awarded Kerry the Silver Star?
Have you ever been in combat?
Know what it's like to be fired upon?
If so, ever received any commendations for valor?
Posted by: JB | September 28, 2007 11:17 AM
Tim
I think you have to research that "blast" of courage(pun intended) from the US senate's resident gigolo showed getting outta the boat ( Ok I'm jealous he marries rich gals). From what I recall reading he received a severe reprimand for not following proper procedures in the event of enemy engagement. He actually endangered the lives of his crew by making them sitting ducks to enemy fire..... ie they were stationary in a river surrounded by thick jungle. It's alleged he actually demanded the medal and received it under sufferance.
I thought Exxon has stopped political donations recently thereby allowing Uncle George to take up the slack.
Let's get back to Jimbo
Oh the irony
"Sometime after giving a potentially provocative interview to Sixty Minutes, but before it aired, I tried to get legal advice on my rights of free speech."
So let me get this straight. Jimbo thinks he's getting muzzled but gives audience to 60 mins. He then gets a check for 10G, realizes that it may not look good if he heads off to JPMorgan Chase to deposit it but gets legal and PR advice instead. pro bone of course:-)
Jimbo gave numerous interviews about his so called muzzling, which obviously infers that the administration kneecappers are really like the Marx brothers in drag.
This is hilaroius.
Isn't Jim really just a political operative these days? Really!
Posted by: Jc | September 28, 2007 11:35 AM
Look, the fundamental problem with Kerry/Vietnam was that he wanted it both ways. He wanted us on the right to look at his status as a decorated veteran, but then he also wanted us to ignore his anti-veteran behavior after the fact. Sorry buddy, but it doesn't work that way.
Posted by: ben | September 28, 2007 11:36 AM
Well, ben, I now know all I need to know about your sense of ethics, honor and fair play.
You don't like what Kerry did after he left the service, therefore it's OK to tell people he obtained his silver star fraudulently?
Wow.
Posted by: dhogaza | September 28, 2007 11:37 AM
Ben, it was a paraphrase, and a reasonably accurate one. Did you read the link you provided?
(Apologies for participating in the thread hijacking.)
Posted by: Brian Schmidt | September 28, 2007 11:38 AM
Yes, the administration attempted to silence Hansen, but ultimately failed. I'm sorry you think scientists should shut up and be silenced by political hacks just because your side has no science to speak of. (That is what this is all about, right? If you had scientific reasons to go against Hansen, you'd do that instead of making up stupid conspiracy theories.)
And it's "implies."
Posted by: Boris | September 28, 2007 11:52 AM
He wasn't silenced, Boris. It was a stunt. A nifty politcal stunt by a well armed operative.
He can do what he likes But I'm also perfectly within my rights to judge the horse flesh and figure out the guy is trying to sell me a mule.
And it's not my side by the way. I voted for Clinton and Harry Bronwe as well as Bush in 2000 staying out in 04.
Don't automatically think people support the GOP if they're agaisnt the Dems.
Posted by: Jc | September 28, 2007 11:59 AM
Let me figure out this conspiracy theory. Hansen thinks "Man, I could sure use some of Soros' $$$. I know, I'll pretend that the Bushies are trying to silence me!" So he pretends, then, just as he planned, Soros comes to the rescue (through the GAP) and provides him with legal advice against Hansen's pretend threat. So Hansen is richer by legal advice that he doesn't need because he made up the threat in the first place.
Got it.
Posted by: Boris | September 28, 2007 12:04 PM
If you believe the right wing, the only war crimes that occurred in Vietnam were committed by Kerry.
With regards to Hansen, the apparent outrage is over money Hansen didn't have to spend to defend his true statements. The money he didn't have to spend was somewhere between $0 and $720,000.
I also have to wonder who "packaged" the 22 year old college dropout with a faulty resume and no understanding of science for his transition from political hucksterer to NASA media relations appointee and political hucksterer.
Posted by: cce | September 28, 2007 12:13 PM
Na Boris: I think you ended up in the wrong Cul de sac despite using sat nav telling you directions where to go.
Jimbo didn't want to abide by the guidelines governing any large bureaucratic institution like NASA that has rules as to who can talk to the press and about what. Every large instituion has those rules and guidlines by the way.
Jimbo has a big ego and wants to save the world before we go to hell in a basket by april 13 2067(as his model is predicting :-)).
The press of course loves Jimbo and Jimbo loves the press loves the press back by the bucket load.
So Jimbo figures a way of getting around this Guidelines nonsense by publicising how he lives in a "climate of fear" while he's publicising "climate fear".
So he begins to give interviews etc. Uncle George's crew are nothing if not opportunitist as they are taught by the master and offer jimbo all sorts of "assistance".
So no, Jimbo wasn't in it for the 10g. He's in it to move his politcal position.
Posted by: Jc | September 28, 2007 12:27 PM
How come nobody can answer that date problem with Kerry's Honorable Discharge? It was dated 1978, years after he had actually been discharged, but shortly after Carter authorized NEW discharges for protestors who had left the military with less-than-honorable discharges. Kerry knows the truth about the type of discharge he originally received, but he's not telling. It's like he also knew the truth about his college grades, which were worse than W's (so were Gore's), but he kept those records secret in the campaign so his backers could lie about them. What a dork.
Posted by: JimO | September 28, 2007 12:39 PM
If anyone still doesn't know the meaning of "swiftboating", this comment thread provides some excellent examples.
Posted by: Mark P | September 28, 2007 12:41 PM
Then why are you making so much of pro bono legal advice in the other thread? It's only of value if the threat s real.
Posted by: Boris | September 28, 2007 1:08 PM
Indeed.
Posted by: jre | September 28, 2007 1:22 PM
"It's alleged he actually demanded the medal and received it under sufferance."
Funnily enough these allegations didn't surface until a good twenty years later after Kerry had become an outspoken critic of the war and a Democratic politician.
Equally funnily, the people now making those claims (who don't the men who actually served on the same boat as Kerry and whose lives he supposedly endangered) uniformly praised him in formal written reprots at the time.
But hey we can't all heroicly defend the skies of Texas from the Mexican air force.
Posted by: Ian Gould | September 28, 2007 1:42 PM
JC - bullpucky.
Hansen did not say that approval per se was bad.
He was saying that the approval process was being used to muzzle scientists and in its place push bad science claims from the administration, to a degree that he had never experienced before.
He had a child - and I use that word carefully - making decisions about what he could say about science (not politics) and about what the public was going to learn about the science that government scientists were doing, and that child was muzzling science and altering findings, and Hansen stood up and said, 'this is wrong.' He refused to let the administration hide or misrepresent his and other scientists' work - and that was the right thing for him to do. It was the right thing whether or not you or I agree with his position.
Posted by: Lee | September 28, 2007 1:51 PM
So let me get this straight. Jimbo thinks he's getting muzzled but gives audience to 60 mins. He then gets a check for 10G, realizes that it may not look good if he heads off to JPMorgan Chase to deposit it but gets legal and PR advice instead. pro bone of course:-) .... This is hilaroius.
so you find it hilarious, that he got legal counsel?
is this "hilarious" on the same scale, that the "Hansen got 700000 from Soros" claim?
Jimbo didn't want to abide by the guidelines governing any large bureaucratic institution like NASA that has rules as to who can talk to the press and about what. Every large instituion has those rules and guidlines by the way.
are you talking about those typical limits, that people doing BASIC RESEARCH have while talking about their work?
do you support the whistleblower organisation or the political appointee, trying to muzzle him?
Posted by: sod | September 28, 2007 2:05 PM
"Ben, it was a paraphrase, and a reasonably accurate one. Did you read the link you provided?"
A pretty biased paraphrase. What Reagan said was so short it did not need paraphrasing, unless they were trying to make him look bad.
Do you guys all believe that the documents Dan Rather presented to derail Bush were not obvious fakes?
Posted by: ben | September 28, 2007 2:26 PM
Please think of trolls like ben as being ammo bait.
If you stop and pick it up, the sniper trolls assassinate the comment thread.
In the name of all that's good and sane, there really are "people" who don't merit a response.
Posted by: Marion Delgado | September 28, 2007 2:34 PM
I just wanted to point out that Jim Hansen's name is not "Jimbo", and that "Swiftboating" is the general term for highly organized character assassination. Also, there is nothing "Hilarious" about seeking legal advice, unless of course you find constitutional rights humorous.
Even if Jim Hansen is a terrible person, he is still a great scientist. Since his detractors have a difficult time mounting serious critiques of his group's work, they resort to petty personal insults. Post some serious critique, or go home.
Posted by: Lance Pickens | September 28, 2007 2:35 PM
So let me get this straight.
Soros funds a foundation.
That foundation gives $720,000 total to watchdog organizations, including $100,000 to GAP.
GAP offers $10,000 to Hansen, which he declines.
GAP also offer legal representation to Hansen, which he accepts to the tune of one letter.
One frickin' legal letter.
And somehow, people are jumping in condemning Hansen, rather than the guys who claim this shows that Soros bought Hansen for $720,000.
Don't these guys care about their honor and intergrity?
Posted by: Lee | September 28, 2007 2:36 PM
Ben tactics compendium thus far:
IOW: can we stop the thread hijacking?
Thank you everyone, in advance, for your help.
Best,
D
Posted by: Dano | September 28, 2007 2:36 PM
Just trying to make the comments more interesting. Yeah, it's a hijack, but the Hansen thing is pretty much dead, as proven by Tim. That's why I come here. Is there really anything else that can be said about it? Not really.
The Kerry thing is not a hijack thing, since the term "swift boating" was used. Then I said that I wasn't that keen on Snopes anymore (Snopes used by Tim to defend Kerry) because of that lame bit on Reagan. Some of you folks thought that was OK, so now I'm trying to see if those same folks believe that the Dan Rather documents were not really fake. That will tell me something. Seems reasonable, no?
Posted by: ben | September 28, 2007 2:49 PM
Just as an FYI, Gore graduated cum laude in government - the equivalent of an A- average. Mostly due to an exceptional senior year and lots of projects whereby he replaced his earlier bad grades.
W, on the other hand, graduated with between a C and a C+
Also, Gore's SATs were substantially higher than W's. Now that all the old lies are being resurrected.
What Gore and W did post undergrad is not comparable. Gore worked, enlisted, did combat journalism, came back, took part time courses in law and theology, worked as a journalist, dropped out to run for congress, won a seat. His grades at Vanderbilt - essentially auditing - were all incompletes.
W went to grad school and got an MA. but only their undergrad years are comparable. W's first years were better - belying their reputations, Gore was more of a partier than W, some of his fellow students say he smoked pot almost every day his freshmen and sophomore years.
Gore cleaned up his act at 20. W at 40. That's the main difference between them.
Posted by: Marion Delgado | September 28, 2007 2:51 PM
Dano:
I think the hard truth is, we can only set a good example, and post germane things, and basically pretend the trolls' plus their repliers' posts aren't even there.
Beyond that, if you check out Pharyngula, PZ Meyers has decent links to Firefox plug-ins that implement killfiles. He has one that kills people on his blog, but there are others that individual users use. I can't imagine I'd miss anything if everything JC posted from now on was display:none.
I believe the technological solution should involve Greasemonkey scripts. If done carefully, they would work on safari for os x too, via Creammonkey.
Dunno how we script/implement things on IE7 though. Perhaps VB or for freeware, the old applescript-like "Frontier 5.0" which was cross platform Classic Macintosh and Windows 98 and up.
Posted by: Marion Delgado | September 28, 2007 2:58 PM
FF killfile plug-ins?!? I need to visit PDQ.
And thanks, Ben, for admitting you hijacked the thread.
Best,
D
Posted by: Dano | September 28, 2007 3:03 PM
ben, you are really making yourself look bad here. Do you think that because you don't like what Kerry did after his service in Vietnam, it is OK to lie about Kerry's service record? Please answer, because it looks to me like your moral compass is broken.
Posted by: Tim Lambert | September 28, 2007 3:07 PM
Tim, IIRC, Ben is a libertarian leaning towards Randroid, i.e. no moral compass was installed on delivery.
Posted by: mndean | September 28, 2007 3:33 PM
"ben, you are really making yourself look bad here. Do you think that because you don't like what Kerry did after his service in Vietnam, it is OK to lie about Kerry's service record?"
No, I do not think that it is OK to lie about anyone. Not ever.
Posted by: ben | September 28, 2007 3:50 PM
Actually, the "not ever" thing is too rigid, as there are obvious exceptions to the "never lie" thing, in extreme situations that rarely occur. In American/Western political/scientific discourse this essentially never happens. E.g. someone is going to shoot me in the face if I don't lie about another person, etc.
Posted by: ben | September 28, 2007 3:53 PM
SAUDAÇÕES LITERÀRIAS DE PORTUGAL. HAVE A NICE WEEK-END
Posted by: lapa | September 28, 2007 3:54 PM
Ben sez ...
But earlier, he said ...
Why did you say that the swiftboating of Kerry was legitimate, then? Don't tell me you bought into that boatload of lies, please. You can't be that gullible, can you?
And, yes, it appears that the Rather documents are not genuine. What does one have to do with the other?
Posted by: dhogaza | September 28, 2007 4:08 PM
A simple question ben: Haven't your lies hurt the country enough?
Posted by: elspi | September 28, 2007 4:12 PM
As for looking bad, the only thing that is known with certainty is that someone is lying about Kerry.
Something that also looks certain, is that Kerry is one of them.
"I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared -- seared -- in me."
He's talking about Nixon, but Nixon wasn't president yet. Some memory. That, and it certainly wasn't the Khmer Rouge acting with the Vietnamese, they hated each other.
Posted by: ben | September 28, 2007 4:13 PM
Read closely. He didn't say they were working together.
As far as which President he's talking about, your quote snippet (I'm tempted to say "quote mine") doesn't say. Nixon had been elected by Christmas, 1968 and was in office four weeks later, so as far as memory lapses go, it ain't a big one even if you're right.
But what's your point? What if Kerry misspoke, or even lied outright?
Why the deflection from the Swiftboat lies?
For someone who declares "it is never right to lie about someone", you seem awfully interested in deflecting criticism of the swiftboat lies to criticism of unrelated behavior by Kerry instead.
Despite your previous comment about lying, your post is much more in the spirit of this:
Posted by: dhogaza | September 28, 2007 4:54 PM
Ben, The issue is you and your ever-shifting rationalizations, not anyone else. Why posters here continues to engage you is beyond me - there is certainly no substance to your second-hand slime, just the typical vileness and hatred of your stripe. Into the grease(monkey) pit you go, and no more amnesties.
Posted by: mndean | September 28, 2007 5:11 PM
Oh Mndean, there's plenty of vileness and hatred going around, even on this board, in all directions. I see no objections here when it's directed at GWB. That's the nature of politics and political discussion, like it or not.
And nobody has convinced me yet that the swift boat veterens were lying about Kerry. The only thing that is conclusive is that there is disagreement about what happened. Short of Kerry releasing his records, we'll never really know. I'm sure you all would defend Bush if this sort of thing happened to him. Oh wait, none of you did.
Posted by: ben | September 28, 2007 5:25 PM
I would, but it didn't. Rather, after all, got his ass kicked out of CBS (and is now suing for a large sum).
He was denounced, not defended, by his employer.
The fact that the swiftboaters are lying is quite easy to verify. You're saying, in essence, that you don't care, because ...
Posted by: dhogaza | September 28, 2007 5:43 PM
IBD may have wildly exagerated the Soros-Hansen link.
No such questions exist about the Heinz-Kerry-Hansen pay out of $250,000.
Here's a snip from the publicity page of the Heinz Foundation website
"James Hansen 7th Annual Heinz Award Recipient Read/View Acceptance
Dr. James Hansen receives the Heinz Award in the Environment for his exemplary leadership in the critical and often-contentious debate over the threat of global climate change."
Lindzen accepts 10 g's from Exxon and he's an "oil industry stooge" but Hansen pockets a cool 250 large for an "environmental award" from Heinz-Kerry and he's your hero.
The word hypocrisy doesn't really do this kind of duplicitous thinking justice.
Posted by: Lance | September 28, 2007 6:05 PM
Lance, bet it was a whole lot easier to find out about Hansen's Heinz award that it was to find out about Lindzen's Exxon money. Thats the difference. Lindzen is ashamed to say where he got his funding. So are people like Tim Ball, Tom Harris and Pat Michaels. Why do you think that is?
PS. Has anyone noticed how Newsbusters Noel Sheppard overuses the term "disgraceful"? It occurs in at least 50% of his posts.
Posted by: bigcitylib | September 28, 2007 6:14 PM
Err Lance, Senator John Heinz was a Republican. Are you trying to tell us that Hansen is working for the Republicans because he got a Heinz award?
Posted by: Tim Lambert | September 28, 2007 7:27 PM
Plus, Hansen was working, then he got an award. He wasn't working to get the Heinz award.
Really, CNS/NewsMax believers are so lame.
Best,
D
Posted by: Dano | September 28, 2007 7:30 PM
ben, it sure is telling the way you keep trying to change the subject to Bush, or Reagan, or things that Kerry did after his service ended. I quoted a good summary of what happened with the Silver Star. What, precisely, is wrong with it? You are acting just like the people who insist that the Rather forgeries are genuine.
Posted by: Tim Lambert | September 28, 2007 7:33 PM
I work at NASA and have been involved with press releases ... what occurred with Hansen is normal and has been for years -- and is NOT the "censorship" it is portrayed to be.
You are always supposed to inform the news office prior to interviews, then inform them when it has been completed. That's their JOB. They are responsible for dealing with the press.
Having a staffer present for onsite interviews is utterly normal for everyone. Doesn't happen all the time, usually according to the press office work-load more than anything else.
Hansen had given over 1400 interviews, including 15 the month he claimed he was being "censored", but was ignoring his employers policy and got called on it.
If it had been me, I would have been expected to get fired or at least called to the woodshed. But it would never be me, since I recognize rules apply to me. They are not burdensome.
But Hansen seems to think rules don't apply to him.
Then to take legal and media advice from a political group is astounding. This is so outside the pale of normalcy at NASA and science in general, it cannot be minimized.
I've had arguments with press people over the phrasing of press releases. It usually revolves around them not understanding the science, or trying to fulfill their mission to write them at the 6th grade level, etc.
But Hansen seems to want people to think he's being censored.
And, by the way, his science is NOT good. The code he uses to process temperature data is now being audited after being found by amateurs to contain substantial errors. So far, it has been reported to contain hundreds of arbitrary "adjustments" which tend to reinforce warming trends.
And look at the sites reporting the raw data to begin with (what a joke -- major fraud):
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/
Study the photos of the weather sites reporting those temperatures going into Hansen's dubious sw ...
Posted by: ddtruy33 | September 28, 2007 7:33 PM
Dano:
The other thing is, if we "collect" these points and periodically (preferably link to a refutation of or) refute them, that's not the same as engaging the trolls. Or so I tell my conscience.
Posted by: Marion Delgado | September 28, 2007 7:45 PM
Study the photos of the weather sites reporting those temperatures going into Hansen's dubious sw
Ooooh! Ooooh! Two new indicators serendipitously discovered in one comment!
Eureeeeeka!!
Twofer.
Best,
D
Posted by: Dano | September 28, 2007 7:46 PM
Tim, Dano, et al.:
http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/4107http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/4107
That's the killfile script, and it is greasemonkey, so perhaps it can be adapted to safari creammonkey some day.
Pay attention to the warning about someone hacking the script site. Basically, you need to go over the scripts before installing. It's believed all the bad scripts are gone and no more hacking has occurred, but better safe than sorry.
Posted by: Marion Delgado | September 28, 2007 7:49 PM
Marion:
Got it. I understand. I'm currently experiencing impatience with the tiresome whack-a-mole.
Society has moved away from the 2% of fraidy-cat white males who have chosen their identity as enviro-haters. We can either stroke their no-further-developed-than-adolescent-boy egos or practice ignorage.
Surely on occasion we can amuse ourselves at their expense, but our energy can be directed toward whack-a-moling the losers who wish to drag society down. Best to discuss solutions and whack-a-mole the fraidy cats on that ground than whack-a-mole the fraidy cats on old, tired ground.
Best,
D
Posted by: Dano | September 28, 2007 7:51 PM
ddtruy33:
A. We have only your word you work at NASA. And no idea in what capacity - janitor would be my placement for you.
B. George Deutsch not only worked at NASA, but got to order others around - people like James Hansen. So a good question here is, are you another lying, phony hack, feloniously stealing the taxpayers money under false pretenses, as he did?
C. The GAP is not a political group. It's in no way partisan. No whistleblower would be excluded for being a Republican, a conservative, anything you wish to name. Indeed, by saying what you are, you are implying that to be a Republican is to be a Nazi, and to be in any other party is to take initiative and have your own moral compass. Is that the goal?
D. The Ridenhour Award is hardly partisan, either. Ridenhour, an infantryman. helicopter gunner, and later journalist (and the only person at the Princeton version of the Milgram experiment who refused to administer "learning" shocks) was not a partisan hack. We don't even have a record of his voting patterns then. The president at the time he exposed the Song My (My Lai 4) massacre was Democrat Lyndon Johnson.
E. Therefore, I hereby raise you to useless lying troll status.
Posted by: Marion Delgado | September 28, 2007 8:00 PM
I tell you, it's like spraying for roaches in a restaurant - a never-ending and distasteful battle. And once you fall behind, you're overrun with vermin.
Posted by: mndean | September 28, 2007 8:11 PM
In the end, they don't matter. Reality ultimately wins. It's sufficient to state it; let them scurry.
Posted by: ddtruy33 | September 28, 2007 8:51 PM
If you want to win a $250,000 award, you must first:
1) Rise to the top of your field 2) Make forceful statements asserting your position when it isn't popular to do so. 3) Draw the attention and support of a US Senator. 4) Have history prove your projections to be astonishingly correct, while that of your detractors crash and burn. 5) 13 short years after you first impressed the late US senator, you are presented with an award in his Honor.
Eplogue: 3 years later reluctantly endorse John Kerry. Who else was he going to endorse? Bush?
Posted by: cce | September 28, 2007 9:18 PM
Since you work for NASA, it's safe to presume you'll be going up in orbit soon to photograph those pesky satellites whose temp data correlates so nicely with that awful ground station data, right?
Have a nice journey - and, hey, forget your spacesuit!
Posted by: dhogaza | September 28, 2007 9:53 PM
This is all you need to know about Hansen. He long ago crossed over from scientist to politician. The problem is he is still masquerading as a scientist.
In March of 2004, James Hanses wrote in Scientific American, ...Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue and energy sources such as synfuels, shale oil and and tar sands were receiving strong consideration. Now, however, the need is for demonstrating objective climate forcing scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions.
Note that he says that only now he is trying to be objective. That means he was not being objective until now. He was intentionally trying to manipulate the public. That should have been the end of him right there and then. A scientist should NEVER MANIPULATE ANYTHING. HE MUST ALWAYS BE OBJECTIVE.
When can you believe someone who admits he was lying to you in the past when he only admits it after the fact?
Posted by: Tom | September 28, 2007 9:55 PM
On the other side, comparing the supposed lack of transparency of Hansen recieving insignificant legal and PR assistance, we have this relevation:
Posted by: luminous beauty | September 28, 2007 9:59 PM
Ah, yes, the CA line. And you claim to work at NASA, eh?
The self-appointed auditors have a definition for "substantial" -- it means "not significant but we want you to think it's really big." Like teenage boys, really.
Posted by: Hank Roberts | September 28, 2007 10:29 PM
Prediction? Hansen hasn't even described past measurements correctly.
A few weeks ago, he had to revise the claim that 9 of the top 10 warmest years occurred in the last 12 years. This had been a key plank used to promote policy change.
Turns out the data had been mishandled. Once an amateur pointed it out (after 100s of hours of legwork, paper-reading, and number-crunching), the results had to be revised now showing 4 of the 10 hottest years were back in the 1930s, 5 of them before World War II.
Why endorse Kerry? That is very odd for a scientist to do. The more public he is, the more compelling the reason not too be compromised. $250,000 appears to be the trade-in value for a Ph.D. 'cause he sure isn't working in that realm anymore.
Posted by: ddtruy33 | September 28, 2007 10:33 PM
"The only thing that is conclusive is that there is disagreement about what happened."
So why do you choose to believe the version that ties in to your political prejudices.
Tell me in what other context would you accept informal statements made decades after an event as more reliable than the formal written accounts made at the time?
Posted by: Ian Gould | September 28, 2007 10:52 PM
You work at NASA and you confuse global temps with US temps? It seems you are more qualified to be a right wing blogger.
Posted by: Boris | September 28, 2007 11:05 PM
ddtruy33 writes,
Except that the 9 of 10 refers to global temps and 4 of ten refers to temps in the lower 48 sta