Perhaps Hansen finds it necessary to use such a tone when dealing with an administration that is apparently run by a bunch of college sophomores.

Perhaps this chart explains why Dr. Hansen is so worried -
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/HANSEN_AND_CONGRESS.jpg

Mr. Q.

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- Henry Louis Mencken

Or perhaps Dr. Hansen sees the whole man made global warming scam unraveling and he fears for his own reputation. If you combine the above chart with the recent release of the IPCC reviewer's comments on the web, one could easily see where such a concern might be justified on Dr. Hansen's part.

--begin quote--
Consensus never proves the truth of a scientific claim, but is somehow widely believed to do so for the IPCC reports, so we need to ask how many scientists really did agree with the most important IPCC conclusion, namely that humans are causing significant climate change--in other words the key parts of WG I?

The numbers of scientist reviewers involved in WG I is actually less than a quarter of the whole, a little over 600 in total. The other 1,900 reviewers assessed the other working group reports. They had nothing to say about the causes of climate change or its future trajectory. Still, 600 "scientific expert reviewers" sounds pretty impressive. After all, they submitted their comments to the IPCC editors who assure us that "all substantive government and expert review comments received appropriate consideration." And since these experts reviewers are all listed in Annex III of the report, they must have endorsed it, right?

Wrong.

... snipped ...

An examination of reviewers' comments on the last draft of the WG I report before final report assembly (i.e. the 'Second Order Revision' or SOR) completely debunks the illusion of hundreds of experts diligently poring over all the chapters of the report and providing extensive feedback to the editing teams. Here's the reality.

A total of 308 reviewers commented on the SOR, but only 32 reviewers commented on more than three chapters and only five reviewers commented on all 11 chapters of the report. Only about half the reviewers commented more than one chapter. It is logical that reviewers would generally limit their comments to their areas of expertise but it's a far cry from the idea of thousands of scientists agreeing to anything.

... snipped ...

An example of rampant misrepresentation of IPCC reports is the frequent assertion that 'hundreds of IPCC scientists' are known to support the following statement, arguably the most important of the WG I report, namely "Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years."

In total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical chapter 9, "Understanding and Attributing Climate Change". Of the comments received from the 62 reviewers of this critical chapter, almost 60% of them were rejected by IPCC editors. And of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial.

Two of these seven were contacted by NRSP for the purposes of this article - Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand and Dr. Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph, Canada. Concerning the "Greenhouse gas forcing ..." statement above, Professor McKitrick explained "A categorical summary statement like this is not supported by the evidence in the IPCC WG I report. Evidence shown in the report suggests that other factors play a major role in climate change, and the specific effects expected from greenhouse gases have not been observed."

Dr. Gray labeled the WG I statement as "Typical IPCC doubletalk" asserting "The text of the IPCC report shows that this is decided by a guess from persons with a conflict of interest, not from a tested model."
--- end quote ---

source of the above quote -
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/968

Factor into the equation the ever growing number of skeptics found on the list maintained by Senator Inhofe (400+ and growing), and I could definitely see where Dr. Hansen could be concerned for his reputation.

And we can't forget about the other list of skeptics, The Manhattan Declaration, containing over 1,100 names. That can be found here -
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=1

To summarize,
1. the climate has not really warmed since Dr. Hansen's first warning
2. the myth of 2,500 scientists supporting the theory of man made global warming is being exposed for the hoax that it is
3. the lists of prominent scientists that disagree with the theory of man made global warming grows every day

Yes, I can see where Dr. Hansen would be very worried.

Mr. Q.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." -- C.S. Lewis

Or perhaps Dr. Hansen isn't worried for his own reputation. Perhaps he has fallen into the trap warned against by T.C. Chamberlain over 100 years ago. Perhaps Dr. Hansen views the theory of man made global warming as his baby, and he worries for the theory.

Quoting T.C. Chamberlain,
---begin quote---
"The moment one has offered an original explanation for a phenomenon which seems satisfactory, that moment affection for his intellectual child springs into existence, and as the explanation grows into a definite theory his parental affections cluster about his offspring and it grows more dear to him...As this parental affection takes possession of the mind, there is a rapid passage to the adoption of the theory. There is an unconscious selection and magnifying of phenomena that fall into harmony with the theory and support it, and an unconscious neglect of those that fail of coincidence...

When these biasing tendencies set in, the mind rapidly degenerates into the partiality of paternalism. The search for facts, the observation of phenomena and their interpretation, are all dominated by affection for the favored theory until it appears to its author or its advocate to have been overwhelmingly established. The theory then rapidly rises to the ruling position, and investigation, observation, and interpretation are controlled and directed by it. From an unduly favored child, it readily becomes master, and leads its author whithersoever it will..."
---end quote---

Mr. Q.

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

Pot, meet Kettle.

What do people think about Hansen's increasingly outspoken behavior? Is it justified given his scientific findings, or is it over the top? Are there any scientists out there who want to comment on this matter?

Hansen's behavior of late really does discredit any scientific work he may do. In particular, I think it harms him among soft supporters of CO2 reduction and/or those with real questions as to what proportion of warming is man-made versus sun/earth driven. Clearly,the earth's environment goes through warm and cold cycles and has done so since before us and will do so after us. Hansen's hysteria makes this person think he has ulterior motives.

I believe the larger issue is the reputations of science and the media. I believe we need science and we need a robust, healthy, unbiased media.

But the U.N. hijacked science for political purposes. And now the reputation of science and scientists will be severely damaged for generations to come. And that is a crying shame. The public won't believe them when they sound the alarm next time.

And the reputation of media is already in a state of free fall. And this certainly won't help. That too is a crying shame. A healthy, unbiased media protects the public and the public interest. That is a good thing. But fewer and fewer people are listening to the traditional media outlets. As trust in media declines and fewer people pay attention to the media, a public safeguard is eroded. Not good.

Mr. Q.

I personally think Hansen's outspoken nature is absolutely fine as long as he is clear that he is expressing his own personal viewpoint on the matter and not that of his institution (NASA). From what I've seen, he is diligent about stating its his own opinion, so I have no problem with what he has been doing. He must realize that by becoming an policy advocate, he has squandered a bit of his reputation as a "unbiased scientist" who lets the data speak to him. He clearly has an agenda and so like anyone else who has an agenda, one tends to suspect they are interpreting the data a certain way.

For the record, I completely agree with his stand on global warming-- the scientific evidence is overwhelming and conclusive-- I just prefer the folks who sit at the intersection of science-policy to speak to the policy angle of the science. Myself, I'll stick to the science and stay out of the fray. As evidenced sometimes on this blog, it gets ugly out there.

- a govt. scientist

Jim Hansen is too smart not to recognize the reaction to some of his more hyperbolic statements. I have little doubt his shift in tactics reflects knowing that as a Federal Government employee he can retire anytime (not quite a "golden Parachute", but parachute nevertheless).

I therefore attribute his new, now sometimes "over the top", outspokenness to get attention that a purely scientific view might not, especially with the politicos and their concerned constituents. Unfortunately, politics inevitably trumps science alone.

I don't read this being alarmist, just realistic in tweaking the populace and political system system to get its act together when it comes to the overwhelming - if not yet conclusive (~90% chance)- evidence that our environment is being increasingly impacted adversely by anthropogenic influences.

And what if the skeptics are right, even if at much lesser level of probability? To this I ask, would you get on an airplane if you knew it had a 10% chance of crashing?

Steve,

It is clear that we are impacting our environment by anthropogenic (man-made) influences, but what is still very unclear in my mind is in what proportion. I have yet to see any conclusive science saying x% of warming (pick a start date) is due to the natural global warming cycle we are in versus the (100-x)% caused by man-made GHG emissions. I don't think even our best scientists can conclusively answer this question within a reasonable confidence interval. The fact that there has been no measurable warming since 2002 (data shows slight cooling, but within the margin of error) clearly shows that our models of how man-made CO2 affects our climate remain seriously flawed if for no other reason that they do not accurately take into account natural forcings.

There's a very well written editorial (titled:Science by Intimidation) on this topic in Canada's liberal Globe and Mail newspaper web site:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/GAM.20080628.COREX28/TPStory/TPComment

Dr. Hansen has become the man who cried wolf. Then Screamed Wolf. Then Stamped and Hollered Wolf. Then Tiraded and hyperventilated Wolf.

All due to now being the spiritual head of the anti-wolf movement and having financial interests in the anti-wolf industry. Soon he will be running for office on the anti-wolf platform.

You will have to excuse me for not believing his theatrics are for my benefit but his own. Just human nature. Climate Changing Guilt Inducing Human Nature.

Anyone want to buy a Anti-Wolf credit? Clears your conscience while making the Anti-Wolf people richer. Almost like an indulgence from the days of the inquisition.

Wow. Excellent article, RM. Thanks for the link.

Come on Steve.

Comparing Global Warming to a Plane Flight?

Who is over the top now? Taking one of the biggest fears of every human and playing on it to what end? Mass Panic?

Do this or the PLANE WILL CRASH! NOW!

First make the plane flight like 200 years long. Then talk about the natural occurence of plane accidents that killed off the dinosaurs and led to mankind ruling the earth. Then talk about how the greatest scientist probably ever argued that survival of a species is integrally linked to the ability to adapt to plane crashes.

Pretty horrible comparison, huh?

If we're going to characterize political positions, let's be accurate about them. Whatever the leanings of the Globe and Mail, Rex Murphy, the author of the cited column, is no liberal.

RM:
I'm not sure what the basis was of your statement that that there has been no warming since 2002.

I can tell you that the the temperature trace referenced above (http://icecap.us/images/uploads/HANSEN_AND_CONGRESS.jpg) was extremely misleading in the context it was posted

First, it's clear from this figure that on average there has been warming between 2002 and end of trace. The few years of excursions to negative territory during this period are small in comparison.

Second, the point at the end identified as "Hansen's Anniversary" reflects what is most misleading about these data: Namely, they are "global" averages which ignore the nature and credibility of the data as a function (primarily) of geography.

The best way to see this is to go to the original source of the data: e.g., a map of the geographical distribution of warm and cold anomalies of mid tropospheric temperatures (http://climate.uah.edu/25yearbig.jpg).

It's clear that the northern two-thirds of the globe are warm on average. The intense cooling over the antarctic is erroneous due to the intrinsic and recognized problems with the MSU satellite data. Yet, that erroneous cold is included in the global mean.

For whatever reason, an honest representation of these data is not what was provided and likely not intended.

I find the global warming skeptics tend to be more vitriolic and/or hysterical than most scientists and "science-advocates.". I suspect many scientists don't speak up b/c they don't want to deal this, so I admire the ones that do.

Sounds like Hansen is behaving like a spoiled five-year-old who cries, screams, and stamps his feet up and down when he can't get his way. If his "theories" aren't playing well with his superiors, then there's a good reason for it. You've got to do your homework, and like many other pro-climate-warming "activists", he hasn't done his. Sure, one can point to Al Gore and the so-called Nobel Peace "Prize", but that just proves that the prize is given as much (or more) for political reasons (mostly left-wing) as it is for legitimate science.
Even though he is an agency chief himself, Hansen needs to learn some lessons from the military, and how to respect his superiors. When you wear the stripes, then you can give the orders.

Hansen sees decades worth of accumulated data and solid, researched, peer-reviewed reports being casually tossed aside by a pack of cretinous goons at the top of the Bush administration and all the "think" tanks and credulous media outlets that aid and abet them.

Some scientists prefer to remain cloistered in the world of science where they deal mostly with rational, curious people who have some urge to contribute to the common good.

However, Hansen is both a scientist and the head of government laboratory, the NASA Goddard Institute. He has more involvement with politics and media than most scientists. His professional sphere has grown larger than the scientific community alone. He is part of the activist community, the think tanks, the green media, the international political structure and the international community of NGOs. You could say he has a broad base.

And he's learned a lot about the press and messaging and getting your voice heard. I'm sure he is saying outrageous things to get headlines -- and it has undeniably worked. But also I think most everything he says is sincere and reflective of his honest opinion. He is not reckless; he knows his words are being scrutinized and that his record will outlive him.

I get the impression Hansen feels a profound responsibility to his nation, his culture, and his Earth. He is doing what he thinks is necessary.

We can only hope that our national politics will soon change. We must have a political and cultural field that is responsive to the scientific fact of increasingly likely climate catastrophe. All who care about their children and their grandchildren should thank Hansen for his willingness to grab a headline now and then.

Well put Jackie.

If anyone is interested in Hansen's actual policy proposals, they were extensively analyzed at DotEarth recently:
Hansen on Next Climate Steps: Charge Polluters; Pay People

Perhaps this is what has Dr. Hansen so worried?

---begin quote---
Viewing the NASA 250-mile map for March below, what immediately grabs the attention is that NASA has essentially no data (gray areas) in most of Canada, most of Africa, the Greenland ice sheet, and most of Antarctica. This begs the question, how can one calculate an accurate "global temperature" while lacking any data from large contiguous regions of three continents?

So what was NASA missing?

We can find NASA's lost continents in the UAH satellite data for March below.

Not surprisingly, the missing areas in Canada and Africa were cold. The NASA data thus becomes disproportionately weighted towards warm areas - particularly in the northern hemisphere. As can be seen in the UAH satellite map above, the warm areas actually made up a relatively small percentage of the planet. The vast majority of the earth had normal temperatures or below. Given that NASA has lost track of a number of large cold regions, it is understandable that their averages are on the high side.
---end quote---

source of the above quote -
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/05/goddard_nasa_thermometer/page2.html

Mr. Q.

"It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself." -- Thomas Jefferson

Or perhaps Dr. Hansen is worried that people may believe the 100 signatories (some of whom were IPCC reviewers) of the "Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations" and their interpretation of the facts, rather than Dr. Hansen's interpretation of the facts.

Has everyone read their letter? It stands in stark contrast to Dr. Hansen's claims. If you believe what they wrote, you will NOT be in favor of adopting any of Dr. Hansen's suggestions. That possibility may have Dr. Hansen worried.

---begin quote---
Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations

Dec. 13, 2007

His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon

Secretary-General, United Nations

New York, N.Y.

Dear Mr. Secretary-General,

Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction

It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.

The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.

Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:

In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed (see http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_timetable_2006-08-14.pdf) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.

The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the "precautionary principle" because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.

The current UN focus on "fighting climate change," as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme's Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.

Yours faithfully,

[List of signatories]

Copy to: Heads of state of countries of the signatory persons.
---end quote---

source of the above quote -
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002

Mr. Q.

Capital Climate,

Coming from Canada, I can tell you that Rex Murphy is more liberal than most American big "D" Democrats. Most of us Canadians are more liberal on social and societal issues. However, our liberalism is dosed with a huge grain of common sense and pragmatism. While U.S. liberals believe in throwing money at problems regardless of its efficacy, we tend to be more small "c" conservative in how we spend our hard-earned money.

Or perhaps Dr. Hansen is worried that PBS might air a certain "Frontline" episode again, and this time more than one dozen people will watch it.

I am talking about the "Frontline" episode where Deborah Amos of NPR refers to the "stagecraft" that went into Dr. Hansen's first testimony back in 1988.

---begin quote---
DEBORAH AMOS: On Capitol Hill, Sen. Timothy Wirth was one of the few politicians already concerned about global warming, and he was not above using a little stagecraft for Hansen's testimony.

TIMOTHY WIRTH: We called the Weather Bureau and found out what historically was the hottest day of the summer. Well, it was June 6th or June 9th or whatever it was. So we scheduled the hearing that day, and bingo, it was the hottest day on record in Washington, or close to it.

DEBORAH AMOS: [on camera] Did you also alter the temperature in the hearing room that day?

TIMOTHY WIRTH: What we did is that we went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right, so that the air conditioning wasn't working inside the room. And so when the- when the hearing occurred, there was not only bliss, which is television cameras and double figures, but it was really hot.

Dr. Hansen, if you'd start us off, we'd appreciate it.

The wonderful Jim Hansen was wiping his brow at the table at the hearing, at the witness table, and giving this remarkable testimony.
---end quote---

While Dr. Hansen isn't implicated in the manipulation, he was still a participant at the event. And the public doesn't like being manipulated. If Senator Wirth's "stagecraft" becomes widely known among the public (presumably by a fair and unbiased traditional media outlet doing their job), the backlash will undoubtedly spread to Dr. Hansen.

That could have him worried.

Mr. Q.

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- Henry Louis Mencken

Ooops. Forgot the source link for my previous comment -
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/etc/script.html

Mr. Q.

Mr. Q: Please do not use bold face. This stlye is reserved for Capital Weather Gang writers. Also, in the spirit of not having one commenter "hijack" the discussion here, we'd appreciate it if your posts were less numerous and more concise ("brevity is the soul of wit"). Your long diatribes are dominating the discussion and intimidating/turning off other commenters (we've received emails to this effect). This is supposed to be a discussion area for multiple opinions not a one-person sounding board or soap-box. Failure to abide by these guidelines may result in blockage at our discretion.

Capital Weather Gang,

Why are you trying to silence Mr. Q? I appreciate his contributions and disagree with your post. Far from hijacking the discussions, I think he adds the other side of the argument to what would otherwise be a groupthink session. Are you trying to follow the example of Dr. Hansen and beat conflicting views into submission?

"Many attempts to communicate are nullified by saying too much."

- Robert Greenleaf

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds."

- Albert Einstein

There is no effort to silence anyone. We're simply discouraging one person from dominating the discussion and asking him to keep his contributions concise (as opposed to 900 word copy and paste jobs).

Quotations seem to be the order of the day, so here are few more:

"Some believe in looking reality straight in the eye and denying it."
Garrison Keillor

"When one admits that nothing is certain one must, I think, also admit that some things are much more nearly certain than others".
Bertrand Russell

"The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously".
Hubert H. Humphrey

Stop picking on Mr. Q.

From Today's Wall Street Journal, (July 1, page A15 by bstephen) written apparently especially for Andrew Freedman and the rest of the "Capital Weather Gang" who insist that all must follow the GW religion.

"Global Warming as Mass Neurosis
July 1, 2008; Page A15
Last week marked the 20th anniversary of the mass hysteria phenomenon known as global warming. Much of the science has since been discredited. Now it's time for political scientists, theologians and psychiatrists to weigh in.
What, discredited? Thousands of scientists insist otherwise, none more noisily than NASA's Jim Hansen, who first banged the gong with his June 23, 1988, congressional testimony (delivered with all the modesty of "99% confidence").
The New True Believers
But mother nature has opinions of her own. NASA now begrudgingly confirms that the hottest year on record in the continental 48 was not 1998, as previously believed, but 1934, and that six of the 10 hottest years since 1880 antedate 1954. Data from 3,000 scientific robots in the world's oceans show there has been slight cooling in the past five years, never mind that "80% to 90% of global warming involves heating up ocean waters," according to a report by NPR's Richard Harris.
The Arctic ice cap may be thinning, but the extent of Antarctic sea ice has been expanding for years. At least as of February, last winter was the Northern Hemisphere's coldest in decades. In May, German climate modelers reported in the journal Nature that global warming is due for a decade-long vacation. But be not not-afraid, added the modelers: The inexorable march to apocalypse resumes in 2020.
This last item is, of course, a forecast, not an empirical observation. But it raises a useful question: If even slight global cooling remains evidence of global warming, what isn't evidence of global warming? What we have here is a nonfalsifiable hypothesis, logically indistinguishable from claims for the existence of God. This doesn't mean God doesn't exist, or that global warming isn't happening. It does mean it isn't science.
So let's stop fussing about the interpretation of ice core samples from the South Pole and temperature readings in the troposphere. The real place where discussions of global warming belong is in the realm of belief, and particularly the motives for belief. I see three mutually compatible explanations.
The first is as a vehicle of ideological convenience. Socialism may have failed as an economic theory, but global warming alarmism, with its dire warnings about the consequences of industry and consumerism, is equally a rebuke to capitalism. Take just about any other discredited leftist nostrum of yore - population control, higher taxes, a vast new regulatory regime, global economic redistribution, an enhanced role for the United Nations - and global warming provides a justification. One wonders what the left would make of a scientific "consensus" warning that some looming environmental crisis could only be averted if every college-educated woman bore six children: Thumbs to "patriarchal" science; curtains to the species.
A second explanation is theological. Surely it is no accident that the principal catastrophe predicted by global warming alarmists is diluvian in nature. Surely it is not a coincidence that modern-day environmentalists are awfully biblical in their critique of the depredations of modern society: "And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart." That's Genesis, but it sounds like Jim Hansen.
And surely it is in keeping with this essentially religious outlook that the "solutions" chiefly offered to global warming involve radical changes to personal behavior, all of them with an ascetic, virtue-centric bent: drive less, buy less, walk lightly upon the earth and so on. A light carbon footprint has become the 21st-century equivalent of sexual abstinence.
Finally, there is a psychological explanation. Listen carefully to the global warming alarmists, and the main theme that emerges is that what the developed world needs is a large dose of penance. What's remarkable is the extent to which penance sells among a mostly secular audience. What is there to be penitent about?
As it turns out, a lot, at least if you're inclined to believe that our successes are undeserved and that prosperity is morally suspect. In this view, global warming is nature's great comeuppance, affirming as nothing else our guilty conscience for our worldly success.
In "The Varieties of Religious Experience," William James distinguishes between healthy, life-affirming religion and the monastically inclined, "morbid-minded" religion of the sick-souled. Global warming is sick-souled religion"

What does the NASA MSU data really show - as opposed to something vastly different that someone might wish you to believe. See
http://www.uah.edu/News/climatebackground.php

Anyone sufficiently interested in the whole story as presented there (in largely non-scientific jargon) will undoubtedly recognize the competence of the NASA scientists and total thoroughness of their analysis and interpretation of the data - the screaming message being "The atmosphere is warming"

Throwing out cherry picked charts and canards that purposely or otherwise misrepresent the whole picture - especially with lengthy diatribes intended to muddle the discourse - undermines reasonable (including even vehemently opinionated) discussion between open minded individuals.

To our readers I suggest you attempt to separate reasonable skepticism from blind dogmatism.

Artjohn

"Capital Weather Gang" who insist that all must follow the GW religion."

Astounding!! We are the ones who preach being open minded, not an unyielding faith based dogmatism

BTW: Keep in mind who the runs the WSJ. And, it is far from the first time the WSJ chose to distort the science behind human-caused climate change and global warming.

"BTW: Keep in mind who the runs the WSJ. And, it is far from the first time the WSJ chose to distort the science behind human-caused climate change and global warming."

You will never be taken seriously with comments like that.

There is little or any evidence based upon the postings here that Andrew or anyone else who "runs" this board has an open mind resecting anthropoligcal global warming.

Artjohn--Instead of copy and pasting a long article in the comment section, please just provide the link. Thank you.

FYI: American Meteorological Society (AMS) Seminar:

Public Attitudes, Perceptions, and Concern about Global Warming:,Evidence from a New Survey

Open to the Public
Friday, July 11 10:30am Russell Senate Office Building Room 253

For details, see:
http://www.ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/EnvironmentalScienceSeminarSeries.html

Since some people seem to be having a hard time telling the difference between fact and opinion, perhaps it would be appropriate to have a short tutorial:
A newspaper generally contains 3 types of text:
- News
- Opinion
- Advertising
Page A15 of the July 1 high-fiber edition of WSJ has the following notation at the top in large font:
O P I N I O N

Of course its opinion. That's the point.

So what!

Andrew Freedman's postings are filled with opinion, and precious little "science."

*All* of the discussion about what to do about climate change, a future event, which by its very nature is uncertain, is OPINION, including the opinions of a one a James Hansen whose true expertise and degree lies outside of this area in ASTRONOMY! And isn't he the same guy who forecasted a cooling climate?

This board was a much friendly place when it stuck to reporting about the ongoing, near term and past weather in Washington.

Artjohn, here is some info from Hansen's resume. He has three degrees.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/jhansen.html

* B.A., Physics and Mathematics, 1963, University of Iowa
* M.S., Astronomy, 1965, University of Iowa
* Ph.D., Physics, 1967, University of Iowa

Opinions come in at least two varieties:

There are opinions based on balanced consideration of all relevant, evidence based facts and information. Opinions of this sort are open to reconsideration when faced with verifiable new facts and information. There can be no doubt to most that Andrew's posts fall in this category

There opinions based on faith and/or manipulation (or invention) of facts and information to suit one's intrinsic biases. Opinions of this sort are hard wired and totally unresponsive to anyone or anything to the contrary. Hopefully, it's apparent to most that some commentators fall into this category

In my opinion, after due consideration of satellite data, land based observations, numerical models, etc., it will not rain in the metro area tomorrow - subject to some modicum of uncertainty that might change my opinion should later data and information point that way.

In my opinion, there will be 2-3 major blizzards in the metro area next winter - wishful thinking at best, otherwise "justifiable" by focusing on some bit of noise embedded in the whatever small signal there might be in a seasonal climate model. And, nothing short of next spring will change my mind.

Viv la difference

Revkin does the homework on the phony volcano issue:
What's Up With Volcanoes Under Arctic Sea Ice

Very insightful and thoughtful comment, Steve. Thank you.

Sorry, forgot to identify myself in post above concerning "what does the NASA MSU data really show.."

Steve, I don't entirely disagree with your post.

More importantly I am grateful for the kind tone and good humor.

I really look forward to your blizzard forecast verifying, or better, underperforming!

However, Hansen's recent performance, does great harm to those of us genuinely concerned about science.

And when writing about Hansen, why does Andrew Freedman always ignore ignore contradictory data like this:

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/06/gret-moments-in.html

I see both as simply shilling for left wing environmental causes, science be damned. Sadly, Mr. Freedman and Dr. Hansen appear to be the ones ignoring relevant facts and new verifiable information.

I much prefer the more measured tones and views found here:

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/about-us

and frankly, I generally ignore the noise put out by those, like Hansen, who are merely shilling for Al Gore.

"why does Andrew Freedman always ignore contradictory data like this"

Maybe because those data are, what's the word, oh yeah, biased? See the comment at June 30, 2008 4:17 PM on the fact that the raw satellite data, which was reproduced from the other link you cited, is not accurate. As for the "measured tones and views", here's a random sample from the current main page of that site:
"His latest calling down of fire and brimstone is upon the wicked oil executives, who are allegedly stoking up infidel opposition to the true gospel . . ."
The fact that the site is hosted by a meteorologist should bring shame to meteorologists everywhere.

And as for shilling, you might want to follow the money to see who's being shilled here.

Revkin has more on the Arctic volcano foolishness:
Fire Under North Pole Ice - More Views