<d.086@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1189386668.822279.189980@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...

NASA GISS chief James E. Hansen is the Lysenko of American science. Al
Gore is his Stalin.

http://newsbusters.org/

lol

d.086@hotmail.com wrote:

-Noel Sheppard is an economist, business owner, and Associate Editor
of NewsBusters.

Always extremely interesting to hear the opinion of an economist about
climate science. 'Business owner' makes it doubly grand.

d.086@hotmail.com wrote:

-Noel Sheppard is an economist, business owner, and Associate Editor
of NewsBusters.

Always extremely interesting to hear the opinion of an economist about
climate science. 'Business owner' makes it doubly grand.

Reading McIntyre's blog and the comments. The fortran code has line
timestamps that show changes made very recently, so it is definitely
not a copy of the exact same code used by Hansen to make his original
"scientific discoveries" and global warming doomsday pronouncements.

Hansen said in the email announcing the release of the code that he
wanted a week or two more to "simplify" the code. He said he wanted to
do that for people interested in the "science". The people interested
in the "science" wanted the original code. Not a "simplified" (read
"***** covering") version.

The man is either covering up something or he
fails to understand one of the most fundamental aspects of publishing
scientific research.

The entire purpose of peer review is for peers to be able to duplicate
and verify results.

In every scientific discipline (except apparently
climateology) where computer programs are used in the research, the
authors of published scientific papers must archive the code, and the
data used.

When questions arise from peers trying to duplicate and
verify the point in question, peers can simply reference the code or
the data or both. That is about as straightforward as it can get.

On Sep 9, 8:11 pm,

NASA GISS chief James E. Hansen is the Lysenko of American science. Al
Gore is his Stalin.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/08/nasa-s-james-ha...

NASA's James Hansen Finally Releases Climate Data Computer Codes By Noel
Sheppard | September 8, 2007 - 16:00 ET

Much as when the organization he leads quietly made changes to the
United States historical climate record at the prodding of Climate
Audit's Stephen McIntyre, James Hansen of NASA's Goddard Institute for
Space Studies finally released critical computer codes scientists have
wanted for years, but did so with absolutely no official press release.

As a result, not one media outlet covered this occurrence that years
from now could be seen as a huge turning point in the climate change
debate.

Despite the secrecy, there was great celebration amongst anthropogenic
global warming skeptics that have wanted these closely held codes to be
able to identify how NASA and the National Oceanic & Atmospheric
Administration make adjustments to raw climate data collected by weather
stations.

One such skeptic is Anthony Watts, who happily reported Saturday
(emphasis added):

Apparently us "court jesters" (as as Dr. James Hansen calls us) carry
some weight after all.

I'm happy to report that NASA GISS has in fact released the computer
code used to arrive at temperature adjustments for the USA and the
world. The first task is to make sure it matches what has been seen, and
to verify that we have all of it. This is hugely important in doing
independent verification of the surface temperature record. Following
that, an analysis of the methodology and replication of the computer
program output to see if it matches the current data sets. Then perhaps
we can fully understand why some stations that are in "pristine"
condition, such as Walhalla, SC, with no obvious microsite biases, get
"adjusted" by Hansen's techniques. Shouldn't good data stand on it's
[sic] own?

Yes, that sounds reasonable, Anthony, unless your goal is to manipulate
the data to support your agenda.

Of course, another happy skeptic was Stephen McIntyre who reported the
news at Climate Audit (h/t Anthony Watts, emphasis added):

Hansen has just released what is said to be the source code for their
temperature analysis. The release was announced in a shall-we-say
ungracious email to his email distribution list and a link is now
present at the NASA webpage.

Hansen says resentfully that they would have liked a "week or two" to
make a "simplified version" of the program and that it is this version
that "people interested in science" will want, as opposed to the version
that actually generated their results.

People interested in science? Heck, I thought we were all deniers and
court jesters.

Regardless, it seems a metaphysical certitude that the same media which
ignored the changes to the climate record a month ago will be equally
disinterested in reporting this information.

And, if it turns out that Watts, McIntyre, and skeptical scientists
around the world identify errors in these codes requiring additional
changes be made by Hansen to the climate record, I doubt we'll hear
about that either.

Or am I just being too darned cynical for my own good?

-Noel Sheppard is an economist, business owner, and Associate Editor of
NewsBusters.

Reading McIntyre's blog and the comments. The fortran code has line
timestamps that show changes made very recently, so it is definitely not a
copy of the exact same code used by Hansen to make his original
"scientific discoveries" and global warming doomsday pronouncements.

Hansen said in the email announcing the release of the code that he wanted
a week or two more to "simplify" the code. He said he wanted to do that
for people interested in the "science". The people interested in the
"science" wanted the original code. Not a "simplified" (read "*****
covering") version. The man is either covering up something or he fails to
understand one of the most fundamental aspects of publishing scientific
research.

The entire purpose of peer review is for peers to be able to duplicate and
verify results. In every scientific discipline (except apparently
climateology) where computer programs are used in the research, the
authors of published scientific papers must archive the code, and the data
used. When questions arise from peers trying to duplicate and verify the
point in question, peers can simply reference the code or the data or
both. That is about as straightforward as it can get.

Well, Jimmy-boy Hansen, you've failed miserably as a scientist by failing
to provide a copy of the actual code used in your published study. You've
made it impossible to duplicate and/or verify your results via the peer
review process. By short circuiting the peer review process, you've just
made your research irrelevant and utterly useless. And you've also lost
all credibility you may have had as a scientist.

You've also shown scientific incompetence with at least one subset of the
data you used. It took a non-scientist to bring that to light and instead
of thanking him, you ignored him for as long as you could before
grudgingly acknowledging it. And then you claimed that it was a minor
thing although it was the bulk of what you claimed to be evidence of
global warming, specifically that the warmest years ever were almost
exclusively in the 1990's.

Well, Jimmy-boy, you've been busted. You are a fraud. Time to hand in the
resignation. Scientists without credibility cannot function within the
scientific community. You *are* the weakest link, buh-bye.