Global warming

[Schneibster]

Which hearings?

 

[mhaze]

1988 Congressional speech by Hansen, the presentation that was later criticized by Michaels in 1998 again to Congress, leading to the Paul Krugman NYT article where the first accusations of Michaels lying were made.

 

[Schneibster]

Then produce the transcripts of the 1988 Congressional testimony (it wasn't a speech) to prove your point, or admit that there is no evidence to support your assertion. The phrase "business as usual" does not appear in Hansen (1988). At that time, Hansen was still stating that more information and better models needed to be obtained to give more certain results. That one of his three scenarios even approximated the truth is a testament to the effectiveness of the approach.

 

[mhaze]

I have no problem with Michaels being shown to be a liar or not being shown to be a liar. I have a big problem with spinning and distorting the output of computer models for political purposes and I'm sure you would share that sentiment.

The subject has drifted slightly to the discussion of Hansen et al 1988. Ultimately, I agree with you that the proof, disproof or confused middle ground is in the Hansen 1988 testimony, and it may be possible to get that.

One thing that disturbs me about the trend of this conversation. The rabid certainty of some posters coupled with their numerous factual errors, given the lack of key documents -

JREF Warmers:

A Unique Person: Michaels was a liar, Hansen presented three scenarios, with the most likely a reasonable estimate of the actual temperature. Michaels tried the old 'airbrusing' technique to remove the other projections.

Megaloon:If a scientist is making an evaluation of a 10 year-old projection, with 3 scenarios, and uses only one, he's lying...Now your just making things up (well, technically, "now" is innacurate, but well...)....The fact that all of the plates in the paper are from the scenario B only strengthens the point.

varwoche: Your inability to admit to Michaels' deception speaks volumes.

Capeldodger: He was lying.Michaels lied, but that's the business he's in. He claimed that the Hansen et al model predicted a 0.4C temperature rise during the 90's - which it didn't. Lots of people still think that the Hansen et al 1988 model was badly wrong about climate change in the 90's. Which it wasn't.

Schneibster: there's the matter of Michaels' graph only referring to Scenario A, which is pretty conclusive in the light of the paper linked above. I don't believe I'd give the time of day to anything Michaels had to say.
​

You've asserted that the burden of proof is on me to prove Michaels was not a liar. So far, the case that Hansen lied is very weak. But not all the facts are in yet. If Hansen et al 1988 was submitted in addition to the oral presentation, then your case is slightly stronger. Was it?

Warmers ask that people believe Michaels lied without any proof, and think that skeptics must prove it otherwise. That's pretty funny...

 

[Schneibster]

Just kinda forgot all about the proof above that all three trend lines were presented, didn't ya. I'm sure that was just a mistake on your part.

 

[mhaze]

Just kinda forgot all about the proof above that all three trend lines were presented, didn't ya. I'm sure that was just a mistake on your part.

No, not at all. It is the presence of the three trend lines in the 1988 paper that lends weak level of support to the assertion that Michaels lied.

Here is what I get as a summary of the "Michaels Lied" assertion, taking into account inputs from various people on this subject:

1. Hansen et al 1988 said "scenario B was the most plausible".
2. Hansen et al 1988 is exactly the same as the Congressional testimony. Hansen focused on Scenario B in his testimony.
3. Michaels rebutted Hansen's 1988 testimony using Scenario A only and referred to it as Hansen's "business as usual" scenario.
4. Ignore contractions, wild assumptions and unproven conclusions in Hansen et al 1988.
5. Ignore everything Michaels said because Michaels is a liar.
6. Believe everything Hansen said because Michaels is a known liar.

Conclusions:

Michaels was a liar because he asserted Hansen pushed Scenario A as the "business as usual" scenario when actually Hansen talked mostly about Scenario B.

Also, Michaels was a liar because he was a known liar.

Hansen talked mostly about Scenario B so his predications were dead on.

Is that pretty accurate? If not, please offer your critique because I would like to reduce this issue down to the basic facts and get all the spin and hype out of the way.

 

[luddite]

Motivation

I think if climate change deniers want to stand a hope in hell of convincing most people that GW is a hoax, they need to begin by demonstrating why there is a huge conspiracy to convince people that it's true, and why the motivations of the hundreds of thousands of co-conspirators have never been exposed.

Meanwhile the motivations of celebrated climate change deniers like Fred Singer, Frederick Seitz and Tim Ball are routinely uncovered.

 

[Schneibster]

No, not at all. It is the presence of the three trend lines in the 1988 paper that lends weak level of support to the assertion that Michaels lied.

This goes to a pattern of behavior. It's not just Michaels. The reason that I'm so often combative and dismissive of your posts is because you participate in this pattern of behavior. Observing this pattern of behavior in (I'll be nice) AGW skeptics is a great deal of the reason that I have the attitude I do. It seems to me that "proving you're right" is more important than "finding out what's really going on." If it weren't, the rhetorical tricks and ad hominem arguments I always seem to encounter in AGW skeptic posts would be unnecessary. There's no other possible justification for them but deep knowledge that the facts simply don't support AGW skepticism. See my signature: unquestioning belief is proof not of faith, but of doubt. To put it another way, methinks thou doth protest too much.

Here is what I get as a summary of the "Michaels Lied" assertion, taking into account inputs from various people on this subject:

I'll answer them as best I can; I'm going to avoid the "list" formatting because it's inconvenient to reply in format.

Hansen et al 1988 said "scenario B was the most plausible".

Correct, demonstrated in the paper.

Hansen et al 1988 is exactly the same as the Congressional testimony. Hansen focused on Scenario B in his testimony.

Hansen and others who have seen the text of the testimony assert he did; I have no personal knowledge of that, but no reason to disbelieve it. First of all, it is consistent with the contemporary paper. Second, it's a matter of public record, and no one but an idiot would lie about it when it's easy enough to prove. Third, if they had lied about it, the AGW skeptics could easily go to the Library of Congress and get the testimony, and we'd all hear about it forever. Instead we get more rhetoric and a further lie in Michaels' later writings on the 1998 testimony. I would say that the preponderance of evidence shows that in fact, that's precisely what Hansen did.

Michaels rebutted Hansen's 1988 testimony using Scenario A only and referred to it as Hansen's "business as usual" scenario.

The record is clear; that's exactly what he did. It is also strongly indicative that the phrase "business as usual" in this connection does not appear in Hansen's stream of papers until years later. It was a current phrase in his writings in 1998, but doesn't appear in papers from 1988 as far as I have been able to tell. (The PDF of the paper from 1988 was not OCRed, so I can't do a text search on it; I may OCR it to settle my mind on the subject, if I can find my OCR software.)

Ignore contractions, wild assumptions and unproven conclusions in Hansen et al 1988.

I saw no such, and I had to substantially read the 1988 paper in order to look for the phrase "business as usual." Facts, i.e. the output of the model, the inputs to the model, the justification of those inputs in terms of real-world measurements, and the operational details of the model, are clearly delimited from opinion, speculation, and even conclusions drawn; the grounds for such conclusions are carefully laid out, and the degree of certainty is established and is not inconsonant with the evidence presented. In other words, it's a peer-reviewed scientific paper; these are the features one expects to find in such a paper. Reviewers are on the lookout for unsupported conclusions and unidentified conjectures, opinions, and speculation. Papers that contain such are either corrected not to contain it to the satisfaction of all reviewers, or rejected for publication.

This strikes me as more rhetorical nonsense from you. You've been asked to provide evidence of such and have not done so to anyone's satisfaction; you've misquoted and left important details out when quoting. This isn't proof of Hansen's malfeasance; it's proof of your own. I would call it dishonest except that I'm not absolutely convinced you're aware you're doing it.

Ignore everything Michaels said because Michaels is a liar.

In a court of law, this is called "impeaching testimony." And yes, the goal of an opposing attorney when showing that a witness cannot have told the truth on a key point in their testimony does have the effect of calling all their testimony into doubt. But it's not "because he's a liar;" that's an unquantifiable characterization. It's because he lied; that's a provable act.

Believe everything Hansen said because Michaels is a known liar.

This is more rhetorical BS. No one here has said anything of the kind.

Conclusions:

Michaels was a liar because he asserted Hansen pushed Scenario A as the "business as usual" scenario when actually Hansen talked mostly about Scenario B.

No, Michaels lied because he asserted that Hansen a) used the phrase "business as usual" and b) because he presented what he claimed was Hansen's graph, when in fact the graph he presented had important data removed from it. Whether he is a liar or not is a characterization; whether he lied or not is a provable matter of fact.

Also, Michaels was a liar because he was a known liar.

And yet more rhetorical BS. And a strawman implying circular reasoning.

Hansen talked mostly about Scenario B so his predications were dead on.

We don't know that for sure, since no one has presented his actual testimony because it's not available on line and no one has gone to the LoC and scanned it and presented it here. However, the preponderance of evidence says that this is correct.

Is that pretty accurate? If not, please offer your critique because I would like to reduce this issue down to the basic facts and get all the spin and hype out of the way.

Critique offered. My expectation is that you will offer more rhetorical tricks; surprise me.

 

[CapelDodger]

I think if climate change deniers want to stand a hope in hell of convincing most people that GW is a hoax, they need to begin by demonstrating why there is a huge conspiracy to convince people that it's true, and why the motivations of the hundreds of thousands of co-conspirators have never been exposed.

Meanwhile the motivations of celebrated climate change deniers like Fred Singer, Frederick Seitz and Tim Ball are routinely uncovered.

Another blinding glimpse of the obvious .

The cloistered nature of clmate contrarianism is becoming increasingly apparent, not least with the Nobel Peace Prize award. There were also two major international jollies in the last month or so, one sponsored by the UN and one by the White House. AGW is full-on mainstream now. Twenty years ago it was edging in with the establishment of the IPCC - when there's enough real concern to demand action set up a committee. Action taken. With luck by the time it reports the problem will have gone away.

No such luck. Ten years, and two reports, later further action has to be taken. Apply first fall-back action : set targets. Which are, by definition, some way off. Kyoto Protocol. Action taken.

Ten years further on the problem still hasn't gone away. So high-level discussions about talks to work out how an action-plan will be negotiated are under way. That shows commitment. Throwing a bone to Al Gore and the IPCC simply underlines how seriously the powers-that-be are taking this subject. As does corporate greenwash advertising.

All this when JunkScience and CO2Science and ClimateAudit and the Cato Institution and the Heritage Thingy and any number of inter-linked clubhouses have the real self-referential low-down? Not on this planet. Even the Bush White House has abandoned that refuge, its response being to launch a spoiler. How mainstream is that? Pretty damn' much, IMO.

Singer, Seltz, Gray, Lindzen ... the pillars of denialism are becoming increasingly aged, which demonstrates a very poor recruitment rate. Contrarians, of course, ascribe that to the tyranny of the scientific establishment.

 

[CapelDodger]

I have no problem with Michaels being shown to be a liar ...

You very clearly do. Otherwise you wouldn't still be wriggling.

I have a big problem with spinning and distorting the output of computer models for political purposes and I'm sure you would share that sentiment.

Which Michaels did. Look at his testimony. He claimed the model predicted something that it didn't predict. A lie. He then used that to discredit the model. That's why he told the lie.

The subject has drifted slightly to the discussion of Hansen et al 1988. Ultimately, I agree with you that the proof, disproof or confused middle ground is in the Hansen 1988 testimony, and it may be possible to get that.

You're the one that's trying to bring up Hansen's testimony in 1988. Hansen et al 1988 - not Hansen's 1998 testimony - is what Michaels lied about in 1998. Michaels claimed that there was only one prediction in the 1988 model, which was a lie, and also claimed - for obvious reasons - that it was the scenario least like what had actually occurred during the intervening ten years.

One thing that disturbs me about the trend of this conversation. The rabid certainty of some posters coupled with their numerous factual errors, given the lack of key documents -

There is only one key document (availabe for perusal via the Cato Institute website) which is Michaels's lying testimony in 1998. His testimony did not refer to Hansen's testimony in 1988, it referred to the Hansen et al model of that year. And Michaels lied about what that model predicted.

You've asserted that the burden of proof is on me to prove Michaels was not a liar.

Mostly we're just astonished at how resilient you are to the obvious fact that Michaels lied to Congress in 1998.

So far, the case that Hansen lied is very weak.

Do what now? Hansen wasn't there when Michaels lied to Congress. This wasn't a court-case. Hansen says he only heard about Michaels's misrepresentation later, and I see no reason to doubt him.

But not all the facts are in yet. If Hansen et al 1988 was submitted in addition to the oral presentation, then your case is slightly stronger. Was it?

Michaels didn't present Hansen's testimony to Congress in 1988, he presented Hansen et al. And lied about it. Why, then, do you keep bringing up Hansen's 1988 testimony? It's irrelevant.

As I've pointed out before, if Hansen's 1988 testimony had focused on Scenario A - as Michaels's did ten years later, even though Scenario A had not transpired - it would have been denounced by alert observers as alarmist. It wasn't. Hansen's 1988 testimony is not a safe refuge.

Warmers ask that people believe Michaels lied without any proof, and think that skeptics must prove it otherwise. That's pretty funny...

That's just sad.

There is absolute proof that Michaels lied. This isn't science, where proof is elusive, this is someone blatantly lying. Look at Michaels's 1998 testimony about the Hansen et al 1988 model and associated report. Then look at the report. Michaels lied in 1998.

 

[CapelDodger]

Second, it's a matter of public record, and no one but an idiot would lie about it when it's easy enough to prove.

I have to take issue with that. There can be considered blatant lies that serve a purpose. I call Michaels 1998 and mhaze in evidence. We can see how blatant it is, but the target audience doesn't. Think Swift-Boat Liars for Bush, it's the same phaenomenon.

What I'm impressed by is mhaze's resilience. He's pretty much alone on this thread now, but endeavours to persevere. The other usual suspects favour less challenging terrain, new threads by "innocents" asking a few pointed - but innocent - questions. As the saying goes in Wales (and probably in Australia) "A fresh sheep-pile gathers more flies".

 

[Schneibster]

You are a cynic, sir. I have to admit, however, that you've been right on that score more than I have.

 

[luddite]

Just while we discuss endlessly the possibility that global warming is a hoax, let's just pause for a moment to consider the consequences if it's not.

Recent reports from Australia saying that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) final Assessment due out Nov. 7 will show that we have already eclipsed the CO2 concentration of 450 PPM CO2, that we had previously hoped to remain under. The report will show that we have played the waiting game for too long. It will show that the politicians introducing mediocre measures for hopeful mitigation that will take decades to accomplish is simply too little too late.

http://www.countercurrents.org/blair121007.htm

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Just while we discuss endlessly the possibility that global warming is a hoax, let's just pause for a moment to consider the consequences if it's not.



http://www.countercurrents.org/blair121007.htm

 

[mhaze]

I had to substantially read the 1988 paper in order to look for the phrase "business as usual."

We don't know that for sure, since no one has presented his actual testimony because it's not available on line and no one has gone to the LoC and scanned it and presented it here. However, the preponderance of evidence says that this is correct.

Critique offered. My expectation is that you will offer more rhetorical tricks; surprise me.

So you admit that we don't know the facts for sure, since no one has presented his actual testimony. That's essentially the same thing I've been asserting.

From that position you leap to a conclusion of guilt on Michaels part; while I stay with an opinion of not guilty until it is proven.

I'll wait for the testimony to come in to comment further, because as I noted when I started this topic, it doesn't matter to me if Michaels is proven to be a liar or not, I would just like to see the actual proof of it. In other words, peoples opinions on the issue really do not matter to me, the actual facts determine the matter. Since you agree with me on the absence of facts required to go further, let us wait until those facts are in and agree that there is no basis for speculation.

It is rather interesting, by the way, that in the many blogs where this issue has been discussed, no one has produced the actual 1988 testimony of Hansen.

Your critique is accepted, thank you. And I suspect that you will offer more rhetorical tricks, surprise me.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Jerome, if you're going down that road (childish remarks and off-topicness), it's straight to my ignore list. Not that you'd care.

 

[Pipirr]

So you admit that we don't know the facts for sure, since no one has presented his actual testimony. That's essentially the same thing I've been asserting.

I'll wait for the testimony to come in to comment further, because as I noted when I started this topic, it doesn't matter to me if Michaels is proven to be a liar or not, I would just like to see the actual proof of it. In other words, peoples opinions on the issue really do not matter to me, the actual facts determine the matter. Since you agree with me on the absence of facts required to go further, let us wait until those facts are in and agree that there is no basis for speculation.

It is rather interesting, by the way, that in the many blogs where this issue has been discussed, no one has produced the actual 1988 testimony of Hansen.

Here are Hansen's own words on the subject:

In late 1998, I was asked to debate the well-known greenhouse skeptic Dr. Patrick Michaels of the University of Virginia. I summarize here some key points in the debate, "A Public Debate on the Science of Global Warming".

I agreed to participate in this debate with Dr. Michaels after learning that he had used (or misused) a figure of mine in testimony to the United States Congress. The figure showed the first predictions made with a 3-D climate model and time-dependent climate forcings — it was a figure from a paper that we had published in the Journal of Geophysical Research in 1988 and it had been a principal basis for testimony that I gave to the United States Senate in 1988.

The figure that we published is reproduced here as Fig. 1. It shows the simulated global mean temperature for three climate forcing scenarios.

Scenario A has a fast growth rate for greenhouse gases.

Scenarios B and C have a moderate growth rate for greenhouse gases until year 2000, after which greenhouse gases stop increasing in Scenario C.

Scenarios B and C also included occasional large volcanic eruptions, while scenario A did not.

The objective was to illustrate the broad range of possibilities in the ignorance of how forcings would actually develop. The extreme scenarios (A with fast growth and no volcanos, and C with terminated growth of greenhouse gases) were meant to bracket plausible rates of change. All of the maps of simulated climate change that I showed in my 1988 testimony were for the intermediate scenario B, because it seemed the most likely of the three scenarios.

But when Pat Michaels testified to congress in 1998 and showed our 1988 predictions (Fig. 1) he erased the curves for scenarios B and C, and showed the result only for scenario A. He then argued that, since the real world temperature had not increased as fast as this model calculation, the climate model was faulty and there was no basis for concern about climate change, specifically concluding that the Kyoto Protocol was "a useless appendage to an irrelevant treaty".

I'm going with the majority here. Michaels is a liar.

 

[Megalodon]

So you admit that we don't know the facts for sure, since no one has presented his actual testimony. That's essentially the same thing I've been asserting.

We know the facts. Michaels was criticizing a model with 3 scenarios and omitted 2. That is enough to say he is a liar. Even if Hansen said in his testimony that Scenario A was going to happen as sure as the day is going to rise tomorrow, that would be irrelevant. And schizophrenic, given his publication the same year.

I'll wait for the testimony to come in to comment further, because as I noted when I started this topic, it doesn't matter to me if Michaels is proven to be a liar or not, I would just like to see the actual proof of it. In other words, peoples opinions on the issue really do not matter to me, the actual facts determine the matter. Since you agree with me on the absence of facts required to go further, let us wait until those facts are in and agree that there is no basis for speculation.

So you throw the mud, and when it doesn't stick you retreat to "wait for the testimony to come in". Classy... I wonder why you didn't wait for the testimony before asserting that Hansen said that the scenario A was the most probable?

It is rather interesting, by the way, that in the many blogs where this issue has been discussed, no one has produced the actual 1988 testimony of Hansen.

Maybe they are as flexible with facts as you were in this case?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Jerome, if you're going down that road (childish remarks and off-topicness), it's straight to my ignore list. Not that you'd care.

Did you read the link?

 

[mhaze]

Pipirr, Megaloon - Thanks for your interest in the subject. However, I should have the 1988 Hansen testimony in a day or two and prefer to wait, study it and respond at that time.

Since there is a very notable absence of this document in the many discussions that have occurred on the Internet (including a notable silence from Tim Lambert, when he was asked to produce it), it should be interesting what bearing it has on the assertion that Michael's lied.

The current version of this meme was generated by Paul Krugman, well noted for smearing and distorting facts to promote certain directions in politics,

I woldn't take anything Krugman says at face value, but apparently, a lot of people here do. Article and summary of it follows -

Krugman ("Swift Boating the Planet") says global warming skeptic Patrick Michaels of UVA committed "fraud pure and simple" against NASA climatologist James Hansen, and that the phony charge "has become a staple of climate change skeptics, from Michael Crichton to Robert Novak." Krugman says Michaels "presented a chart supposedly taken from a 1988 paper written by Dr. Hansen and others, which showed a curve of rising temperatures considerably steeper than the trend that has actually taken place...

The original paper showed a range of possibilities, and the actual rise in temperature has fallen squarely in the middle of that range. So how did Dr. Michaels make it seem as if Dr. Hansen's prediction was wildly off? Why, he erased all the lower curves, leaving only the curve that the original paper described as being 'on the high side of reality.'"​