Fmr. Sen. Tim Wirth: I just remembered that my 2007 PBS Hansen hearing ‘stagecraft’ story was complete BS

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/03/30/setting-the-record-straight-the-real-story-of-a-pivotal-climate-change-hearing/

he Pinocchio Test

So, here’s the reality. The room may have been a bit stuffy, but that was because of television cameras, not because of any manipulation of the windows or the air conditioning. And the hearing date was not set because it the hottest period of the year; instead, that was how the timetable for the bill was determined.

It is rather remarkable that events that happened just 27 years ago could so easily get twisted and misreported, based on one overenthusiastic interview. It is a quintessential example of Washington self-puffery. But The Fact Checker should have conducted more diligence in confirming the events as described by Wirth in 2007, notwithstanding how often the story had been repeated. (We recommend that PBS Frontline add a corrective note on the Web page containing the Wirth interview.)

Frankly, this now puts Kerry’s statements in an even a worse light. Not only did he place himself at a hearing he did not organize and attend, but he described witnessing events that did not happen.’…

Why was media silent? Flashback NASA’s James Hansen Received $250,000 from partisan Heinz Foundation & Endorsed Dem. John Kerry for Pres. in 2004

1) EPW Report on Hansen – July 11, 2006

Hansen Received $250,000 from partisan Heinz Foundation & Endorsed Dem. John Kerry for Pres. in 2004

Excerpt: For example, Brokaw presents NASA’s James Hansen as an authority on climate change without revealing to viewers the extensive political and financial ties that Hansen has to Democrat Party partisans. Hansen, the director of the agency’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, received a $250,000 contribution from the charitable foundation headed by former Democrat Presidential candidate John Kerry’s wife, Teresa Heinz. Subsequent to the Heinz Foundation donation, Hansen publicly endorsed Democrat John Kerry for president in 2004, a political endorsement considered to be highly unusual for a NASA scientist.  Hansen also has acted as a consultant to Gore’s slide-show presentations on global warming, on which Gore’s movie is based. Hansen has actively promoted Gore and his movie, even appearing at a New York City Town Hall meeting with Gore and several Hollywood producers in May. Hansen also conceded in a 2003 issue of Natural Science that the use of “extreme scenarios” to dramatize climate change “may have been appropriate at one time” to drive the public’s attention to the issue—- a disturbing admission by a prominent scientist. (link)


Media Darling on ‘Global Warming’ Assailed by Colleagues

2.) From April 17, 2006 – CNSNews.com – By Marc Morano

Excerpt: NASA scientist James Hansen, profiled by the New York Times, “60 Minutes” and other media titans as a renowned scientist with unassailable credibility on the issue of “global warming” and a victim of White House censorship, is actually a loose cannon at NASA who lied about the alleged censorship, according to one of Hansen’s former colleagues as well as a current co-worker. George Deutsch, a former NASA public relations employee who resigned his job in February, told Cybercast News Service that he was warned about Hansen shortly after joining the space agency. “The only thing I was ever told—more so from civil servants and non political people—is, ‘You gotta watch that guy. He is a loose cannon; he is kind of crazy. He is difficult to work with; he is an alarmist; he exaggerates,’” Deutsch said. Deutsch provided Cybercast News Service with agency internal documents and e-mails detailing the frustration among NASA public affairs officials over Hansen’s refusal to follow protocol when it came to granting media interviews.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=/SpecialReports/archive/200604/SPE20060417a.
3) From March 29, 2006 …

Former NASA scientist Jim Hansen’s 99% Surety on Global Warming Doesn’t Hold Up

Jim Hansen’s 99% Surety on Global Warming Doesn’t Hold Up

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/18/jim-hansens-99-surety-on-global-warming-doesnt-hold-up

Guest essay by Pat Frank – When Jim Hansen testified before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, on June 23, 1988, he said that he was 99% sure human-caused global warming was already happening. Ever wonder how he got so sure? I discovered the answer while researching the validity of the global surface […]

— gReader Pro…

Flashback 2005: NASA’s James Hansen: No Agreement On What Is ‘Surface Air Temperature’ …Few Observed Data Filled In With ‘Guesses’

2005 James Hansen: No Agreement On What Is “Surface Air Temperature”…Few Observed Data Filled In With “Guesses”

http://notrickszone.com/2015/01/17/2005-james-hansen-no-agreement-on-what-is-surface-air-temperature-few-observed-data-filled-in-with-guesses/

NASA has an interview with James Hansen (still) up at its site here. Here we see that “surface air temperature” (0 to 50 feet) is not even yet defined, let alone can it be determined. This does not only present lots of uncertainty in its determination, but also plenty of opportunity for measurement and interpretation mischief. Hat/tip: Reader Dennis. Here The NASA interview (my emphases added): ================================== GISS Surface Temperature Analysis The Elusive Absolute Surface Air Temperature (SAT) The GISTEMP analysis concerns only temperature anomalies, not absolute temperature. Temperature anomalies are computed relative to the base period 1951-1980. The reason to work with anomalies, rather than absolute temperature is that absolute temperature varies markedly in short distances, while monthly or annual temperature anomalies are representative of a much larger region. Indeed, we have shown (Hansen and Lebedeff, 1987) that temperature anomalies are strongly correlated out to distances of the order of 1000 km. Q. What exactly do we mean by SAT ? A. I doubt that there is a general agreement how to answer this question. Even at the same location, the temperature near the ground may be very different from the temperature 5 ft above the ground and different again from 10 ft or 50 ft above the ground. Particularly in the presence of vegetation (say in a rain forest), the temperature above the vegetation may be very different from the temperature below the top of the vegetation. A reasonable suggestion might be to use the average temperature of the first 50 ft of air either above ground or above the top of the vegetation. To measure SAT we have to agree on what it is and, as far as I know, no such standard has been suggested or generally adopted. Even if the 50 ft standard were adopted, I cannot imagine that a weather station would build a 50 ft stack of thermometers to be able to find the true SAT at its location. Q. What do we mean by daily mean SAT ? A. Again, there is no universally accepted correct answer. Should we note the temperature every 6 hours and report the mean, should we do it every 2 hours, hourly, have a machine record it every second, or simply take the average of the highest and lowest …

James Hansen denounces ‘big green’: ‘Large environmental orgs have become one of the biggest obstacles to solving the climate problem’

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/iowa-view/2014/10/11/james-hansen-climate-change-speaking-truth-power/17118625/

Hansen: After I joined other scientists in requesting the leaders of Big Green to reconsider their adamant opposition to nuclear power, and was rebuffed, I learned from discussions with them the major reason: They feared losing donor support. Money, it seems, is the language they understand. Thus my suggestion: The next time you receive a donation request, doubtless accompanied with a photo of a cuddly bear or the like, toss it in the waste bin and return a note saying that you will consider a donation in the future, if they objectively evaluate the best interests of young people and nature.…