Monday, August 27, 2007

Scientific Discourse vs Advocacy

Noel Sheppard posts this item over at

NASA's James Hansen, whose work is continually exposed as shoddy while he refuses to share data gathering techniques and computer codes used for such things with others, has been criticized by a contributing scientist to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as moving "dangerously away from scientific discourse to advocacy."

What has drawn the ire of Andrew Weaver, a physicist at the University of Victoria who works on the dynamics of the polar ice caps, are recent statements by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies chief that oceans could rise as much as 82 feet in the next hundred years due to global warming.

Bear in mind that the IPCC's most recent report downgraded its expectations for such sea level increases to less than two feet...

...Of course, lost upon Hansen - and, quite frankly, the entire global warming alarmism crowd - is that if oceans were indeed so much higher three million years ago before man was emitting so much carbon dioxide, it seems quite specious to suggest that man is responsible for today's warming and sea level rise.

Yet, there was a more telling segment of this article that even further demolished the "debate is over," "the science is settled" nonsense that alarmists like soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore and his not so merry sycophants continue to disingenuously espouse:

"Certain positive feedback effects, as well as recent data on the melting of the Greenland ice sheet, were not included in the IPCC's report. 'Because of the cumbersome IPCC review process, they exclude recent information,' Prof. Hansen says, 'so they are very handicapped.'"

That's correct, James, and the point that skeptics all around the world have been making for years: the IPCC is INDEED handicapped, and DOES exclude MUCH recent information, not just that which supports your views.