Has This Blog Been Hijacked? Defending Hansen, Praising ATTP

James Hansen, former head of NASA’s GISS and long-time climate activist, finally got his paper published in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. Titled “Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2 °C global warming could be dangerous“, the paper was put online some months ago in draft format and it has received a lot of critical commentary. Perhaps surprisingly, much of the criticism has come from his own ‘side’ of the fence–from the climate orthodoxy, including practicing climate scientists.

As I understand it after a cursory reading, Hansen’s paper is advancing a hypothesis–a ‘what if’ scenario that involves melted water from glaciers and the great ice caps of Greenland and Antarctica, resulting in a cascade of unfortunate events leading to… increased melting from glaciers and the great ice caps.

James Hansen.png

It doesn’t seem like a normal scientific paper, although it reports on the results of a model run from a climate model. It seems more like a tract, almost philosophical in nature rather than a paper in Nature.

I have little doubt that the various technical critcisms of the paper are well-grounded. And I don’t share Hansen’s fears about near term drastic sea level rise. But as a non-scientist I perhaps am not as concerned with some of the things that his critics have noted and am perhaps more sympathetic to the spirit driving Hansen on.

Critics of the paper started with the title and never quit. They got Hansen to change it from ‘is highly dangerous’ to ‘could be highly dangerous.’

Surprisingly, the best summary of all this back and forth is found at And Then There’s Physics, who reblogged Peter Thorne’s take on it all. Surprising because ATTP, who I have criticized roundly and frequently, is a staunch advocate of the trumped up exaggeration of the real consensus on climate change and he doesn’t suffer criticism of consensus icons lightly. ATTP should be congratulated on his matter-of-fact publishing of Thorne’s criticism–activists have long complained that if they admitted to any chink in the edifice of climate ‘dogma’ (too strong a word, but I can’t think of another), their opponents would rush into demanding more and more and use any admission as an excuse to attack the entire construct. So well done, ATTP.

And make no mistake, James Hansen is an icon. He led the activist fight for many years, finally retiring from GISS to move into an even more activist role. He’s taken flack recently, having been called a ‘denier’ by pseudo-scientist Naomi Oreskes, because Hansen frankly acknowledges that our emissions are unlikely to decline unless we take full advantage of nuclear power. But for 25 years before that, he received what amounted to hero worship for his dual role as scientist and policy activist.

For me, this paper amounts to a summary, perhaps a coda, of Hansen’s career. He is unapologetically scared of the possibility of dramatic impacts from climate change and is unapologetically convinced that humans are driving this change. Although there are many findings in science (many recent, many historical) that indicate Hansen’s case is unlikely (to say the least), Hansen has not been convinced, as this paper makes very clear.

Whether it’s a stake in the ground or a line in the sand, Hansen’s paper is a very clear attempt to make the case that as little as 2C in warming can have dramatic and unwelcome impacts on how we live on this planet. That I don’t think he succeeds doesn’t detract from my respect for what he has done for climate science.

He deserves a forum and a respectful audience. His paper also deserves the criticism it is receiving. To me, there is no conflict in having the two together.

quote-a-good-leader-can-engage-in-a-debate-frankly-and-thoroughly-knowing-that-at-the-end-nelson-mandela-18-53-23

12 responses to “Has This Blog Been Hijacked? Defending Hansen, Praising ATTP

  1. Thoughtful post. That’s what scientists do, they “Guess” things, compute what will happen and check it in experiment. (Feynman of course). Clearly Dr. Hansen can’t check his computations in experiment, so the next best thing is put them our there for others to check. In science disagreement isn’t criticism, it’s building on what’s been proposed, although it doesn’t always feel like that.

  2. Don’t be afraid. The 2 degree world will be a very very rich world. The alternative is a slightly cooler poor world, with much, much more suffering. Because poverty is the real killer,

    … and I am the real lukewarmer.

  3. So Hansen, unlike, McKibben, is sincerely wrong. I can respect his sincerity. Yet he has remained closed minded to new information for over 30 years. And I can’t respect that. As for ATTP, why stroll through known bad neighborhoods?

  4. I enjoyed ATTP’s site and posted often.

    Then I got banned by moderator Williard.

    Now I find I have no enthusiasm for his site, because I know if I comment it will be censored.

    I admire you for reading a site knowing you are not permitted to share your thoughts there.

    Perhaps you are not banned?

  5. He deserves a forum and a respectful audience. His paper also deserves the criticism it is receiving. To me, there is no conflict in having the two together.Ahhhh, a breath of free air.

  6. I’m more worried about many other issues. Hansen seems to be a quasi charlatan.

  7. I can’t stand Hansen. He doesn’t do science, it’s actience, activism written in the form of ‘research’ ‘results’.

    I think actience is dangerous form of misinformation, because the form gives faith to claims which are not defensible. It can also create memes or scientific lore. Anything is possible in the world of pal-review.

  8. On further reflection Hansen deserves no more than what he called skeptics if his failed doomsday prophecies to receive. First his stage managed phonied up testimony in 1986. Then to his posing (lucratively) and falsely as a martyr against censorship. Then his calls for skeptics to be sent to Concentration camps or to face political trials. And of course his ridiculously over the top comparisons of Venus and Earth. His career deserves far more criticism than he is likely to receive during his lifetime.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s