James Hansen Study Revisited — Part 1

I just finished reading Dr. James Hansen’s recent article, Perception of Climate Change in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.    Talk about disappointment.   The document is pure crap.

I have long considered Goddard Administrator and well known global warming hawk James Hansen to be a smart scientist that has specific scientific prejudices.  I am less sure today.   His recent article is all politics and no science.

The study makes about every amateur mistake possible in nine pages.  The study uses a ridiculously small data set, extrapolates wildly and draws conclusions based upon the assumptions that are built into the study.

Dr Hansen issued a press release that made the news saying that he knows global warming is responsible.

The study begins by using the months of June, July and August in a 30 year period form 1951 to 1980 as a base and compares that to the recent past.   Lots and lots of statistical analysis is added showing that the recent data lies well outside normal statistical variation.

Conclusion: global warming is causing the world to have more extreme climate.

Where to begin?    I have problems with the source information, the time period used and the assertion that a correlation is proof.  Lots of statistical data, but its all Classic Global Warming Science mumbo jumbo.

Dr. Hansen’s rational for selection of data is particularly enlightening and disturbing.  Here’s the rational taken from the first page of the article.

We choose 1951–1980 as the base period for most of our illustrations, for several reasons. First, it was a time of relatively stable global temperature, prior to rapid global warming in recent decades. Second, it is recent enough for older people, especially the “baby boom” generation, to remember.Third, global temperature in 1951–1980 was within the Holocene range, and thus it is a climate that the natural world and civilization are adapted to.

Bullshit.   If the time period is unusually stable in a long history of data, it should not be used because it will cause everything else to look unusual.  He is taking data that he acknowledges is exceptional and then he is assuming it is the norm.   And he is doing it because it is a time his audience can relate to!   I’m sorry….that makes no sense.

Dr. Hansen is well aware of the warm weather in the 1930’s and he also is well aware that a period in the late 1870’s had exceptionally rapid cooling immediately after rapid warming.  He also should know that recent studies show the medieval warming period was real and much warmer than today… and he should know that the Antarctic Ice Core records show wild temperature variations.  All are good statistical reasons not to use the time period he chose.  And he did it because it is a time people can relate to.


Cherry picked data and phony excuses….in a peer reviewed scientific paper?

He tried to rationalize his data set by saying it is within the Holocene range.  All weather in the last 10,000 years is in the Holocene range….including some periods lots warmer and colder than today and man caused global warming had nothing to do with any of it.    The entire paper is a statistical waste of time.

Why bother…….climate politics of course! And he got his name in the paper too.

2 responses to “James Hansen Study Revisited — Part 1

  1. Ive also been thinking the identical thing myself lately. Grateful to see another person on the same wavelength! Nice article.

  2. Pingback: Powerful Statistical Analysis or Biased Propoganda? « xraydelta

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s