« Previous — Next »
Put Oil Firm Chiefs On Trial
23 June 2008James Hansen (of NASA), one of the world’s leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer.
Not contend with debating ideas in the public arena this taxpayer funded employee is calling for show trials. Apparently stung by his in-ability to win in the court of public opinion, Hansen like most environmental socialists is calling for a good public lynching to make his point.
You would think a NASA scientist would above all others be able to let his science stand and make it’s point?
I’d like to see a trial, but will you let the opposing viewpoints actually be heard?
This is the guy who actually got bit by the Y2K bug, and divided all his 2000 climate temperatures by zero, inflating world temperatures with bad math.
This is the guy who would not make his software code public (even the divide by zero sub-routine), something about, it is rather ugly. Ah, the ugly looking code gambit. Which says to this electronics engineer that his code has not been vetted and probably has not even had a simple code walkthrough. Yet, the world hangs in balance!
Oh dear, I’ve always said, nothing like a little real world data to ruin a perfectly good theory.
Well apparently at least some of the code has been now made public, Steve McIntyre at ClimateAudit.com has been evaluating the code and it’s not pretty. It’s pretty much what we expected.
NASA Step 2: Another Iteration
By Steve McIntyreHere are some more notes and scripts in which I’ve made considerable progress on GISS Step 2. As noted on many occasions, the code is a demented mess - you’d never know that NASA actually has software policies (e.g. here or here . I guess that Hansen and associates regard themselves as being above the law. At this point, I haven’t even begum to approach analysis of whether the code accomplishes its underlying objective. There are innumerable decoding issues - John Goetz, an experienced programmer, compared it to descending into the hell described in a Stephen King novel. I compared it to the meaningless toy in the PPM children’s song - it goes zip when it moves, bop when it stops and whirr when it’s standing still. The endless machinations with binary files may have been necessary with Commodore 64s, but are totally pointless in 2008.
Considering we are being pressed to spend Trillions of dollars I think it would be worth the 10 or 20 million dollars to do a real software development program including system requirements, system segment specification, all the way down to unit testing. The type of project you would need to write software for commercial airline passenger use. It could be done easily within a year, 6 months if you really push it. The results would lay bare to the world exactly all the assumptions and model adjustments being made and result in a high degree of confidence in the results. I would imagine Universities around the world would be willing to participate and review the project.
He (Hansen) will tell the House select committee on energy independence and global warming this afternoon that he is now 99% certain that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has already risen beyond the safe level.
Contrast the temperature graph above with the CO2 concentration graphs below.
See the cat? See the cradle? Is not temperature supposed to go UP with increased CO2?
For those of you who like to see the data, I submit this post How Not To Measure Temperature, Part 64 - Estimating biases and comparing to GISS Homogeneity Adjustments
Yes, the data (integrity) is really that bad.
No comments yet