Dr. James Hansen of GISS is a Liar and a Fraud

Dr. Hansen purposely and with malice aforethought manipulates actual temperature observations in order to perpetuate a global warming hoax.

If I’m wrong, he can sue me.  But he won’t, because he’s a fraud.

Author: William Hennessy

Co-founder of St. Louis Tea Party Coalition and Nationwide Chicago Tea Party Persuasive design expertLatest book: Turning On Trump: An Evolution (2016)Author of The Conservative Manifest (1993), Zen Conservatism (2009), Weaving the Roots (2011), and Fight to Evolve (2016)I believe every person deserves the dignity of meaningful work as the only path to human flourishing.

33 Comments on “Dr. James Hansen of GISS is a Liar and a Fraud

  1. First Hennesey has to brainwash the monkeys and convince them the world is cooling, even though it’s warming. And then he rapes them. Proven fact – 35,000 scientists signed a petition attesting to it.

  2. It has become difficult to discuss the issue with rational discource as the al gore camp is not reasonable, informed, or open to discussion. It is intellectual thuggery to force your opinion down out throats with little or no proof and no corrolation. Will someone please epplain the scientific method to the loser Al Gore?

  3. Hi Roy,
    Reading Janice’s characterization of the AGW crowd’s petulant attitude, I immediately thought of the fellow(?) at OpenMind and Hansen’s crowd at RealClimate. They have no patience for anyone questioning their line of reasoning and resort to childish name-calling and very personal insults in attempts to dismiss any challenges. Some of their arguments are sound, I’m sure. But their reactions betray an underlying insecurity.

  4. One more time in answer to Janice — when the AGW’ers are challenged they don’t simply stamp their feet and cry, “It’s all OK!” They present a good sound argument for their position. If you know of anyone on the con side of the issue who does as you say, then shun that person for the same reason you should shun James Hansen and the U.N.

    I would welcome your post identifying the person or person’s you refer to because I would then pay them no more attention than I give to Dr. Hansen.

  5. I suspect I should clarify my previous post a bit. First, I make no claim to know all the answers. On the other hand, having realized that the closed mind was everywhere in evidence regarding global warming, I have spent a lot of time over the last five years looking into the position of both sides of the issue. The first thing you discover is that the pro global warmers don’t expose their arguments and data easily. So there’s not much to look at (do they have something to hide?). The second thing you find is that those who doubt the whole thing do not assert that they know everything. They publish their data and eagerly look for what others in the field may have to say about it. This is the scientific method at work — but not so for the James Hansens or the U.N.’s IPCC.

    The doubters are growing in number constantly as it becomes ever more evident that the global warmers have an ulterior motive and as it becomes ever more obvious that they misrepresent their data and its meaning.

    By the way, the doubters have credentials at least as good as James Hansen’s or anyone at the UN, and they present by far the stronger case.

    As for getting Hansen fired, it won’t happen. NASA is afraid of getting embroiled in a charge of discrimination and censorship. This has already happened once when NASA tried to shorten Hansen’s leash. Since he seems impervious to being embarrassed by his own flawed position he’ll be around for a long time.

    What we need is a campaign to get our representatives and senators to pay attention to the complete picture. I’ve bombarded my own senators and representative with a demand for open debate and I’ll continue. I hope all who read this will do the same.

  6. Whenever anyone is so one hundred percent certain that he knows exactly what’s going on, what it all means and what needs to be done about it, then I’m immediately suspicious.

    Science is not that way. The closed mind is not in search of the truth, but on a crusade for some personal reason. We need to shun such “scientists”.

  7. As a private pilot, about 10 years ago I ABANDONDED using the weather services to airmen, in favor of making my own assesments off data available on the internet.

    I have YET to be wrong!

    Everything from jet stream, to storm fronts, to likelihood of thermals and 8000′ (VFR) turbulence is very predictable with various internet data sources.

    I’ve also taken to plotting seasonal temp trends, using Weather Underground data. A couple local observers are quite good, and have about 10 years of records.

    Trend for this year (Minnesota) is 11 F below last year.

    “Snow Time”, estimated by moisture trends and temp is Nov 1 to Nov 10 this year. (Not until about Dec. 17 last year.)

    Polar ice pack is COMPLETE and UNBROKEN this year.

    Question: Do we have to LOCK IN AMERICA down to Houston and
    Pensacola to start getting people to pay attention to Svendsmark?


  8. I’ve offered $10,000 to sponser a debate with Dr. Hansen and Anthony Watts if it occurs on FOX. I’ll up that to $20,000 with the money going to the winner of the debate – voting American Idol style.

    The debate topic will be ONLY actual global temperatures, the accuracy of Dr. Hansen’s GISS temp system, and his corrections, and an explaination of the global cooling of 2007 and 2008.

    No polar bears, baby seals, glaciers, ice sheets, etc.

  9. Hi Janice,

    There is no debate the data Dr. James Hansen produces is manipulated. The only people that would make a statement like yours are people who have not educated themselves. Even big supporters of Global Warming would not debate the manipulation.

    The data manipulation has now been clearly shown to “manufacture” global warming due to the “corrections” that Dr. Hansen admits he makes. Once again, there is no debate on the fact he makes “corrections”, and that the “corrections” are made in the direction of increased heating.

    The only real debate is: are the corrections valid, is there malice, is Hansen motivated by science, money, or fame.

    The web is full of detailed explaination (see Watts up with that website) of what I think is fraud on the part of Dr. Hansen. I think suspect one day that he and others might face criminal penalties for this scientific fraud. Dr. Hansen’s preditions made before Congress back in 1988 are now ~1.2C wrong – using ONLY his “corrected” data.

  10. IceAnomaly, Hansen’s whole existence is manipulating the data, except he calls it by a nicer-sounding name: “Corrections”. There are corrections for how many lights can be seen from satellites (indicates how urban or rural an area is), though this satellite information was taken years ago and never updated. There are corrections based on a base year, before which temperatures are made cooler and after which temperatures are made warmer. There are even corrections based on the temperatures from other stations in the immediate area, the immediate area being defined as anything within 1000 miles.

    These allegations are based on the publicly available source code that Hansen uses, code that is written in an obscure version of Fortran. When the code is deciphered, and when the particular data files are applied, sometimes the answers don’t come out the same as what Hansen has published. This is because Hansen takes those publicly available data sets, and “corrects” them before using them. Those corrections are not easily deciphered or reproducible.

    Anything that Hansen touches becomes more twisted than a corkscrew.

  11. Hansen’s work IS public. The code for the GISS temperature products is available. The station data for every bit of data in the analysis is available. Hansen’s team doesn’t take those measurements – they collate data from other temperature monitoring systems. The code for the GCMs is available.

    Hennessey, you just made an unsupported public accusation that Hansen is manipulating the data. Do you have even one shred of evidence that there is any ‘manipulation?’ That there is ANY adjustment of data, or any published results, that don’t come directly out of the available code, and for reasons explained in the publications?

    Or are you speaking without evidence and taking advantage of the fact that your blog is meaningless, as are you, to claim some kind of victory when you are (properly) ignored?

    Even ONE piece of evidence?

  12. I salute you sir, and will be willing to assist with any litigation fees. However, I doubt Hansen will come out of his shell.

    This means we can ignore him, as he is evidently a liar, fraud, charlaton and snake oil salesman who will not even defend himself from such accusations; therefore he admits they are true.

  13. Yes, Hansen will ignore Hennessey just as Gore ignores anyone who challenges him to debate.

  14. Excellent tactic.

    Like many other flim flam men, Hansen doesn’t DARE open himself to DISCOVERY in a court of law!!

    Guess I won’t have to contribute to your defense fund!!

  15. Hansen is a public servant and his work belongs to the people, not to Hansen. He needs to make everything public. Post it on the internet. Everything — raw data, revised data, source code, notes, etc., etc.

  16. I agree that Hansen is a liar. I also agree that since the monkeys dress provocatively, they are to blame for the rapes.

  17. Mr. Zero, the whole idea behind calling out Dr. Hansen is to actually identify yourself so he can, you know, sue somebody.

    Hiding behind a pseudonym defeats the purpose.

  18. Just as much evidence for your comment, as there is for anthropomorphic global warming. And when the AGW’ers are challenged on their beliefs, they stamp their little feet and say “It just IS! OK?!”

    Hope he tries to sue you. Would be great to have all their data and source code out in the open for once. Of course, that is assuming they actually have data and source code . . .

  19. Bill Hennessy rapes monkeys.

    If I’m wrong, he can sue me. But honestly, he’s too busy raping those monkeys.

  20. With respect to: “Dr. Hansen might claim that you are acting with actual malice.” ……….

    Is there a problem if ‘actual malice’ is present when telling the truth? : ^ )))

  21. Mr. Hennessy:

    Are you thinking of the term “malice aforethought” ? Malice aforethought is a term use to describe the necessary intent to be found guilty of common-law murder.

    A better term for your charge might be “actual malice.” Actual malice is a term used to describe a high level of intent in defamation suits. A person who displays actual malice makes an untrue statement with knowledge of its falsity or with a reckless disregard for its truth or falsity.

    Dr. Hansen might claim that you are acting with actual malice.

    Good luck.

  22. Two thumbs up to Bill Hennessey for calling out Hansen on his manipulation of data to advance his alarmist agenda.
    Next target: Al Gore.

  23. This is a strong accusation. And while I suspect it is true it needs much more evidence to back it up.

  24. You should cross-post this in the comments section of a couple of blogs where you know he’ll see it. I suggest realclimate, where his underlings are, or desmogblog, which they seem to have some sort of connection to.

  25. Hansen would just reply to this accusation with what Gore says: “I believe it is appropriate to have an over representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (AGW)is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to what the solutions are.” In other words, lie.

    They are both pathetic.

  26. (But please correct the spelling, it’s “malice aforethought”…)

  27. You should add one of those “clock-timer” widgets to your page indicating how long it’s been since you made your accusation public, i.e. how long Hansen has had to either sue you or at least respond by demanding a retraction.

    I suspect you’re right, he’ll pretend to ignore you.

    More bloggers should link to this page.

Comments are closed.