Why do global warming deniers claim James Hansen is a "political hack" or a data falsifier?

Question

James Hansen is the head of NASA GISS. He was among the first scientists to predict the ensuing global warming in the late 1970s, and made one of the first global climate models which accurately projected the subsequent global warming in 1988. He's battled NASA administrators who tried to influence his public statements about the causes of climate change and censorship of climate-related press releases by the White House.

Despite all of these accomplishments, AGW deniers consistently claim that Hansen is a "political hack" or that the falisifies data (even though other groups like the Hadley Centre have shown the same warming as NASA GISS).

On what do deniers base these ad hominem attacks on James Hansen?

Answer 1

Classic political attack. Attack the messenger, because the message is solid. Why else would they attack him? AGW put simply means humans will have to reduce or cease the use of fossil fuels. There are two camps against that and some are members of both.

1. People who believe man can in no way harm the environment.

2. Too much invested in fossil fuel infrastructure.

It's not hard to see why they would be against him. People don't like change, but change doesn't care. Regardless of how many deniers are on YA, and they are a tiny percentage of the population, the movement to a more sustainable future cannot be stopped. 70% of the US now believe in GW and overseas it is moreso. The only reason we are a lower percentage than the rest of the world (besides having the largest cars and homes we don't want to get rid of) is we, the US, have a better organized propaganda machine against mainstream science.

Answer 2

There are so many scientists how are perverting science it is hard to know who is being truthful and who is not.  Here are some examples of perversion.  

Joworowski claims the pre industrial levels of co2 used by the IPCC is a fraud.  His study is backed up by Beck.

There were 36 estimates of the atmospheric CO2 half-time based upon experimental measurements published between 1957 and 1992 (59). These range between 2 and 25 years, with a mean of 7.5, a median of 7.6, and an up per range

average of about 10. Of the 36 values, 33 are 10 years or less.  After 1992 when co2 became politicized the life span all of a sudden increased. Another perversion of science.

In 1995 David Deming, a geoscientist at the University of Oklahoma, published a study in Science4 that demonstrated the technique by generating a 150-year climate history for North America. Here, in his own words, is what happened next.

"With the publication of the article in Science, I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them, someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. So one of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”"

Is Hanson one of these people who is perverting science.  My gut feeling says yes.

Answer 3

These people are just upset that James Hansen decided to ignore the censorship on climate reports by NASA designed for the benefit of the public and Congress.

NASA’s mission statement used to read, “[Our mission is] to understand and protect our home planet; to explore the universe and search for life; to inspire the next generation of explorers ...” Because of this mission, Dr. Hansen felt a moral obligation to rebuke the censors and he began to speak out more publicly on the issue of global warming.

One late night in early 2006, with the stroke of a pen, some administrator remove the “to understand and protect our home planet” clause from NASA’s mission statement.[1] I’m positive that the clause will be restored as soon as Bush is out of the White House.

However Dr. Hansen has continued to conduct interviews without permission from his censors, so the deniers must resort to "swift-boating" the scientists.

Answer 4

LOL!  Let's lump all opponents to this farce into one group based on two tongue-in-cheek answers given to one of your biased questions, shall we...

Being one of those two answerers (the one to claim he's a "data falsifier")...try reading it again with a sense of humor (you can borrow mine if you can't find your own).  

After all:  AGW theory is such a joke, I couldn't possibly take it seriously.

Answer 5

Whether or not he is a political hack is immaterial to the whole scientific discussion.  Hard data doesn't lie, so I wouldn't worry about anyone claiming this.  After all, everyone has their own axe to grind and one way to try and marginalize the claims of an individual is to claim they are biased.

Data falsifier is a much more serious accusation.  I would simply ask those that think he falsifiers data to point out what data is falsified.  Then have the claim verified by peer review and analysis.  Once we have a conclusion to this claim we can move on, one way or another.

Answer 6

Why keep this kind of stuff going on and on? Why not fix the problem by growing more biomass? Why not recycle all the trash being dumped in landfill? Why not make oil out of all the stuff that adds CO2 to the atmosphere instead of harping about whois right or wrong?