• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Did James Hansen Unwittingly Prove the Null Hypothesis of AGW?

Jack Hays

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
In Washington a gaffe is defined as telling the truth by accident. Did James Hansen just do that?

"The only place in the world where CO2 increase causes a temperature increase is in climate models, including those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The assumption that a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase is central to the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis. If incorrect, failure of this assumption alone should guarantee rejection of the hypothesis. In proper scientific procedure if the hypothesis is rejected the null hypothesis is considered. In this case, the null hypothesis is that CO2 is not causing global warming. The IPCC never considered the null hypothesis. Ironically and unwittingly, James Hansen proved the null hypothesis in his first major attempt to push his agenda that CO2 is causing global warming or climate change. . . .

"Hansen limited his research and climate models to human causes of climate change. He produced two projections that argued CO2 would continue to increase. In doing so, he predetermined the outcome. He confirmed his hypothesis that continued human production would cause global warming, but only in the models. However, apparently driven by his political agenda, he had to convince politicians that a reduction in CO2 output would solve the problem. To do this, he ran his model to show what happens with no CO2 increase. It produced a curve that fits the actual temperature trend in the intervening 27 years. This is the result you expect if you accept the null hypothesis that CO2 from any source is not causing global warming. Thanks, Jim, enjoy your retirement."

Climate News / Opinion
Did James Hansen Unwittingly Prove The Null Hypothesis Of AGW?

Guest Opinion; Dr. Tim Ball The only place in the world where CO2 increase causes a temperature increase is in climate models, including those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The assumption that a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase is central to the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis. If incorrect, failure of…
 
I don't know anything about climate change. My guess is you don't either. I can recognize a paid industry lobbyist and a nut when I see one.
 
mmi said:
I don't know anything about climate change. My guess is you don't either. I can recognize a paid industry lobbyist and a nut when I see one.
Click to expand...

And I can recognize someone who would rather go ad hominem than discuss an interesting proposition.
 
Jack Hays said:
In Washington a gaffe is defined as telling the truth by accident. Did James Hansen just do that?

"The only place in the world where CO2 increase causes a temperature increase is in climate models, including those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The assumption that a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase is central to the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis. If incorrect, failure of this assumption alone should guarantee rejection of the hypothesis. In proper scientific procedure if the hypothesis is rejected the null hypothesis is considered. In this case, the null hypothesis is that CO2 is not causing global warming. The IPCC never considered the null hypothesis. Ironically and unwittingly, James Hansen proved the null hypothesis in his first major attempt to push his agenda that CO2 is causing global warming or climate change. . . .

"Hansen limited his research and climate models to human causes of climate change. He produced two projections that argued CO2 would continue to increase. In doing so, he predetermined the outcome. He confirmed his hypothesis that continued human production would cause global warming, but only in the models. However, apparently driven by his political agenda, he had to convince politicians that a reduction in CO2 output would solve the problem. To do this,
he ran his model to show what happens with no CO2 increase. It produced a curve that fits the actual temperature trend in the intervening 27 years.
Click to expand...
This is the result you expect if you accept the null hypothesis that CO2 from any source is not causing global warming. Thanks, Jim, enjoy your retirement."

Climate News / Opinion
Did James Hansen Unwittingly Prove The Null Hypothesis Of AGW?

Guest Opinion; Dr. Tim Ball The only place in the world where CO2 increase causes a temperature increase is in climate models, including those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The assumption that a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase is central to the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis. If incorrect, failure of…
Click to expand...

That ... is ... hilarious.
Thanks very much.
 
mmi said:
I don't know anything about climate change. My guess is you don't either. I can recognize a paid industry lobbyist and a nut when I see one.
Click to expand...

But is what Ball claimed true?
That Hansen's model without a CO2 increase is actually what occurred in the intervening 27 years?
Or doesn't it matter to you?
It would look very bad for you if you say it doesn't matter.
 
Jack Hays said:
And I can recognize someone who would rather go ad hominem than discuss an interesting proposition.
Click to expand...

Is it an unjustified ad hominem attack to point out this guy's history? Would you find Dr. Vinny Boombotz's approach to healthcare "interesting"? I suppose poor ol' Doc Ball just doesn't get any respect.
 
mmi said:
Is it an unjustified ad hominem attack to point out this guy's history? Would you find Dr. Vinny Boombotz's approach to healthcare "interesting"? I suppose poor ol' Doc Ball just doesn't get any respect.
Click to expand...

You have pointed out nothing that has any bearing on the validity of his proposition. That is indeed an ad hominem.
 
Jack Hays said:
You have pointed out nothing that has any bearing on the validity of his proposition. That is indeed an ad hominem.
Click to expand...

But is it unjustified? Is it possible for someone to have a reputation that logically leads to a conclusion that their pronouncements should not be taken seriously? Are you a climatologist?
 
mmi said:
But is it unjustified? Is it possible for someone to have a reputation that logically leads to a conclusion that their pronouncements should not be taken seriously? Are you a climatologist?
Click to expand...

I'm a historian by educational background. Even if every allegation and innuendo in the links you provided were true (not conceded) that would still be irrelevant in a discussion of his proposition.
 
mmi said:
I don't know anything about climate change. My guess is you don't either. I can recognize a paid industry lobbyist and a nut when I see one.
Click to expand...

When somebody that doesn't even know anything about a subject is able to immediately spot complete nonsense... you know it is bad.

Every day there is a new (or recycled) "climate change is wrong because x". To date there have been over 1.6 trillion Earth shattering finds on agw being false. If any of them were true, they'd only need 1. :lol:
 
Verax said:
When somebody that doesn't even know anything about a subject is able to immediately spot complete nonsense... you know it is bad.

Every day there is a new (or recycled) "climate change is wrong because x". To date there have been over 1.6 trillion Earth shattering finds on agw being false. If any of them were true, they'd only need 1. :lol:
Click to expand...

Another poster determined to avoid the substance of the proposition.:roll:
 
bubbabgone said:
But is what Ball claimed true? That Hansen's model without a CO2 increase is actually what occurred in the intervening 27 years?
Click to expand...

I have no idea.

>>Or doesn't it matter to you?

No, it doesn't.

>>It would look very bad for you if you say it doesn't matter.

You may feel that way, but I don't. "Dr." David Duke has a Ph.D. in history, but I don't take his views on ethnography seriously. Ball isn't even a climatologist; his degree is in geography. If you guys wanna examine the issue of climate change seriously, and be taken seriously regarding it, I figure you'd be well-advised to steer clear of this hack.

Jack Hays said:
the links you provided … irrelevant in a discussion of his proposition.
Click to expand...

I don't feel qualified to discuss the merits. Respectfully, I don't think you are either. In my view, anything this guy says is outside the realm of being worthy of serious consideration. Can you find a credible source that supports his contention?
 
mmi said:
Can you find a credible source that supports his contention?
Click to expand...

It is a brand new contention. That's why it is an interesting discussion topic. If denial makes you comfortable then I suppose you will continue.
 
mmi said:
I have no idea.

>>Or doesn't it matter to you?

No, it doesn't.

>>It would look very bad for you if you say it doesn't matter.

You may feel that way, but I don't. "Dr." David Duke has a Ph.D. in history, but I don't take his views on ethnography seriously. Ball isn't even a climatologist; his degree is in geography. If you guys wanna examine the issue of climate change seriously, and be taken seriously regarding it, I figure you'd be well-advised to steer clear of this hack.



I don't feel qualified to discuss the merits. Respectfully, I don't think you are either. In my view, anything this guy says is outside the realm of being worthy of serious consideration. Can you find a credible source that supports his contention?
Click to expand...

So you do not care what the data says just who says it.

Not really getting this science idea are you.
 
Jack Hays said:
It is a brand new contention. That's why it is an interesting discussion topic.
Click to expand...

I find it uninteresting by definition because I believe the source has zero credibility. If you can point to someone who does, I will examine the issue.

>>If denial makes you comfortable then I suppose you will continue.

I'm comfortable with reason.

Tim the plumber said:
So you do not care what the data says just who says it.
Click to expand...

That depends. When the person saying it is an established industry lobbyist/hack/liar/nut, I do care who says it.

>>Not really getting this science idea are you.

I dunno. Fill me in on yer climatological analysis. Or are you, like me and everyone else who has posted in this thread, completely unqualified to make a useful judgement about "what the data says"?

I'm dismissing it out-of-hand because Ball has ZERO credibility. Are you saying it's worthy of consideration because it supports a climate change denial political agenda?
 
mmi said:
I find it uninteresting by definition because I believe the source has zero credibility. If you can point to someone who does, I will examine the issue.

>>If denial makes you comfortable then I suppose you will continue.

I'm comfortable with reason.
Click to expand...

I think the source has ample credibility for the topic, so I find your dodging to be nothing more than denial.
 
Jack Hays said:
The assumption that a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase is central to the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis. If incorrect, failure of this assumption alone should guarantee rejection of the hypothesis. In proper scientific procedure if the hypothesis is rejected the null hypothesis is considered. In this case, the null hypothesis is that CO2 is not causing global warming. The IPCC never considered the null hypothesis.
Click to expand...

Null hypothesis considered and rejected. AGW is real.

Attanasio, A., Pasini, A., & Triacca, U. (2013). Granger causality analyses for climatic attribution. Atmospheric and Climate Sciences, 2013.

However, none of that changes the fact that Dr. Tim Ball is indeed a professional science denier who doesn't have a shred of credibility or even common sense.
 
Poor Debater said:
Null hypothesis considered and rejected. AGW is real.

Attanasio, A., Pasini, A., & Triacca, U. (2013). Granger causality analyses for climatic attribution. Atmospheric and Climate Sciences, 2013.

However, none of that changes the fact that Dr. Tim Ball is indeed a professional science denier who doesn't have a shred of credibility or even common sense.
Click to expand...

And yet, Hansen ran his model to show what happens with no CO2 increase. It produced a curve that fits the actual temperature trend in the intervening 27 years. This is the result you expect if you accept the null hypothesis that CO2 from any source is not causing global warming. So . . . apparently Hansen doesn't agree.
 
Remember that thing about binary question headlines?
 
mmi said:
I have no idea.

>>Or doesn't it matter to you?

No, it doesn't.

>>It would look very bad for you if you say it doesn't matter.

You may feel that way, but I don't. "Dr." David Duke has a Ph.D. in history, but I don't take his views on ethnography seriously. Ball isn't even a climatologist; his degree is in geography. If you guys wanna examine the issue of climate change seriously, and be taken seriously regarding it, I figure you'd be well-advised to steer clear of this hack.



I don't feel qualified to discuss the merits. Respectfully, I don't think you are either. In my view, anything this guy says is outside the realm of being worthy of serious consideration. Can you find a credible source that supports his contention?
Click to expand...

But Ball is claiming it was Hansen's model.
You have a problem with Hansen?
He's the grandaddy of AGW.
You're in an untenable position, my friend, unless you yourself have explored Hansen's model or have read a piece that challenges Ball claim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom