Krugman ("Swift Boating the Planet") says global warming skeptic Patrick Michaels of UVA committed "fraud pure and simple" against NASA climatologist James Hansen, and that the phony charge "has become a staple of climate change skeptics, from Michael Crichton to Robert Novak."

Krugman says Michaels "presented a chart supposedly taken from a 1988 paper written by Dr. Hansen and others, which showed a curve of rising temperatures considerably steeper than the trend that has actually taken place...The original paper showed a range of possibilities, and the actual rise in temperature has fallen squarely in the middle of that range. So how did Dr. Michaels make it seem as if Dr. Hansen's prediction was wildly off? Why, he erased all the lower curves, leaving only the curve that the original paper described as being 'on the high side of reality.'"

Comments

[Bubba]

Another example of Krugman making it up as he goes along. Thanks for alerting us to his latest mumbo-jumbo, Ed.

[Ed Cone]

What is he making up, Bubba?

He makes specific statements about the chart being edited; about the information that was edited out; about the accuracy of the original information; and the use of the edited version.

Do you have a factual reubuttal to any or all of these points? If so, please post it.

[Bubba]

Here's some more on Krugman's nonsense on this subject

Key point:

"From what New York Times ombudsman Daniel Okrent wrote in his column on May 22, 2005 it’s not surprising:

'Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults.'

Therefore it’s laughable when Krugman writes, 'Instead of facing up to hard questions, they (conservatives) try to suggest that anyone who asks those questions is crazy.'

With that said, it appears Krugman should be his own biggest critic."

Krugman being his own biggest critic? Let's not hold our collective breath.

[PotatoStew]

I sense a pattern here.

Ed: X says Y (where Y is a statement that can be shown to be true or false)

Bubba: X (has no credibility/is lying/is not liked by me/suffers from BDS/etc)

Ed: Do you have any evidence that contradicts statement Y?

Bubba: Key point - Statement Z (where Z does not address any evidence directly bearing on statement Y)

Ed: That doesn't address statement Y

Bubba: (blah blah/woof woof/thank you confirming my evaluation)

Repeat as necessary.

[Bubba]

Given Krugman's lack of credibility on THIS VERY SUBJECT, I suggest you find evidence that supports his claim, Ed.

Then perhaps we might be able to discuss his point.

Otherwise, I think we're done here.

[Ed Cone]

So...a Princeton economist publishes declarative statements in a national newspaper.

An anonymous blog commenter responds, without any supporting evidence, that the statements aren't true...

...and the next logical move in this "debate" is to shore up Krugman's statements?

Wow. The Word of Bubba is mighty. In the mind of Bubba.

But since we do strive to be a full-service blog, here's a link supporting Krugman's account of Michaels' behavior -- first underplaying, then erasing two of Hansen's three projected scenarios, including the middle one that proved accurate.

[Roch101]

Here, Bubba, let me save you the effort:

Woof. Woof.

[Mr. Sun]

Stew: The pattern you observe in Bubba in action.

[Bubba]

So THAT'S where Krugman got his unsubstantiated story! He ripped it from Lambert, and all it was was Lambert's biased OPINION! And YOU try to pass it off as fact!!!!

Look at the comment from "Terry" near the end. This goes to Hansen's lack of credibilty here

Key point:

"Sorry. Once a distortionist, always a distortionist."

and

here

Excerpts:

"James Hansen and the global warming zealots are having their funds shut down due to the promotion of intentional fallacious research and the blatant omission of current empirical data highlighting solar and other influence. Hansen’s research also omits more recent studies of ice core samples, lake bottom samples, and tree ring studies all showing a natural cyclical occurrence the Earth has seen many times before."

"The true victim is certainly not Hansen, but science itself. Today’s political ‘climate’ (pun intended) has unfortunately hijacked science itself for ones’ own political agenda. The new motto is 'forget the facts, what’s the payoff?'."

This whole thread goes to the lack of credibilty by BOTH Krugman and Hansen. Yet you (and Roch and Stew in support) respond predictably. Why am I not surprised?

You should have quit when you were only moderately embarrased on this issue, Ed.

[Tim Lambert]

No Bubba, it's not just my opinion. I got the story from Hansen himself. It's all there in black and white in Michael's testimony to Congress.

[Ed Cone]

Well, now Tim Lambert has weighed in. Thanks, Tim, glad to have you here, but don't count on persuading Bubba via logic or documented evidence, he is playing another game, apparently for an audience of one (himself).

Bubba, Paul Krugman published the Michaels-altering-Hansen's-work story in the New York Times today. It's a fairly well-read newspapr, and one supposes that if the story is not true, there will be a fairly large stink made about it.

Your assumption that Krugman "got the story" from Lambert is unsubstantiated. I just pulled Lambert off a quick Google search, he's hardly the only person out there recounting this version of events.

As I've pointed out before, a serious problem for your declarations of victory is that the posts and comment threads still exist above them. Thus anyone who can read this can see the bankruptcy of your arguments, or non-arguments.

Meanwhile, to people who email asking me to ban Bubba: I'm not going to do it. He is welcome to make a fool of himself here, although I wish he would particpate in the conversation instead.

Others ask me to just ignore him. That, I will consider.

[Bubba]

"I got the story from Hansen himself."

What documentation exists to support Hansen's story?

[Bubba]

Your condescending remarks are par for the cours, Ed. Why don't you humor your entourage?.

This whole thing is about Krugman's credibity on this subject (and other subjects), as described by the NYT's ombudsman.

Hansen has serious crediblity problems on his own.

When you combine the two circumstances, the whole premise of the column becomes a ludicrous reflection on the politically correct crowd who can not endure the criticism of their sacred cow issue.

[PotatoStew]

"What documentation exists to support Hansen's story?"

From the Cato institute, what appears to be Michael's testimony before congress:

http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-pm072998.html

Here are the pictures that Michael used in his testimony (linked from the above article):

http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-pm072998-2.html

Is there anything missing from Figure 1?

[Bubba]

And by the way, THIS is what's known as "making it up as he goes along".....

"Al Gore and others who hope to turn global warming into a real political issue are going to have to get tougher, because the other side doesn't play by any known rules."

[Bubba]

More detail on Krugman's nonsense regarding climate change.

"In light of all this, it would be easy to accuse Paul Krugman and Think Progress of 'distorting evidence,' 'misleading readers,' and engaging in a 'disinformation campaign.' I decline to return their favor. But I will permit myself the modest suggestion that, in the future, they strive to have the slightest idea what they are talking about."

[Jim Caserta]

From Bubba's link:

I[Steorts] wrote that “global average temperature has risen by about 1 degree Celsius or less since the late 1800s.” No serious person on either side of the global-warming debate questions this. Nor do serious commentators doubt that human activity, by increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, contributes to global warming. I acknowledged all of these points.

emphasis added.

[PotatoStew]

Bubba, you asked what evidence existed to support Hansen's story. I provided links that seem to prove the exact thing that Krugman claimed in his article. No comment on this? After all, you told Ed that once evidence was supplied, we could discuss Krugman's point, which was that Michaels committed fraud by misrepresenting Hansen's predictions. Care to address that now, rather than continuing to present us with red herrings?

[Bubba]

Go back and read my posts, Stew.

My point all along was that Krugman has no credibility on this whole topic of climate change/global warming. Both he and Hansen, have major credibility problems in this area, as documented by the links already provided, and by an substantial amount of other information not provided for brevity's sake.

As you can see by reviewing my comments, I didn't even discuss the Michaels report until my THIRD comment. I brought it up at that point ONLY because you and Ed, and susequently Roch, completely missed my point about Krugman's credibility, and responded in the not unexpected manner.

The issue of Professor Micheal's report to Congress is a minor issue. Krugman does his usual song and dance while blowing this point out of all proportion in a desperate attempt to deflect attention away form the real issue, Hansen's credibility.

On that point, some evidence exists that Hansen talked mainly of Theory "A" for some time after the paper was published. One of the commenters on Lambert's blog mentioned it, too.

My other reason for considering Krugmman's theme to be irrelevant is the time frame. Michael's "transgression" took place eight years ago. WHY is it now suddenly a big deal for Krugman?

I have asked Dr. Michaels to comment. I will report ther results, but I do not expect to hear anything very soon, given the nature of the article.

To Jim:

I don't recall debating otherwise, but the actual numbers and trends are still debatable.

On the other recent thread, we discussed the fact that solar radition caused as much as 2/3 of any global warming, with the remainder being effect of "greenhouse emissions". We also established that the human contribution of "greenhouse emmissions" ranged between a high of %5 to a low of .28% of the total, depending on whether you take water vapor into account.

[Ed Cone]

Bubba, we've danced this dance before.

You dismiss out of hand a post containing declarative statements.

When asked for evidence to support your challenge, you provide none, but demand validation of the original statements.

After a while, you say, oh, I meant something specific in the column, or, I meant the columnist has no credibilty with me on this subject.

Perhaps you could be more specific in your original comments?

[PotatoStew]

Bubba, I did read your comments, and my point is that they are completely dodging the subject of the original post.

Ed posted a specific claim by Krugman, and you go off talking about everything other than that specific claim. I get it that you think Krugman has no credibility on the issue, but that has no bearing on whether or not his claim in this case is true. And that's a demonstratable fact, since we've presented evidence showing that his claim is indeed true. Whether or not Krugman has credibility, his original claim in this case - and the actual subject of the original post - has been shown to be true.

And that should serve as a good demonstration of why it's unhelpful to keep saying "X has no credibility" rather than actually engaging the specific claims made in the original topic.

[Jim Caserta]

It's a big deal for Krugman because Hansen is talking publicly. Or this if you're "select".

Is science being politicized? Whether we're talking global warming, HPV vaccines, or family planning raw science should be known, without political filtering.

[Bubba]

Once again Ed, I am not responsible for your lack of comprehension. My comments made it clear what I was talking about. I'm sorry your arrogance won't let you deal with that fact.

Stew, regarding this:

"I get it that you think Krugman has no credibility on the issue, but that has no bearing on whether or not his claim in this case is true."

I never said it did. They are two seperate and distinct issues. And if Hansen was discussing Theory A as the predominant theory after the 1988 paper, then Michael's report to congress is NOT inaccurate. Left unanswered is the question of WHY Krugman wants to talk about an issue that is eight years old.

Jim, none of those articles have to do with his issue with Michaels, unless you want to make a case that somehow, in some way, it's all a great big conspiracy to make Hansen look bad. As I have documented in earlier links on this thread, Hansen does quite a good job at making himseldf look bad.

Let's see what Michaels has to say.

[Jim Caserta]

Bubba, doctoring someone's figures is not cool in the science/engineering world. Krugman is illustrating an attack tactic that has been used against Hansen and Hansen will probably endure a lot of attacks in the coming months. Now a more interesting question is what is motivating the people that are sanitizing the work of Hansen & others?

People don't like to prepare or sacrifice for future problems. Why plan & be ready for a cat-5 hurricane to hit New Orleans, it hasn't happened in 75+ years? If you think about beyond probable worst-case, you end up planning for worst-case, and actually being ready for a little bit less than worst case. The earth is warming, and scientists have ideas of things we can do to reduce the rate of warming. We can choose to take their advice (which are good ideas for many reasons), or we can ignore the problem until it gets so bad that any action has minimal impact.

[Bubba]

"....until it gets so bad that any action has minimal

The point is that the effect of any action is moot, because any change that could be made produces absolutely no practical real world effect, at a cost that is too high to pay.

[PotatoStew]

"I never said it did. They are two seperate and distinct issues."

Bubba, *you* are the one linking them together. Ed posted about a specific claim of Krugman's. You responded by saying, "Another example of Krugman making it up as he goes along." This statement clearly indicates that you're dismissing the original claim. When pressed for a more concrete reason for your dismissal of the claim, you begin *attacking Krugman's credibility*.

If the original claim (and your dismissal of it) and the question of Krugman's credibility are indeed two separate and distinct issues, then why did you bring up credibility when pressed for a concrete reason for your dismissal of the original claim? Either you were trying to link the two, or you were trying to change the subject and avoid explaining why you rejected the original claim. You're making no sense here Bubba.

[Bubba]

"This statement clearly indicates that you're dismissing the original claim."

No it doesn't.

By the way, I have heard from Professor Michaels. I am awaiting permission to post the information he shared with me.

[PotatoStew]

So you're saying that, "Another example of Krugman making it up as he goes along," does NOT indicate that you are dismissing his claim?

Ok Bubba, whatever you say.

[Ed Cone]

Stew, he's also saying it about the thread I linked a few comments back, which he kicked off by writing that Krugman's detailed critique of the Medicare plan was "Pure and utter nonsense from the master of the poisen (sic) pen and chief cheerleader of the BDS crowd."

As he did on this thread, he then demanded proof of Krugman's statements without offering any evidence to rebut them, and eventually whimpered to a close by saying he was responding to a specific statement.

Bubba is obviously intelligent enough to recognize what he's doing, and to understand that anyone can simply read the threads and see it for themselves.

That indicates that he is doing it on purpose.

He wants people to react to him, to argue, to chase down facts and act rationally and cordially as he pushes their buttons.

It is the very definition of trolling. Respond at your own risk.

[Bubba]

Here are Professor Michaels' responses, copied directly from email. I have excised some personal information that is not pertinant to the discussion here.

I asked him if he intended to respond to Krugman's outrageous allegation, and if he could give me some details of the response.

--- Pat Michaels wrote:

> Of course. Remember that the testimony was in 1998,
> and was referring to testimony in given in 1988.
> Hansen testified in 1988 that he had three
> scenarios. The relevant one is Scenario A, which he
> testified to as "business as usual" (BAU). BAU
> means "no significant regulation and no significant
> technological changes". This was CLEARLY the case
> for the period 1988-1997 (in 1998, we only have
> annual temperature data through 1997).
>
> So, Hansen can claim his (lower) Scenario B was
> "perhaps the most plausible", but it is NON-BAU. He
> only labelled one as BAU. I can't emphasize that
> more. So any analysis of his various forecasts MUST
> be constained to BAU, which is Scenario A.
>
> See my point? He can only lodge complaints from the
> perspective of 1998 in this discussion. But,
> claiming that now (in 2006) emissions clearly
> resemble scenario B doesn't work either, because the
> lag-time between any regulation and a detectable
> realization of a temperature change is several
> decades with regard to greenhouse gases. So, for
> whatever reason, Scenario B was right for the wrong
> reason. For all intents and purposes, its a BAU
> world, and his BAU is Scenario A. Period. His
> words. In testimony. In fact, it would be misleading
> to emphasize Scenario B, wouldn't it, because, from
> a social point of view it isn't what happened?
> Interestingly, Roger Pielke Jr on his Prometheus
> Blog yesterday said the same thing: He got lucky,
> not right.
>
> So who is misleading whom?
>
> Some further details are enclosed in a memo I sent
> Michael Crichton last fall.
>
> PJM

Here is what he added when he gave me permission to use the material. I have left out an item he addressed personally to me.

".....One thing I have learned is that whenever you see a piece as stark as
Krugman's, and the subject is experienced and accomplished, there's a whole
lot that is not being told.

You should also be aware that Hansen and I are in virtual agreement on
the earth's temperature trajectory for the policy-forseeable (i.e.
fifty year) future. Krugman somehow couldn't find this, though it is in
many sources.

PJM

PS: Scenario B has a REDUCTION in the growth rate of emissions between
1988 and 1997. Since that obviously didn't happen, how can it be
defended?"

[Jim Caserta]

abstract of Hansen's 1988 paper

[Bubba]

What did Hansen's TESTIMONY in 1988 say, and what has he been saying since?

[Bubba]

Here is the discussion Professor Michaels mentioned in the email.

[Jim Caserta]

Here are the doctored figures from 1998, as a part of Michael's testimony before the Committee on Small Business United States House of Representatives.

Excerpt of Michaels's testimony:

That model predicted that global temperature between 1988 and 1997 would rise by 0.45°C (Figure 1). Figure 2 compares this to the observed temperature changes from three independent sources. Ground-based temperatures from the IPCC show a rise of 0.11°C, or more than four times less than Hansen predicted. Lower atmosphere temperatures measured by ascending thermistors on weather balloons show a decline of 0.36°C and satellites measuring the same layer (our only truly global measure) showed a decline of 0.24°C.

The forecast made in 1988 was an astounding failure, and IPCC’s 1990 statement about the realistic nature of these projections was simply wrong.

This failure did not surprise me.

It is good for science to have both Hansen and Michaels studying global warming. Whoever is correct will have his analysis sharpened considerably by the presence of dissenting opinions. However, it is not appropriate to misrepresent someone else's work, as Michaels did when he modified Hansen's figure. That is the point of Krugman's article.

[Bubba]

We already know what Michaels said in 1998 several times over. What you need to provide is HANSEN'S TESTIMONY IN 1988, specifically about which scenario Hansen labeled as Business As Usual (BAU).

That goes to the heart of Michaels' point, and would settle the matter completely.

[PotatoStew]

And therefore, Bubba, as proponents of Michaels point, perhaps you or he should supply that. It's been pointed out that Hansen's original papers used B as the most likely scenario, and didn't use the term "Business as usual". You and Michaels are the ones saying that his testimony was different - if that's the case, support that claim with some evidence.

When the claim was that Michaels ommitted info from Hansen's chart, you said it was up to us to prove it. Now that the claim is that Hansen's testimony was different than his written paper, you say it's up to us to prove otherwise? When do you get to do some work?

[Jim Caserta]

The burden of proof is on you (Bubba) and Michaels. The figure was modified - did Michaels have permission for that? Michaels (and you) is the one claiming that scenario A was BAU. Why would Hansen include the other scenarios if they were totally irrelevant?

But what is your point? PM says he is in "virtual agreement" with Hansen about the global temperature over the next 50 years. Why bother even studying climate change then? Should we just do nothing? What about reducing CFC's, stemming damage done to the ozone layer - was that useless?

[Bubba]

"The burden of proof is on you (Bubba) and Michaels."

No, sorry....that's not right. I've provided plausible information to the contrary.

"When the claim was that Michaels ommitted info from Hansen's chart, you said it was up to us to prove it. Now that the claim is that Hansen's testimony was different than his written paper, you say it's up to us to prove otherwise? When do you get to do some work?"

Jim, Stew, (and Lambert) don't agree with Michaels. You need to provide proof that his remarks in the email to me are not accurate. Nobody has done so.

It's the same deal you people challenged me on Krugman.

As much as you might like, you can't have it both ways. Or by some divine grace, perhaps you folks think you're entitled to exemption that you folks exempt from the blog rules that you always want to apply to me?

[Jim Caserta]

You have 0 evidence of Hansen's testimony. I am not taking Michaels's word for it. I had a link to Michaels's testimony, plus the figure in question. You're trying to quote Hansen, or it's Michaels quoting Hansen. He hasn't been too accurate at that in the past.

[Jim Caserta]

Why in 1998 would Michaels reference 1988 testimony and not the more generally available journal article Hansen published. If they were that different, all Michaels would have to say is "in one year's time, Hansen has already changed his results."

[PotatoStew]

"It's the same deal you people challenged me on Krugman. As much as you might like, you can't have it both ways."

No Bubba - you were the one challenging us on Krugman. Ed presented his claim. You (eventually) said "show me the evidence". We said "fine" and presented links showing that Michaels did present only scenario A, as Krugman claimed.

Now, you and Michaels are claiming that Hansen's testimony says something different than his written paper. It's our turn to ask for evidence. You can't have it both ways.

Suppose I say that in 1989, Michaels gave testimony to congress saying that Bubba hasn't got a logical bone in his body. Who is the burden of proof on? Is the burden on me, to produce this testimony, or on you to show that Michaels never said that?

[Bubba]

Pure, unadulterated bovine scatology, Stew.

Professor Michaels provided his answer.You need to show HIM where he is wrong about Hansen's 1988 testimony. Just like you folks asked me to rebut Krugman's specific nonsense.

This really has nothing to do with me at this point. You need to disprove what Michaels said. No one has yet to do so, based on what he said in his email to me.

[Jim Caserta]

In Hansen's words:

One final point: if Pat's criticisms were valid, if he had evidence that we overstated global warming, why wouldn't he publish this in a refereed scientific journal? That's the ultimate success for a scientist. It would be a feather in his hat to show that our model calculations were wrong. I'm not a famous scientist, but I am a member of the National Academy of Sciences — that should be sufficient trophy for him. I think the answer is: he knows his charges can't pass scientific review. He's a practised debater. He has honed statements that sound good in public debate. But many of them are hollow scientifically.

reference

[Jim Caserta]

Apart from the he-said, she said, we have 3 general options:
1. Do nothing. Either you disagree with the scientific consensus that the earth is warming, or you believe that the warming will not have a big enough net negative effect to warrant action.
2. Take all reasonable action. Some of the reasonable courses of action have other side benefits. Reducing gasoline consumption, but increasing CAFE standards, has the side benefit of dramatically lowering oil and gas prices - or at least reduces the rate of increase.
3. Ban all greenhouse emissions and return to the subsistence agriculture, hunter-gatherer lifestyle.

I don't think taking reasonable actions, possibly at the prodding of the government, is bad policy. As with almost any problem, the longer you put off finding or implementing a solution, the harder the solution becomes.

I'm curious as to what option Michaels defenders would choose.

[Tim Lambert]

Chip Knappenberger (who is on Michaels' side) has read the testimony and attempted a defence of Michaels. The best he can come up with is this:

What I take from all of this is that while Dr. Hansen may have preferred his Scenario B, he made no strong indication to this preference while he presented the results from all three scenarios before Congress. And that oversight is what has left the door open for later interpretations of what his intentions were in his testimony.

This doesn't save Michaels -- to make his erasure of scenarios B and C even slightly honest, Hansen would have had to expressed a strong preference for A. All Knappenberger can do is argue that Hansen didn't express a strong preference for B.

What's more is that Hansen DID make a prediction from his model: "that within the next several years the global temperature will reach and maintain a [0.4 degrees C] level of global warming, which is obviously significant." The model predicted that would happen in 1998. In reality it happened in .... 1998.

[Bubba]

More to the point, Tim, I will ask once again:

WHAT did Dr. Hansen SAY in his 1988 TESTIMONY that Pat Michaels discussed in his email?

[Tim Lambert]

Bubba, I just answered your question. Read Knappenberger's summary of Hansen's testimony. That's what I quoted in my previous comment.

[Bubba]

No, you told me what Knappenberger said. That does not provide an answer to the question, nor does it conflict with what Michaels said in the email posted here.

[Will B Rich]

Someone named "Heidi" makes a critique of Dr. Hansens's forecast at RealClimate.org.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/

comment #107.

The RealClimate folks are doing some inconvenient statistics to try to prove him right.

The 1988 Hansen forecasts have clearly overstated the warming by a large amount.