[JR: Def guy -- I don't care whether the discourse is civil or not. Why would I allow "civil" disinformation to be placed on my blog, especially long-debunked disinformation, that forces me or my readers to waste time that could be put to better use. I find that deniers aren't interested in "open discourse" since they never bother spending any time learning the basics of the scientific method or climate science. They just want to spread their disinformation. Of course AGW denier sites allow "disputing opinions" [otherwise known as real science] — they want to make it look like there is a genuine debate. YOU are the active partisan advocate of global warming, since you apparently like global warming and want more of it. I am a nonpartisan advocate of science. It gets quite tedious when you misuse the English language like this — the word “partisan” in the context of this blog clearly means politically nonpartisan. And that I most certainly am. Governor Schwarzenegger is doing a terrific job in California on the climate issue, and I’m happy to say so. I thought the Boxer bill was lacking, and said so.]

1. Deliberately misleading information announced publicly or leaked by a government or especially by an intelligence agency in order to influence public opinion or the government in another nation
2.Dissemination of such misleading information

Has Hansen ever retracted his state to the effect that the 1990’s was the warmest decade after the revised data indicated that the 1930’s were warmer? If not, then as a government employee, he meets this definition of of disinformation provided here.

[JR: This statement gets you banned. The 1990s were the warmest decade the world has seen in the historical record. So the only retraction needed is the retraction of your disinformation. I am painstakingly nonpartisan here politically. You, however, are not.]

But JR, isn’t having to retract and revise data set that you have published and touted as definitive an admission that you have spread disinformation?

–noun

false information, as about a country’s military strength or plans, publicly announced or planted in the news media, esp. of other countries.

[JR: In short, no. That is the kind of comparison only a global warming denier. Making tiny adjustments to one's work is the very essence of science. NASA shared its data! Now Christy and Spencer, they kept their data and their flawed analysis to themselves -- creating the myth for a decade that the satellite data did not agree with the surface data. THat comes pretty close to scientific disinformation and that's why I ignore everything they do now.

Someday you will understand science, when even you see the reality of the suffering and misery that you deniers will have helped put billions of people through. Until then, find another place to comment.]

As many as Hansen has gotten, per chance? If they are needing to revise the data sets he is using to make predictions, then we have the right to draw attention to the fact.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ earth/ main.jhtml?xml=/ earth/ 2007/ 08/ 16/ eaclimate116.xml

[JR: NASA has made one teeny revision in the temperature data. Please identify any others, else your comment is simply disinformation. My comment was not about mentioning the data revision, it was about spreading the disinformation about global temperatures.]

One thing I’ve learned as a resident skeptic at climateprogress is not to rely on agenda driven websites for info. It’s pretty well established that Dr. Hansen was not part of the 70’s ice age crowd. He did provide much of the computer modeling they used.”

Sorry, Paul, something about that does not jive completely with me. If his computer models could be used then to predict cooling, then it calls into question the validity of using them to predict warming now. Either his models are shown to be subject to the whims and desires of the people programming them, or his models originally supported this view and he was willing to have them show this. Either way, it makes his current credibility suspect.

I’ve studied 19th century physics, and understand about absorption spectra, and realize EVERY molecule in our atmosphere has the ability to absorb energy along certain wavelengths of electromagnetic energy from photons of light. This is not rocket science. It is the basis of modern color photography.

As I said, the primary greenhouse gas is water, actually represented by a significant fraction of the atmospheric content. This fact has been documented for well over 30 years. If you want, from my experiment you can even leave it out. Base the gas sample upon nitrogen, oxygen, and carbon dioxide, but only 0.035% and 0.045% concentrations of carbon dioxide. Let the experiment last a full year, two giant sealed glass containers with thermocouples to monitor the heat inside each, sitting in the middle of a giant field with a color consistent background around each. The glass might trap some heat, but it will be similar in each. You should be able to track the heat build up in each enclosed environment with ease, and be able to have statistical proof whether there is any significant difference in the temperature of each container. If there is a significant difference, you will have proved your point, and in a relatively inexpensive manner.