Why do global warming deniers continue to slander James Hansen?

Question

Mr Jello and Liberal continually slander James Hansen, claiming that he's taken bribes from Kerry and Soros to...well, then don't specify for what purpose. They're content just to slander James Hansen and leave it at that.

Are global warming deniers so lacking in quality arguments to support their positions that they have to resort to slandering brilliant scientists?

I could spend all day pointing out the flaws in the few skeptic scientists. For example, the fact that Tim Ball lies about his credentials and is really just a geographer, or that Richard Lindzen doesn't believe that smoking causes lung cancer, but I'd rather discuss scientific evidence. I'd rather pick apart what Tim Ball tries to argue rather than point out that he's not an expert on the subject, as he claims.

Would global warming deniers rather slander people like Hansen and Gore than discuss scientific evidence, as appears to be the case? Why do they never discuss Hansen's scientific arguments?

What a shock, Mr Jello continues to slander him.

Bob does an excellent job providing Liberal and Mr Jello with a reality check in his answer here:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ApKvie5J_.B1pnQlT7eTH0fsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071003134016AA7HSCx

Answer 1

I'd like to put the Hansen lie up right here so people can easily see how bizarre it is.

Liberal quoted a site saying Soros gave $720,000 to Hansen. Here's my answer:

You're kidding, right? That's a ridiculous lie.

Here's the real story, with solid proof. One of Soros' foundations gave $720,000 TOTAL to fight the politicization of science in 2006.

$400,000 of that went to the Union of Concerned Scientists and $220,000 went to the American Society for Cell Biology. Neither grant had anything to do with Hansen.

http://www.soros.org/initiatives/sof/focus_areas/politicization/grantees/

$100,000 of it went to the Government Accountability Project, a longstanding institution:

http://www.whistleblower.org/template/index.cfm

with a budget of $2,000,000. (So Soros funded about 5% of GAP's budget). As a small part of that budget, they provided legal support to Hansen when he was being muzzled.

To transform that into "$720,000 to Hansen" is way past absurd. I would think it's legally actionable, even though the libel laws provide great protection to those criticizing public figures. But this is off the charts lying.

Thanks for this, though. It will serve as my prime citation for why "newsbusters" is ridiculous nonsense, should anyone care to reference it.

This part is really hilarious:

"Since this editorial was published, according to LexisNexis and Google News searches, not one major media outlet has reported these allegations."

Imagine my surprise.

Answer 2

Let's be honest, Dana, they're doing the exact same thing theory proponents who try to discredit scientists funded by Exxon are doing (and we both know there are a lot of them doing that). It's not fair to lambast the theory opponents without taking a crack at the =proponents= as well. Both sides need to shape up.

That said, yes, it's utterly ridiculous to imply that Hanson is being bribed to lie about climate change. As Bob has so aptly put it, this is science, and what counts is the data. Hanson could be receiving funding from the devil and it wouldn't make a difference. Results in science aren't for sale to the highest bidder.

Answer 3

hansen got a heinz award in 2001:

http://www.heinzawards.net/

he is one of 14 other scientists who have recieved it
others recipients include republican senators

Some claim this was a "bribe" so he would support kerry for president - the kerry campaign didn't exist in 2001.

Answer 4

Some like Jello perform scientific skeptism. Science is all about skepticm. Religion is all about believing something in spite of contrary evidence IMO (not all religion). Some just believe things for psuedo-religious or political reasons. All of the Heinz Awards I read were liberals. Teresa Heinz is a traiter to her husbands memory but that is another story. We're supposed to believe there is nothing polical about her. What a shock that someone that would marry John Kerry would be a wacked out liberal. The list that Bob gave, such as the Union of Concerned Scientists is ultraliberals that attempt to abuse science to further their political agenda. If you open your eyes, perhaps you might see.

Answer 5

Slander em all let god sort it out. They should be able to take the heat by themselves, they take the paycheck.

Answer 6

They think they've found a 'weak link' in the chain so they keep trying to break it. Luckily, there are reinforcements to help.

Answer 7

Why do proponents of man made global warming insist on using the language of religion instead of the language of science. Maybe I should just start calling them the AWG faithful.

Answer 8

What I find interesting is how many fine minds are torched and trashed, ruined and wrecked because "they took oil money", but yet someone who took money from a "politicization of science" group can remain objective in your mind.

Here's a group that states in their name that their goal is to politicize science and that's fine? I guess objective science is dead, that "science" only depends on who or how many believe a statement to make that fact.

How sad. It's a shame to see the product of today's school systems.

Answer 9

Hanson's put his money where his mouth is...well, not exactly. He's put the lives or our shuttle astronauts where his mouth is. Ths shuttles didn't have tile problems before he made them 'green'.

Answer 10

THERE IS NO REAL PROF WE ARE NOT JUST IN A 500 YEAR CYCLE OR A 1,000 YEAR CYCLE , IN FACT THE MORE THEY DIG INTO IT THE MORE IT LOOKS NORMAL TO HAVE THESE CYCLES