John, Hansen is a raving idiot only in that his public professional demeanor is way out of line. He really needs to go to charm school or something. His scientific brain is unparalleled, however

If he knew how to behave and not act like a raving idiot to non-scientists (out of very unprofessional frustrastion, I assume), he would have a lot more credibility with the non-scientist skeptics.

His technical expertise and papers are spot on for the times that they were written, and he is a true scientist in that he has examines newer data all the time and listens to other scientific interpretations. Everything that NASA does is totally transparent and published. What most people who have not examined all the facts don't realize is that there is an enormous amount of data from other countries and organizations that NASA has nothing to do with - links to some that I gave above. It is easy, apparently, for a fast-talking lawyer to convince some non-scientists who have made up their minds that the act of examination of all the data, and looking at more accurate data that previously was not available, and fine-tuning models, which is something that I, for one, do all the time in my own fields of expertise, is tantamount to fudging data. Well, if I didn't constantly fine-tune my own models with newer and better data or numerical methods, then I would be out of a job because I spend a good deal of my time on those things.

Satellite data from the Japanese Space Agency, for example, is more accurate than inferences from tree ring data, which was used prior to the availability of some of the newer satellite information. The Arctic and Antarctic are now instrumented to the hilt, as well, with satellite information from multiple parties. Not only to more carefully determine temperatures, but also heat gain or loss from the atmospheric layers to help with the thermodynamic models, as well as to measure ice loss. This has improved dramatically over the last 40 years or so.

And, surprise of all surprises to some, those who investigate the facts of the existing models will know that the data of the last few years serves to validate most of the current models, which have significant overlap. Discerning the portion of effects that are measured that are caused by natural causes, such as solar radiation changes, and what portion is caused by greenhouse gases, is not a simple calculation, obviously. I give an enormous amount of credit to those who have dedicated their careers to honing in on an answer.

Nasa is open and above board because everything they do is published. Peer-review is by non-NASA folks who also have their reputations on the line. When the tree ring data was eliminated, it was quite public and available for all who have a genuine interest - and the time - to read about. I don't have a lot of time, but I do make some time to keep up with as much of the technical literature as I can.

Perstare et praestare. Per aspera ad astra.