Well if there is one thing certain about the climate blogosphere it is that any mention of James Hansen will evoke strong responses. In this case my look back at Hansen’s 2006 super El Niño forecast has some folks in a tizzy.

John Fleck, a reporter with the Albuquerque Journal, says that Hansen’s forecast never really existed since it did not survive the peer review process. John is probably right that I should have noted that Hansen’s forecast was found not to have a basis strong enough to appear in PNAS. However, Hansen reiterated the forecast in probabilistic terms in a follow up, so I won’t go so far as to say that the forecast was never made.

Coby Beck, a blogger, has these kind words to say about my looking back at Hansen’s forecasts:

I have made it pretty clear before that I am no fan of Roger Pielke Jr. Everytime I stick my nose in there the smell seems to get a little worse.

His latest effort at sabotaging productive discourse on climate science and policy is a really low blow, putting to rest any lingering hopes one might have had that he still had some integrity stashed away in there somewhere.

Since both John and Coby are clearly reading this blog they must have seen my post documenting how the CCSP has played fast and loose with the science of disasters and climate change. I eagerly await reading about their outrage and concern over how a formal government report is misleading the public and ignoring solid peer reviewed research. That is, if they can find time and interest after getting all worked up about someone saying that Jim Hansen once made a bad forecast in 2006.