Stating the obvious concerning global warming projections

[Rasputin_Vol]

If it gets any colder, Obama may have to start giving out Escalades and Hummers along with unemployment checks to raise the temperature a half degree.

 

[BeecherVol]

Thats pretty good RV.

Them auto bailouts may come in handy after all.

 

[gsvol]

It's good to be skeptical and dig a foxhole. Be skeptical about Hansen, absolutely. The scientific method demands it.

However, you can't stay in your foxhole. Learn more. Use your own instincts; think critically.

The fact is, Hansen has been proven right as rain since 1988. He is shy, retiring, a committed scientist through and through. He has had every opportunity, especially since 1988, to grab cameras, and, until recently has shunned the lens. He was more than happy to let Michael Oppenheimer take the camera lens until he reached a sober, mature, and one of the most well-informed opinions on 350 ppm being the threshold before crossing into dangerous anthropogenic interference.

You've got to be freaking kidding?

To say Hansen has been proven right since 1988 is either an outright lie or just pure ignorance.

He has been consistently WRONG!

He was even caught in the climategate emails promoting fraudulent data and conclusions.

Not only that he is a a fruitloop that should be fired.

When the adults take this country back, he will be.

Hansen barracking for lawless destruction and the end of civilization « JoNova

The four key rules of sabotage

1. Carefully weigh up all the pros and cons, and then ask yourself, “Is it worth it?”

2. Plan ahead, and plan well, accounting for every possible eventuality.

3. Even if you understand the worth of your action, don’t get caught.

4. Make the Tools of Disconnection your priority; anything else is a waste of time and effort.

Since he believes so much in ecoterrorism I suppose that makes him and excellent outreach man to the world of islam.

Hansen flew to England to testify for four greenpeace ecoterrorists who were being charged with causing $60,000 of damage to a facility there.

The founder of Greenpeace said; "If I had known greenpeace would be taken over by scientific illiterates, I would never have started it."

The Man Who Cried Doom | The Weekly Standard

In testimony before the US Senate retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA’s vocal man-made global warming fear soothsayer, publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen “embarrassed NASA” with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was “was never muzzled.”

Theon says the same kind of models that now predict runaway warming were predicting runaway cooling prior to 1975, when the popular fear was not melting ice caps but a new ice age, and "not one model predicted the cooling we've had since 1998." Spencer insists "it's all make believe--if you took one look at the assumptions that go into this, you'd laugh." But none of that seems to matter too much.

"Gore was in his corner and now the president is in his corner," Theon says. "They don't understand what the hell is going on."

Roy Spencer, who served as the senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Center, puts Hansen "at the extreme end of global warming alarmism." Spencer doesn't know of anyone "who thinks it's a bigger problem than [Hansen] does." Spencer, a meteorologist by training and a skeptic of man-made global warming, was genuinely muzzled during the Clinton administration. "I would get the message down through the NASA chain [of command] of what I could and couldn't say in testimony."

Spencer left NASA with little fuss for a job at the University of Alabama in 2001, but he still seems in awe of Hansen's ability to do as he pleases. "For many years Hansen got away with going around NASA rules, and they looked the other way because it helped sell Mission to Planet Earth," the NASA research program studying human effects on climate. Spencer figures that "at some point, someone in the Bush administration said 'why don't you start enforcing your rules?

William Gray, professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University, says of Hansen; "It's a giant scam in my view."

Gray says that Hansen's "testimony is not working out" anyway. There's been a "slight cooling since 2001. .  .  . They're scrambling," he says. And indeed Hansen got caught with his hand in the cookie jar in 2007, when Stephen McIntyre, the man who debunked the infamous "hockey stick" graph showing stable Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures for most of the last millennia before a sharp upturn, found a flaw in Hansen's numbers. McIntyre analyzed NASA's temperature records for the last century and found that, contrary to Hansen's charts, 1998 was not the hottest year on record. That honor belongs to 1934, and five of the ten hottest years on record are now found prior to World War II.

Hansen wasn't even trained as a meteorologist.

I could go on and on but let's just say the bottom line is that Hansen is a snake oil saleman and the average used car salesman is more honest than he is.

If you are going to sell global warming you need to find a better source giblet!! :loco:

 

[gsvol]

If it gets any colder, Obama may have to start giving out Escalades and Hummers along with unemployment checks to raise the temperature a half degree.

 

[hndog609]

It's good to be skeptical and dig a foxhole. Be skeptical about Hansen, absolutely. The scientific method demands it.

However, you can't stay in your foxhole. Learn more. Use your own instincts; think critically.

The fact is, Hansen has been proven right as rain since 1988. He is shy, retiring, a committed scientist through and through. He has had every opportunity, especially since 1988, to grab cameras, and, until recently has shunned the lens. He was more than happy to let Michael Oppenheimer take the camera lens until he reached a sober, mature, and one of the most well-informed opinions on 350 ppm being the threshold before crossing into dangerous anthropogenic interference.

Forgive me but Hansen has no credibility with me. He is an unapologetic AGW zealot and if you put in even a modicum of effort in researching this you'd have little trouble verifying this yourself.

Please don't misunderstand, I've no need to be close-minded about the topic, but GISS is my least trusted source for global temperature data. If it supports other data sources then fine but I won't touch Hansen's numbers with a ten foot pole based on their own supposed merit.

 

[utgibbs]

Global Warming

gsvol, the fact that CO2 absorbs heat radiation has been established since the 1850s.

The Irish mountaineer and scientist John Tyndall (who almost made the first successful ascent of the Matterhorn) made the measurements in the middle of the 19th century.

:facepalm:

The precautionary principle requires action regardless of full certainty. Every good leader knows you must make informed decisions on less than 100% knowledge.

"Car Force One" looks pretty cool, IMHO.

 

[utgibbs]

Forgive me but Hansen has no credibility with me. He is an unapologetic AGW zealot and if you put in even a modicum of effort in researching this you'd have little trouble verifying this yourself.

Please don't misunderstand, I've no need to be close-minded about the topic, but GISS is my least trusted source for global temperature data. If it supports other data sources then fine but I won't touch Hansen's numbers with a ten foot pole based on their own supposed merit.

Oh, I've put much more than a modicum of effort, I can assure you.

If Hansen has no credibility with you (when everything he has said since 1988 has been proven right as rain), can I understand who you do trust?

If you don't trust GISS use NOAA. If you don't trust NOAA use UAE. Who else has the numbers? I'd love to know another source.

BTW - all three groups have numbers that agree.

 

[hndog609]

Oh, I've put much more than a modicum of effort, I can assure you.

If Hansen has no credibility with you (when everything he has said since 1988 has been proven right as rain), can I understand who you do trust?

If you don't trust GISS use NOAA. If you don't trust NOAA use UAE. Who else has the numbers? I'd love to know another source.

BTW - all three groups have numbers that agree.

I stand firmly behind my assertion that if there's any possible way for Hansen to show bias toward AGW he will.

Is there any particular reason you omitted UAH, RSS and HadCrut from your list?

2010 Hottest Year Ever? Things I Find Interesting

This looks even worse;
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...r-ever-is-primarily-based-on-fabricated-data/

 

[utgibbs]

@gsvol:

The story of Hansen and Soros is absolutely laughable. Jim was so confused when this "story" first came out, because he was getting all these questions about the "Soros Affair."

It's classic dumbassery from the usual suspects. Is everything you post utter hogwash?

 

[utgibbs]

I stand firmly behind my assertion that if there's any possible way for Hansen to show bias toward AGW he will.

Is there any particular reason you omitted UAH, RSS and HadCrut from your list?

2010 Hottest Year Ever? Things I Find Interesting

This looks even worse;
Hansen’s “Hottest Year Ever” Is Primarily Based On Fabricated Data | Real Science

I've never seen them appear in the literature. I'll look into them.

Edit: I've looked at the bottom link. It's utter hogwash. The GISS 80 x 80 grid system has been going since the mid-1980s. Compiling the location of the Stephenson Screens and buoys was a MONUMENTAL task Jim and GISS took on back then. This website is pure sham, misrepresenting data with over 20 years of peer-reviewed scrutiny. Morevoer, Hansen predicted a 2010 La Nina cycle AND it would still be hottest year on record. Another right as rain from Jim.

It turns out, it's Steve Goodard who has a history of producing false information and then making retractions. He is a well-known, very amateurish contrarian.

http://climateprogress.org/2008/08/25/a-new-olympic-record-for-retraction-of-a-denier-talking-point/

The article has a great line in it: Live by the blogsphere, die by the blogsphere.

I remind you: One knows a tree by the fruit it bears.

HadCrut is actually part of the UAE coalition. I doubt you are going to find one person at the Hadley Centre with a bad word to say about Jim Hansen.

 

[hndog609]

I've never seen them appear in the literature. I'll look into them.

Edit: I've looked at the bottom link. It's utter hogwash. The GISS 80 x 80 grid system has been going since the mid-1980s. Compiling the location of the Stephenson Screens and buoys was a MONUMENTAL task Jim and GISS took on back then. This website is pure sham, misrepresenting data with over 20 years of peer-reviewed scrutiny. Morevoer, Hansen predicted a 2010 La Nina cycle AND it would still be hottest year on record. Another right as rain from Jim.

It turns out, it's Steve Goodard who has a history of producing false information and then making retractions. He is a well-known, very amateurish contrarian.

A new Olympic record for retraction of a denier talking point Climate Progress

The article has a great line in it: Live by the blogsphere, die by the blogsphere.

I remind you: One knows a tree by the fruit it bears.

HadCrut is actually part of the UAE coalition. I doubt you are going to find one person at the Hadley Centre with a bad word to say about Jim Hansen.

I'm not trying prop Goddard here and the first link had nothing to do with Goddard. Both were pointing out that GISS temps after July seem to be rather contrary with RSS, UAH & HadCrut. Setting aside all ad hominem considerations as to who is telling the story either GISS is running the temps in a different direction than the other sources or it isn't. If this is in fact the case the obvious question is why?

I was actually hoping you'd call out Goddard though. Goddard clearly has an anti-AGW bias and I have no problem accepting that. Hansen has shown, repeatedly, that he is a full-bore/damn the torpedoes AGW supporter. Be careful calling one out but defending the other.

 

[utgibbs]

I'm not trying prop Goddard here and the first link had nothing to do with Goddard. Both were pointing out that GISS temps after July seem to be rather contrary with RSS, UAH & HadCrut. Setting aside all ad hominem considerations as to who is telling the story either GISS is running the temps in a different direction than the other sources or it isn't. If this is in fact the case the obvious question is why?

I was actually hoping you'd call out Goddard though. Goddard clearly has an anti-AGW bias and I have no problem accepting that. Hansen has shown, repeatedly, that he is a full-bore/damn the torpedoes AGW supporter. Be careful calling one out but defending the other.

But the big difference is, Hansen submits and has submitted to rigorous peer review for a very long time.

I believe the three major centers mapping global surface temperatures: GISS, NOAA, and UAE, use different methods. You can imagine how difficult it is to actually deliver a meaningful global average temperature, especially when most of the sea surface temperatures before 1980s were done by hoisting an uninsulated bucket up to the deck and taking a measurement. UAE uses the anomaly method; GISS a five year average against, I believe, a 30-year baseline. NOAA has yet a different approach.

The three different methodologies are actually extremely close. I know there was some debate between GISS and UAE on whether 2005 were the hottest or second hottest year, for instance. But, all three numbers are extremely close.

The point is, despite the approaches, there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the three main groups. What's more, certainly none of them would say anything but the global surface temperature is ticking upwards relentlessly in a geologic instant.

 

[gsvol]

Thats pretty good RV.

Them auto bailouts may come in handy after all.

When Obama gets through wrecking our economy,
we're going to need more than a bailout, we're going
to need a several heavy duty bilge pumps or we're
sunk!!

gsvol, the fact that CO2 absorbs heat radiation has been established since the 1850s.

The Irish mountaineer and scientist John Tyndall (who almost made the first successful ascent of the Matterhorn) made the measurements in the middle of the 19th century.

:facepalm:

Right and Hillary Clinton was named after the Sir
Edmund Hillary who scaled Mt Everest, even though
she was born about ten years before he did it. :crazy:

Yeah and I knew the guy who was on the team that
was first to scale the north slope of the Matterhorn
in winter.

(No kidding, he attended UT and used to drink at the
Yardarm Tavern, when I first saw him had just returned
from Switzerland, had on one of those shirts with ruffles
down the front and at the sleeve cuffs and collar and
was wearing liederhosen, I thought he was gay but got
to know him and that was a good thing because he
wanted someone to whom to tell about the climb.

Just about the time they set foot on the ground after
the descent, a blizzard hit and he said even if they
were only a 100 ft from the bottom, they would have
had to send two weeks tied off on their hammocks on
the mountain trying not to freeze to death. I said it
was fortunate I made his acquaince. Well the following
summer break he said he was going to hike the
Appalachian trail and others made fun of that but I'm
always like, if you really want to do something, go for it.
{this explains why I now have all the time I want to post
funny pics etc} So while most all of us worked sucky
jobs and were lucky to make $1,200 to $1,500 that summer,
he hiked the trail from Maine to Georgia and sold his pics
to National Geographic for $10,000. He nearly always
bought me a beer when I would run into him, I'm all for
free beer also, it pays to keep and open mind.)

Bottom line, most everything absorbs heat radiation,
there is nothing magic about CO2, maybe you didn't understand the detailed explanation I gave you, I
tried to make it as simple as possible.

The precautionary principle requires action regardless of full certainty. Every good leader knows you must make informed decisions on less than 100% knowledge.

So because of the precautionary principle we shut
down the America coal fired eltrical plants with no
replacement even on the horizon.

We provide money to build huge coal fired plants in
India and ship boatloads of coal to china daily.

Makes sense for somebody and to others who aren't
capable of intelligent thought but it doesn'n make
sense to me or for me.

We prevent oil drilling in Alaska, in the Gulf (where
23 other countries continue to drill) and off both
coasts of the US.

Meanwhile we garauntee loans to Brazil to drill offshore
and keep buying oil from our enemies in Arabia and
Venezuela.

Deosn't sound like a precautionary principle to me,
sounds like a self-destructive fraudtionary principle.

If Hansen has no credibility with you (when everything he has said since 1988 has been proven right as rain), can I understand who you do trust?

You keep saying that, name one thing Hansen has
been right about.

Certaninly not Hansen.

The story of Hansen and Soros is absolutely laughable. Jim was so confused when this "story" first came out, because he was getting all these questions about the "Soros Affair."

It's classic dumbassery from the usual suspects. Is everything you post utter hogwash?

Ask youself why people like Soros ans Strong pour
millions into promoting AGW hysteria???

Clue one; it ain't to save the planet from us peons.

You pick out one thing of many and say it is all hogwash???

Are you claiming Hansen received no money from Soros???

Oh wait, you believe like Hansen in ecoterrorism don't you??

My bad, I forgot just what a nutcase you are.

The only hogwash in this conversation is AGW theory.

 

[gsvol]

I'm not trying prop Goddard here and the first link had nothing to do with Goddard. Both were pointing out that GISS temps after July seem to be rather contrary with RSS, UAH & HadCrut. Setting aside all ad hominem considerations as to who is telling the story either GISS is running the temps in a different direction than the other sources or it isn't. If this is in fact the case the obvious question is why?

I was actually hoping you'd call out Goddard though. Goddard clearly has an anti-AGW bias and I have no problem accepting that. Hansen has shown, repeatedly, that he is a full-bore/damn the torpedoes AGW supporter. Be careful calling one out but defending the other.

Hound dog I don't want to interfere but let me give
you a photo of Giblet so you will know what you are
dealing with. (see below

 

[IPorange]

gsvol, we've discussed before how the supposed email controversy was actually no controversy at all. You're peddling the same lies over and over.

Unfortunately, they stick with many people more than the truth does. Go figure.

 

[gsvol]

The late Johnny Cash once said in ‘The Farmers
Almanac’ (1991),
“Lies have to be covered up, truth can run around
naked.”

I don't think Hansen has ever been quoted in the
Farmer's Almanac which has been far more accurate
in it's predictions than has he.

The lastest cover, sci-fi to cover for sci-fi AGW
pseudo-science.

Leftist Science Fiction Turns Fiction into Science: OR Books Puts Out Global Warming Anthology | NewsReal Blog

(Lots of excellent links imbedded in the text)

It’s been two years since thousands of emails were
leaked from the Climatic Research Unit of the
University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom.
These emails showed clearly that a tiny cabal
of highly-politicized and government grant
dependent scientists had for years manipulated
the raw data upon which the entire edifice of
anthropogenic global warming (AGW) had been
erected.

For longer than that, it had been known that other
highly interested researchers, such as Michael
Mann and NASA’s James Hansen, had been
far overstating the case as well as fudging data.

Many conservatives had assumed that by 2010 the
corner had been turned and our nearly 20 year
romance with AGW hysteria would go into decline.
With large numbers of people in America and in other
countries turning against alarmist claims, things were
looking up, and indeed, they may yet be.

Our cultural Morlocks, however, will not let this
central organizing principle of the Left die a natural
death. Now, despite Climategate and the mountain
of empirical evidence that has cascaded against it
for well over a decade, OR books, an “alternative”
publishing company that describes itself as embracing
“progressive change in politics, culture and
the way we do business” is set to release
Welcome to the Greenhouse, a science fiction
anthology whose central theme is, of course, the
threat of human caused global warming.

Some readers will recognize a couple of big names
from an earlier generation or sci-fi writers, Brit Brian
W. Aldiss, and Alan Dean Foster, who each contribute
a story to the anthology, the overall purpose of which
is partially distilled in the preface by Elizibeth Kolbert
as concern, both that the world is heating up (which
is always has been and always will be, periodically)
and that, because of this “we will experience more
intense droughts” and humanity will “huddle behind
growing seawalls and shrinking coasts.”

Despite the fact that quite literally each and every
primary claim made by the proponents of AGW has
been empirically falsified or placed in theoretical
limbo, we are yet welcomed to the Greenhouse
because it is within the Greenhouse that the best
chance for the spirits of Rousseau, Marx, Comte,
Dewy, Skinner, the Fabians, the Frankfurt School
and Mustapha Mond can remain on life support, their
lungs filled with what Patrick J. Michaels and Robert
C. Balling have termed the Satanic gasses.

Let me mention that during the medieval warm period sea levels were 18" higher than now and we certainly
can tell with a 100% certainty that this wasn't caused
by the industrial revolution which is reviled by marxists
the world over as being a bad thing, on the contrary, it
was a good thing, it gave humanity quite a relief from
drudgery.

Another science fiction book on the subject, Fallen Angels, by Larry Niven, is about how the GW crowd CAUSED an ice age. (dated but usually the brightest and
wisest are always ahead of the curve.

Amazon.com: FALLEN ANGELS (9780671720520): Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle, Michael Flynn: Books

 

[IPorange]

That's just not true. They were discussing various statistical models. They've been cleared by both the government and the university, as well as an independent review.

 

[hndog609]

But the big difference is, Hansen submits and has submitted to rigorous peer review for a very long time.

I believe the three major centers mapping global surface temperatures: GISS, NOAA, and UAE, use different methods. You can imagine how difficult it is to actually deliver a meaningful global average temperature, especially when most of the sea surface temperatures before 1980s were done by hoisting an uninsulated bucket up to the deck and taking a measurement. UAE uses the anomaly method; GISS a five year average against, I believe, a 30-year baseline. NOAA has yet a different approach.

The three different methodologies are actually extremely close. I know there was some debate between GISS and UAE on whether 2005 were the hottest or second hottest year, for instance. But, all three numbers are extremely close.

The point is, despite the approaches, there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the three main groups. What's more, certainly none of them would say anything but the global surface temperature is ticking upwards relentlessly in a geologic instant.

Perhaps I was a bit vague in my positing of a question. It is my understanding that GISS diverges rather markedly from UAH, RSS & Hadcrut (sources that aren't just contrary bloggers BTW) in the latter part of 2010. Do you agree or disagree this is true?

My problem with Hansen, outside of any scientific considerations, is if HIS source comes out with 2010 as the hottest (even if that assertion is called into serious question by other legit sources) he's perfectly willing to make like Cruise on Oprah about it.

I'm willing to listen to all comers but c'mon man, how am I NOT supposed to be skeptical of someone who is completely out of the closet on behalf of AGW and whose numbers tend to run on the high side as compared to other sources. As I alluded to in an earlier post I wouldn't much care about Hansen's obvious bias if GISS's numbers tracked closer to the other numbers.

 

[utgibbs]

I'm willing to listen to all comers but c'mon man, how am I NOT supposed to be skeptical of someone who is completely out of the closet on behalf of AGW and whose numbers tend to run on the high side as compared to other sources. As I alluded to in an earlier post I wouldn't much care about Hansen's obvious bias if GISS's numbers tracked closer to the other numbers.

I know Hansen has been thrust back into the public eye. He, however, thoroughly believed after 1988 reasonable things would be done, and he stayed off the radar for nearly 20 years. He let Michael Oppenheimer be the voice for that period of time.

You don't have to be skeptical because the GISS numbers are under intense scrutiny (as we saw with the imbroglio with the Chinese stations at UEA). Hansen's papers are peer-reviewed, and his work at NASA has been under the microscope for several years. When he speaks, he is paying out of his own pocket; despite his position and the fact he could legitimately claim expenses for speaking on the GISS numbers, he does not do so.

Hansen has spent 20 years being one of the most accurate prophets in the literature. He is one of the few scientists in the world with any background on atmospheric aerosols, and his group was the only one to correctly predict the effect of Mt Pinatubu on global climate.

If you don't like the fact he's in the limelight now, that's fine. However, that is more evidence of how SUCCESSFUL he's been (and, he has said the arrival of his grandkids has spurred him to take a more public role).

Skepticism is a critical part of the scientific method. There is nothing wrong with it. However, there comes a tipping point even hardened skeptics no longer have a leg to stand on. Many of his scientist peers went nuts in 1988 when he stated "99% certainty" to Congress. However, all of them now concede he was right as rain.

And I think, regarding GISS being on the "high side" we are really talking about semantics, aren't we? Nobody seriously debates global temperatures have risen 0.8C. Everyone's dart is landing right around that value.

 

[gsvol]

gsvol, we've discussed before how the supposed email controversy was actually no controversy at all. You're peddling the same lies over and over.

Unfortunately, they stick with many people more than the truth does. Go figure.

Well no, actually that's the truth, you must have
a poor memory.

You seem to be the one promoting the lie here,
either that or you are too dense to grasp the
facts, I painstakingly scanned hundreds of those
emails and even though I didn't go through all of
them I did reproduce here a couple of dozen of
the most damning that showed the the AGW
conspiritors to be guilty of several offenses.

Just because a panel packed with AGW advocates
by the British to clear their name did so, doesn't
make it the truth.

I also exposed some of those on the panel who
were known to be advocates of AGW, and some
who stood to gain monetarily.

I would say the top four offences would be:

Conspiring to perpetuate the Mann hocky stick
chart which was known to be patently false.

Conspiring to cherry pick some data and supressing
other data to support their theory.

Putting pressure on scientific publications to publish
articles that supported them and not publishing those
that didn't.

Including data in their system that was known to be
false.

They call it 'climategate' for a reason.

"When people are confronted with real facts, it
transforms their opinions and opens their beliefs
that were once marketed and manufactured by
un-relative brainwashing!"

Ask yourself this, why did the flaming bundle of
twigs at the NY Slimes publish wikileaks but not
the GRU emails??

This was a big scandal in England but mostly
ignored by the American media.

Here is another fact, just documented this year,
on Elesemere Island in Alaska, north of the Arctic
Circle, a forest has been shown to have existed
8 to 10 million years ago that had Larch, Birch,
Spruce and Pine trees. Did the industrial revolution
have anything to do with that.

HELL NO!

Maxism, AGW and the industrial revolution are
tried to be all connected in our minds, the truth
of the matter is that marxism isn't revolutionary at
all, it is an attempt to return mankind to a state
of feudalism where a select few make all major
decisions and the rest of us serfs are reduced to
deciding if we will have cornbread or biscuits with
our beans, provided the ruling elite decide whether
we are worthy of having any beans or not.

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'? – Telegraph Blogs

When you read some of those files – including 1079
emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the
boffins at CRU might have preferred to keep them
confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal
could well be “the greatest in modern science”.
These emails – exchanged by some of the most
prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:


Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming
data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing
information, organised resistance to disclosure,
manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws
in their public claims and much more.

Hansen has spent 20 years being one of the most accurate prophets in the literature. He is one of the few scientists in the world with any background on atmospheric aerosols, and his group was the only one to correctly predict the effect of Mt Pinatubu on global climate.

Hansen isn't even a trained in weather prognostication.

Hansen is correct only if you ignore the 2.5 billion
years of substantially warmer temperatures spread
from the Cambrian and Silurian/Devonian, through
the Triassic and Jurassic, to the Cretaceous and
shorter modern intervals that include the Medieval
Warm Period.


It was so cold in Washington this week that a couple
of politicians were observed with their hands in their
OWN pockets.

 

[hndog609]

And I think, regarding GISS being on the "high side" we are really talking about semantics, aren't we? Nobody seriously debates global temperatures have risen 0.8C. Everyone's dart is landing right around that value.

I think we exceed mere "semantics" when only one major source (that I'm aware of) is claiming not only one (2005) but two years (2010) as being hotter than 1998. I don't see that as a small issue at all. This circles back to my politics and money issues since that kind of information is precisely the type most useful for those wanting to make use of those numbers. (and whatever anybody actually believes about the science I can't imagine you being naive enough to think politics and money aren't involved)

Let me reiterate something in the form of a question; if all the datasets RSS/UAH/HadCrut/GISS were actually in agreement that 2010 will be the hottest on record do you think I'd have posted what I did?

That there's "some" warming seems to pretty supportable but:
I'm rather iffy on exactly how much.

I'm quite iffy on whatever warming there is being anthropogenic and even if so, to what extent.

I'm extremely iffy on the price tag vs usefulness in what to do about it, real or otherwise.

I'm wildy iffy about some of the horror stories foretold by many if we don't take drastic action NOW! (or then if you want to, for instance, cite Hansen. In an interview with Salon for his book The Coming Storm Bob Reiss recounts the following:

While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, "If what you're saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?" He looked for a while and was quiet and didn't say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, "Well, there will be more traffic." I, of course, didn't think he heard the question right. Then he explained, "The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won't be there. The trees in the median strip will change." Then he said, "There will be more police cars." Why? "Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up."

The above took place in 2001 so Reiss's interview with Hansen took place in '88-'89. Forgive me but "right as rain" isn't what leaps to mind here.

 

[MG1968]

Big freeze: Temperatures plummet to -10C bringing travel chaos across Britain | Mail Online

 

[gsvol]

That's just not true. They were discussing various statistical models. They've been cleared by both the government and the university, as well as an independent review.

Squeeky Fromm said Charlie Manson was a swell guy
too, but that doesn't make it so.

The panel that cleared the CRU of any wrongdoing
was loaded with AGW hysterics.

Hansen and Mann were some of the Americans who
were involved as well as one of Obama's men in the
White House.

They discussed one hell of a lot more than statistical
models.

Sample:

Hi Phil,

Thanks—we know that. The point is simply that if
we want to talk about about a meaningful “2009”
anomaly, every additional month that is available
from which to calculate an annual mean makes the
number more credible. We already have this for
GISTEMP, but have been awaiting Had CRU to be
able to do a more decisive update of the status
of the disingenuous “globe is cooling” contrarian
talking point,

mike

p.s. be a bit careful about what information you
send to Andy and what emails you copy him in on.
He's not as predictable as we'd like

Climategate professor Phil Jones admits sending 'pretty awful emails' | Mail Online

They revealed scientists plotting how to avoid
responding to Freedom of Information requests
from climate change sceptics.

Some even appeared to show the researchers
discussing how to manipulate raw data from tree
rings about historical temperatures.

In one, Professor Jones talks about using a 'trick'
to massage figures and 'hide the decline'.

You make a very misleading claim.
People know better.

Big freeze: Temperatures plummet to -10C bringing travel chaos across Britain | Mail Online

 

[gsvol]

Climategate’s Phil Jones freezes Don Surber

A year ago, Michael Mann of Penn State and Phil
Jones of the University of East Anglia revealed
themselves in Climategate as the liars that
they are. By their own e-mails they showed
that Global Warming is a sham. Oh, we may heat
up the planet a little. That’s bad? What about the
Ice Age was so wonderful? But like every other
prophet of doom, these weasels were wrong.

Today, Phil Jones is freezing his derriere.

From the London Daily Mail: “Now the Army moves
in to clear away snow in coldest
December for 100 years as
fuel runs out at petrol stations in Scotland and
East Anglia.”

From the cutline: “The River Ouse in the center
of York was iced over for the first
time in 50 years yesterday.”

There are many pictures of snow-covered freeways
loaded with lorries (trucks).

Hide the decline. Indeed.