Why is climate science political?

[code1211]

Scientists have done that quite thoroughly. You are just too much of a brainwashed moron to comprehend that. CO2 is actually a fairly powerful greenhouse gas. Mankind has raised CO2 levels about 40% over pre-industrial levels and that extra CO2 is mostly responsible for the abrupt warming trend of the last 60 years. Those facts have been scientifically determined and verified. Those facts are very inconvenient for your puppet masters in the fossil fuel industry because they threaten the trillion dollar a year profit flow that industry is currently enjoying. So those greedy mo-fo's propagandize scientifically ignorant people like you to create doubt about the very real scientific facts of the matter and delay any effective collective action to place the necessary limits on carbon emissions. Just like the tobacco companies used twisted and phony 'science' to delay public recognition that smoking tobacco causes a whole lot of serious health problems, some of them life threatening, and thereby delayed for years the appropriate governmental actions to regulate and tax tobacco sales. Those regulatory actions eventually resulted in a reduction in the cancer and other disease rates associated with smoking and cut the number of smokers considerably. So too now are the fossil fuel companies and vested interests (oil billionaires like the Koch brothers, etc.) trying to delay the very necessary and appropriate governmental and international actions to regulate and tax carbon emissions in order to move the world off of fossil fuels and onto non-carbon emitting energy sources. This move to renewables is vital to the future of our world ecology, our civilization and future generations. It is too bad you and the rest of the deniers are too bamboozled and confused to realize this.

I find it insulting that you think that reasonably well informed people can have their opinions 'bought'. how exactly does that happen? did I miss out on the cheques?

I understand the evidence for AGW and find it very thin. the small amount of warming caused by CO2 is not catastrophic. feedbacks are not positive, they are most likely negative just like every other natural earth system. the predictions of doom are just a way to make people feel guilty so they wont complain when they are taxed and regulated.

Sure enough, the glaciers are nor receding, the arctic ocean ice is not decreasing in area and volume, the arctic ocean clathrates are not creating 1 kilometer wide boils of methane directly to the atmosphere, and Swiss Re and Munich Re are lying about the record increase in weather related disasters in the last three decades.

Just a bunch of people wanting to tax poor Ian. Damn, I did not take you for one of the fruitloops.

Again, there is warming and there is CO2 increase. The CO2 rises and the temperature rises. The CO2 rises and the temperature drops. The CO2 rises and the temperaure stays the same. CO2 must be stupid. I just won't do the same thing two days ina row.

While the climate apparently can't be predicted, the Warmers activities can.

This from a group asserting that the Japan Earthquake was the result of Global Warming.

You really can't make this crap up.

A link between Japan’s earthquake and global warming? - PostPartisan - The Washington Post

<snip>
Friday, the day an 8.9 earthquake struck off the northeast coast of Honshu, the president of the European Union’s Economic and Social Committee released this puzzling statement:

The earthquake and tsunami will clearly have a severe impact on the economic and social activities of the region. Some islands affected by climate change have been hit. Has not the time come to demonstrate on solidarity — not least solidarity in combating and adapting to climate change and global warming? Mother Nature has again given us a sign that that is what we need to do.
<snip>

 

[Big Fitz]

I don't see science as being a political issue.

Good governance should be about acting on accurate scientific data - not about distorting the truth, hiding from it, or pretending the facts are not what they are.

While I think the use of nuclear vs renewables is a political issue around the world, only in the US (and to a lesser extent, Australia) does climate change seem to be political.

The Conservative parties of the UK, France, Germany, Finland, Denmark, New Zealand and host of others ALL accept that human acitivty may be playing a role in climate change, and have developed policies to suit.

In many cases, this means nuclear.

But why do some Americans seem to think climate change is left wing conspiracy, when most conservatives around the world are saying the opposite?

Oil production in the US peaked in the 1970s. It has been going down, since.

This was always going to be the case. Alcoholic beverages and stills were banned in the Constitution, 1918, which was really directed, against possible brewing of alcohol, as fuel. When Henry Ford and Rudolph Diesel both advocated hemp alcohol for their engines, and Ford made a great, indestructible hemp-plastic, The Hemp Stamp Tax Act of 1938 was inevitable. When this was declared unconstitutional in 1972, Nixon founded the DEA. Democrats and Republicans oppose legal hemp, Canada legalized it and has a hemp-corn surplus, but Canada exports petroleum, so a lot of hemp products will not come from down north.

Democrats passed Obamacare, lost the House, and THEN they tried to pass CO2-neutral biomass research, which lost, 2012. Ds and Rs both get PAC money, from petroleum and nuclear special interests. Expect them to trash us and the planet.

Meanwhile, carbonic acid is building up, in oceans and on land. Die-offs from acid are allover the world, check YouTube for acidification vids. We can lose the food chain, oceans first, then see the bees? They are dying from pesticides, but I suspect carbonic acid plays a part. When they go, no more orchard crops.

Fracking continues, while Ds and Rs spank each other, in a circle.

Science which will not catch up with Henry Ford or Rudi Diesel is not modern. Science which hides how carbonic acid is the busiest killer, related to accelerating AGW is not good science. Science is corrupted because crime pays, Ds and Rs are getting some of the profiteering, and nobody is leading, to re-greening waters and lands.

We can die, from neglect of science, or from too much science, but not enough smarts, in perpetrators who like to manufacture nuclear gear, like generators and ammunition. All this killer gear gets around, without anybody with brains dodging the zombies, to take charge, to make sure we re-green. Mass extinction event 6 looms, while much of the science is junk media, sorting the garbage-input, leading to garbage output.

Looks like we have another Olufraudi Peaker in the house.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I don't see science as being a political issue.

Good governance should be about acting on accurate scientific data - not about distorting the truth, hiding from it, or pretending the facts are not what they are.

While I think the use of nuclear vs renewables is a political issue around the world, only in the US (and to a lesser extent, Australia) does climate change seem to be political.

The Conservative parties of the UK, France, Germany, Finland, Denmark, New Zealand and host of others ALL accept that human acitivty may be playing a role in climate change, and have developed policies to suit.

In many cases, this means nuclear.

But why do some Americans seem to think climate change is left wing conspiracy, when most conservatives around the world are saying the opposite?

Oil production in the US peaked in the 1970s. It has been going down, since.

This was always going to be the case. Alcoholic beverages and stills were banned in the Constitution, 1918, which was really directed, against possible brewing of alcohol, as fuel. When Henry Ford and Rudolph Diesel both advocated hemp alcohol for their engines, and Ford made a great, indestructible hemp-plastic, The Hemp Stamp Tax Act of 1938 was inevitable. When this was declared unconstitutional in 1972, Nixon founded the DEA. Democrats and Republicans oppose legal hemp, Canada legalized it and has a hemp-corn surplus, but Canada exports petroleum, so a lot of hemp products will not come from down north.

Democrats passed Obamacare, lost the House, and THEN they tried to pass CO2-neutral biomass research, which lost, 2012. Ds and Rs both get PAC money, from petroleum and nuclear special interests. Expect them to trash us and the planet.

Meanwhile, carbonic acid is building up, in oceans and on land. Die-offs from acid are allover the world, check YouTube for acidification vids. We can lose the food chain, oceans first, then see the bees? They are dying from pesticides, but I suspect carbonic acid plays a part. When they go, no more orchard crops.

Fracking continues, while Ds and Rs spank each other, in a circle.

Science which will not catch up with Henry Ford or Rudi Diesel is not modern. Science which hides how carbonic acid is the busiest killer, related to accelerating AGW is not good science. Science is corrupted because crime pays, Ds and Rs are getting some of the profiteering, and nobody is leading, to re-greening waters and lands.

We can die, from neglect of science, or from too much science, but not enough smarts, in perpetrators who like to manufacture nuclear gear, like generators and ammunition. All this killer gear gets around, without anybody with brains dodging the zombies, to take charge, to make sure we re-green. Mass extinction event 6 looms, while much of the science is junk media, sorting the garbage-input, leading to garbage output.

Peak Oil

LOL

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It was warmer in the USA in the 30's and supposedly it's the warmest it's ever been; therefore, Democrat controlled Congress causes Global Warming.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Oh, Peak Oil LOL

 

[skookerasbil]

How does man's contribution to 0.0024% of atmospheric composition control climate when there are so many other stronger contributing factors?

The reason I haven't answered this before is because I can not believe any even vaguely interested in this topic can't answer it for themselves.

'Human activities result in emissions of four principal greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and the halocarbons (a group of gases containing fluorine, chlorine and bromine). These gases accumulate in the atmosphere, causing concentrations to increase with time. Significant increases in all of these gases have occurred in the industrial era (see Figure 1). All of these increases are attributable to human activities.'

The IPCC explains... Human & Natural Causes of Climate Change | Climate System | Cause and Effect

Note the word 'accumulate'.

The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth's atmosphere is approximately 392 ppm (parts per million) by volume as of 2011[1] and rose by 2.0 ppm/yr during 2000–2009. [1][2] The concentration increase with respect to pre-industrial concentration of 280 ppm has grown roughly exponentially.

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I really hope you will step back from the politics and actual try and consider this with an open mind.

The IPCC has already admitted to not checking data handed to them by activists who got their from anecdotal evidence based on Ice Climbing guides OPINIONS in the Himelayas.

Your authority has failed you.

And not to mention even THEY can't show why a 0.0024% increase in atmospheric composition from a MINOR greenhouse gas controls the entire world climate. It's less than a rounding error when you run the numbers based on tons present in the atmosphere versus man's yearly input.

IPCC Insider Admits Climate Consensus Claim Was a Lie | The Beacon

Love this sentence:



You prove it absolutely true that this is your religion.

Then you dig into why this blog has merit:

The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider | Full Comment | National Post

Which is evidenced by this found on page 10-11.

http://www.probeinternational.org/Hulme-Mahony-PiPG[1].pdf

Damning excerpt:



More fun to kill off your hero worship of authorative figures who do not deserve it. From the same report:

The function of climate change I suggest, is not as a lower-case environmental phenomenon to be solved. Solving climate change should not be the focus of our efforts any more than we should be ‘solving’the idea of human rights or liberal democracy. It really is not about stopping climate chaos. Instead, we need to see how we can use the idea of climate change – the matrix of ecological functions, power relationships, cultural discourses and materials flows that climate change reveals – to rethink how we take forward our political, social, economic and personal projects over the decades to come."

Glacier scientists says he knew data had not been verified | Mail Online

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.
Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.
In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action

Follow the money and the power. What power? To change government policy to how they feel the world SHOULD work. If you think this is a manufactured statement, here's the screen shot of the original report.

BREAKING NEWS: scientist admits IPCC used fake data to pressure policy makers | Watts Up With That?

In March 2000, 'Scientists' (obviously part of the consensus) claimed this.

Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past - Environment - The Independent

Why should I trust your petty failed gawds of political science instead of basic mathematics and observation any CHILD can do accurately?

Also, I expect you to not even bother to read these, and will probably discredit it out of hand just like every other bit of information that disrupts your nice pre-conclusions.

Big Fitz bro..........gotta come on over here and join the party more often. The bomb throwing gets better and better.

 

[skookerasbil]

The radical environmentalist guys are doing it again.............changing the subject!!!

 

[Big Fitz]

I have a short fuse and shorter temper with these assholes when they think high falutin titles make fact while 8th grade earth science is false.

 

[Big Fitz]

The radical environmentalist guys are doing it again.............changing the subject!!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKZNEugVQlk]Kung Fu Hustle - My Ass - YouTube[/ame]

 

[code1211]

Plenty.

Dr. Jim Hansen. A paper with several very accurate predictions, in spite of his caveats about the state of knowledge at that time.

28 August 1981, Volume 213, Number 4511 Science

http://thedgw.org/definitionsOut/..\docs\Hansen_climate_impact_of_increasing_co2.pdf

Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and
1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is
consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of
atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar
luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend
of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming
should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the
century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on
climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North
America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West
Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the
fabled Northwest Passage.

Sylvia Brown has a better prediction rate than Hansen you fool.

Retarded dogs could cheat you at cards, walleyed, you poor deluded cretin.

And of course, as usual, you're completely clueless about the real world. Your denier cult myths, like the ones about Dr. Hansen's work, are, as always, utter BS. Most of the predictions that Dr. Hansen has made have come to pass or are happening now. He is an eminent scientist, honored and respected by his peers.

James Hansen
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Honors and awards

Hansen was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1996 for his "development of pioneering radiative transfer models and studies of planetary atmospheres; development of simplified and three-dimensional global climate models; explication of climate forcing mechanisms; analysis of current climate trends from observational data; and projections of anthropogenic impacts on the global climate system."[70] In 2001, he received the 7th Annual Heinz Award in the Environment (endowed with US$250,000) for his research on global warming,[71] and was listed as one of Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential People in 2006. Also in 2006, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) selected James Hansen to receive their Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility "for his courageous and steadfast advocacy in support of scientists' responsibilities to communicate their scientific opinions and findings openly and honestly on matters of public importance."[72]

In 2007, Hansen shared the US $1 million Dan David Prize for "achievements having an outstanding scientific, technological, cultural or social impact on our world". In 2008, he received the PNC Bank Common Wealth Award of Distinguished Service for his "outstanding achievements" in science. At the end of 2008, Hansen was named by EarthSky Communications and a panel of 600 scientist-advisors as the Scientist Communicator of the Year, citing him as an "outspoken authority on climate change" who had "best communicated with the public about vital science issues or concepts during 2008."[73]

In 2009, Hansen was awarded the 2009 Carl-Gustaf Rossby Research Medal,[73] the highest honor bestowed by the American Meteorological Society, for his "outstanding contributions to climate modeling, understanding climate change forcings and sensitivity, and for clear communication of climate science in the public arena."[74]

Hansen won the 2010 Sophie Prize, set up in 1997 by Norwegian Jostein Gaarder, the author of the 1991 best-selling novel and teenagers' guide to philosophy "Sophie's World",[75] for his " key role for the development of our understanding of human-induced climate change."

Why not post his prediction from 30 years ago that accurately predicts today's climate based on his theories regarding the growth of CO2?

 

[code1211]

From which college did Hansen get his degree in climatology?

Where did you get your degree in stupidity?

James Hansen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hansen was born in Denison, Iowa. He was trained in physics and astronomy in the space science program of James Van Allen at the University of Iowa. He obtained a B.A. in Physics and Mathematics with highest distinction in 1963, an M.S. in Astronomy in 1965 and a Ph.D. in Physics, in 1967, all three degrees from the University of Iowa. He participated in the NASA graduate traineeship from 1962 to 1966 and, at the same time, between 1965 and 1966, he was a visiting student at the Institute of Astrophysics at the University of Kyoto and in the Department of Astronomy at the University of Tokyo. Hansen then began work at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in 1967.[2]

[edit] Research and publications

As a college student at the University of Iowa, Hansen was attracted to science and the research done by James Van Allen's space science program in the physics and astronomy department. A decade later, his focus shifted to planetary research that involved trying to understand the climate change on earth that will result from anthropogenic changes of the atmospheric composition.

Hansen has stated that one of his research interests is radiative transfer in planetary atmospheres, especially the interpretation of remote sensing of the Earth's atmosphere and surface from satellites. Because of the ability of satellites to monitor the entire globe, they may be one of the most effective ways to monitor and study global change. His other interests include the development of global circulation models to help understand the observed climate trends, and diagnosing human impacts on climate.[3]
................................................................................................................
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Hansen published several papers on the planet Venus following his Ph.D. dissertation. Venus has a high brightness temperature in the radio frequencies compared to the infrared. Hansen proposed that the hot surface was the result of aerosols trapping the internal energy of the planet.[4] More recent studies have suggested that several billion years ago Venus's atmosphere was much more like Earth's than it is now, and that there were probably substantial quantities of liquid water on the surface, but a runaway greenhouse effect was caused by the evaporation of that original water, which generated a critical level of greenhouse gases in its atmosphere.[5]
........................................................................................................................
Hansen was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1996 for his "development of pioneering radiative transfer models and studies of planetary atmospheres; development of simplified and three-dimensional global climate models; explication of climate forcing mechanisms; analysis of current climate trends from observational data; and projections of anthropogenic impacts on the global climate system."[70] In 2001, he received the 7th Annual Heinz Award in the Environment (endowed with US$250,000) for his research on global warming,[71] and was listed as one of Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential People in 2006. Also in 2006, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) selected James Hansen to receive their Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility "for his courageous and steadfast advocacy in support of scientists' responsibilities to communicate their scientific opinions and findings openly and honestly on matters of public importance."[72

So.....

What you're saying is that he has no credentials to support his expertise in Climatology.

 

[westwall]

From which college did Hansen get his degree in climatology?

Where did you get your degree in stupidity?

James Hansen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hansen was born in Denison, Iowa. He was trained in physics and astronomy in the space science program of James Van Allen at the University of Iowa. He obtained a B.A. in Physics and Mathematics with highest distinction in 1963, an M.S. in Astronomy in 1965 and a Ph.D. in Physics, in 1967, all three degrees from the University of Iowa. He participated in the NASA graduate traineeship from 1962 to 1966 and, at the same time, between 1965 and 1966, he was a visiting student at the Institute of Astrophysics at the University of Kyoto and in the Department of Astronomy at the University of Tokyo. Hansen then began work at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in 1967.[2]

[edit] Research and publications

As a college student at the University of Iowa, Hansen was attracted to science and the research done by James Van Allen's space science program in the physics and astronomy department. A decade later, his focus shifted to planetary research that involved trying to understand the climate change on earth that will result from anthropogenic changes of the atmospheric composition.

Hansen has stated that one of his research interests is radiative transfer in planetary atmospheres, especially the interpretation of remote sensing of the Earth's atmosphere and surface from satellites. Because of the ability of satellites to monitor the entire globe, they may be one of the most effective ways to monitor and study global change. His other interests include the development of global circulation models to help understand the observed climate trends, and diagnosing human impacts on climate.[3]
................................................................................................................
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Hansen published several papers on the planet Venus following his Ph.D. dissertation. Venus has a high brightness temperature in the radio frequencies compared to the infrared. Hansen proposed that the hot surface was the result of aerosols trapping the internal energy of the planet.[4] More recent studies have suggested that several billion years ago Venus's atmosphere was much more like Earth's than it is now, and that there were probably substantial quantities of liquid water on the surface, but a runaway greenhouse effect was caused by the evaporation of that original water, which generated a critical level of greenhouse gases in its atmosphere.[5]
........................................................................................................................
Hansen was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1996 for his "development of pioneering radiative transfer models and studies of planetary atmospheres; development of simplified and three-dimensional global climate models; explication of climate forcing mechanisms; analysis of current climate trends from observational data; and projections of anthropogenic impacts on the global climate system."[70] In 2001, he received the 7th Annual Heinz Award in the Environment (endowed with US$250,000) for his research on global warming,[71] and was listed as one of Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential People in 2006. Also in 2006, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) selected James Hansen to receive their Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility "for his courageous and steadfast advocacy in support of scientists' responsibilities to communicate their scientific opinions and findings openly and honestly on matters of public importance."[72

Hansen has no degree in climatology, thus by your definition he is unqualified to speak on those matters. Probably a good idea as his hit rate is less than that charlatan Brown. How does that feel, you know...to follow somone who is less accurate (by orders of magnitude) than a charlatan?

 

[westwall]

From which college did Hansen get his degree in climatology?

Where did you get your degree in stupidity?

James Hansen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hansen was born in Denison, Iowa. He was trained in physics and astronomy in the space science program of James Van Allen at the University of Iowa. He obtained a B.A. in Physics and Mathematics with highest distinction in 1963, an M.S. in Astronomy in 1965 and a Ph.D. in Physics, in 1967, all three degrees from the University of Iowa. He participated in the NASA graduate traineeship from 1962 to 1966 and, at the same time, between 1965 and 1966, he was a visiting student at the Institute of Astrophysics at the University of Kyoto and in the Department of Astronomy at the University of Tokyo. Hansen then began work at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in 1967.[2]

[edit] Research and publications

As a college student at the University of Iowa, Hansen was attracted to science and the research done by James Van Allen's space science program in the physics and astronomy department. A decade later, his focus shifted to planetary research that involved trying to understand the climate change on earth that will result from anthropogenic changes of the atmospheric composition.

Hansen has stated that one of his research interests is radiative transfer in planetary atmospheres, especially the interpretation of remote sensing of the Earth's atmosphere and surface from satellites. Because of the ability of satellites to monitor the entire globe, they may be one of the most effective ways to monitor and study global change. His other interests include the development of global circulation models to help understand the observed climate trends, and diagnosing human impacts on climate.[3]
................................................................................................................
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Hansen published several papers on the planet Venus following his Ph.D. dissertation. Venus has a high brightness temperature in the radio frequencies compared to the infrared. Hansen proposed that the hot surface was the result of aerosols trapping the internal energy of the planet.[4] More recent studies have suggested that several billion years ago Venus's atmosphere was much more like Earth's than it is now, and that there were probably substantial quantities of liquid water on the surface, but a runaway greenhouse effect was caused by the evaporation of that original water, which generated a critical level of greenhouse gases in its atmosphere.[5]
........................................................................................................................
Hansen was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1996 for his "development of pioneering radiative transfer models and studies of planetary atmospheres; development of simplified and three-dimensional global climate models; explication of climate forcing mechanisms; analysis of current climate trends from observational data; and projections of anthropogenic impacts on the global climate system."[70] In 2001, he received the 7th Annual Heinz Award in the Environment (endowed with US$250,000) for his research on global warming,[71] and was listed as one of Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential People in 2006. Also in 2006, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) selected James Hansen to receive their Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility "for his courageous and steadfast advocacy in support of scientists' responsibilities to communicate their scientific opinions and findings openly and honestly on matters of public importance."[72

So.....

What you're saying is that he has no credentials to support his expertise in Climatology.

I have peer reviewed this and find it 100% accurate. We have CONSENSUS!

 

[RollingThunder]

Sylvia Brown has a better prediction rate than Hansen you fool.

Retarded dogs could cheat you at cards, walleyed, you poor deluded cretin.

And of course, as usual, you're completely clueless about the real world. Your denier cult myths, like the ones about Dr. Hansen's work, are, as always, utter BS. Most of the predictions that Dr. Hansen has made have come to pass or are happening now. He is an eminent scientist, honored and respected by his peers.

James Hansen
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Honors and awards

Hansen was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1996 for his "development of pioneering radiative transfer models and studies of planetary atmospheres; development of simplified and three-dimensional global climate models; explication of climate forcing mechanisms; analysis of current climate trends from observational data; and projections of anthropogenic impacts on the global climate system."[70] In 2001, he received the 7th Annual Heinz Award in the Environment (endowed with US$250,000) for his research on global warming,[71] and was listed as one of Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential People in 2006. Also in 2006, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) selected James Hansen to receive their Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility "for his courageous and steadfast advocacy in support of scientists' responsibilities to communicate their scientific opinions and findings openly and honestly on matters of public importance."[72]

In 2007, Hansen shared the US $1 million Dan David Prize for "achievements having an outstanding scientific, technological, cultural or social impact on our world". In 2008, he received the PNC Bank Common Wealth Award of Distinguished Service for his "outstanding achievements" in science. At the end of 2008, Hansen was named by EarthSky Communications and a panel of 600 scientist-advisors as the Scientist Communicator of the Year, citing him as an "outspoken authority on climate change" who had "best communicated with the public about vital science issues or concepts during 2008."[73]

In 2009, Hansen was awarded the 2009 Carl-Gustaf Rossby Research Medal,[73] the highest honor bestowed by the American Meteorological Society, for his "outstanding contributions to climate modeling, understanding climate change forcings and sensitivity, and for clear communication of climate science in the public arena."[74]

Hansen won the 2010 Sophie Prize, set up in 1997 by Norwegian Jostein Gaarder, the author of the 1991 best-selling novel and teenagers' guide to philosophy "Sophie's World",[75] for his " key role for the development of our understanding of human-induced climate change."

Why not post his prediction from 30 years ago that accurately predicts today's climate based on his theories regarding the growth of CO2?

Okey-dokey, code4stupid, here ya go.

J. Hansen, D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, "Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide", Science, vol. 213, 1981, pp. 957-966. DOI

Fig.6 (from the paper) gives a projection for the global mean temperature up to 2100. In 1981 the northern hemisphere was cooling somewhat and the average global temperature was lower than the average temperatures of the early 1940s, but Hansen and his colleagues confidently predicted a rise in temperature due to increasing CO2 emissions. Their graph assumes that that the world would start taking some actions to deal with this situation starting in the late 1990s, so they modeled the results of several different energy-use scenarios.

Looking back at the actual temperature record since 1981 (in red) reveals that Hansen slightly underestimated the rise in temperatures.

 

[RollingThunder]

I have peer reviewed this and find it 100% accurate. We have CONSENSUS!

ROTFLMAO.....a 'consensus' of clueless retards.....how incredibly amusing.....

 

[westwall]

Retarded dogs could cheat you at cards, walleyed, you poor deluded cretin.

And of course, as usual, you're completely clueless about the real world. Your denier cult myths, like the ones about Dr. Hansen's work, are, as always, utter BS. Most of the predictions that Dr. Hansen has made have come to pass or are happening now. He is an eminent scientist, honored and respected by his peers.

James Hansen
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Honors and awards

Hansen was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1996 for his "development of pioneering radiative transfer models and studies of planetary atmospheres; development of simplified and three-dimensional global climate models; explication of climate forcing mechanisms; analysis of current climate trends from observational data; and projections of anthropogenic impacts on the global climate system."[70] In 2001, he received the 7th Annual Heinz Award in the Environment (endowed with US$250,000) for his research on global warming,[71] and was listed as one of Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential People in 2006. Also in 2006, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) selected James Hansen to receive their Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility "for his courageous and steadfast advocacy in support of scientists' responsibilities to communicate their scientific opinions and findings openly and honestly on matters of public importance."[72]

In 2007, Hansen shared the US $1 million Dan David Prize for "achievements having an outstanding scientific, technological, cultural or social impact on our world". In 2008, he received the PNC Bank Common Wealth Award of Distinguished Service for his "outstanding achievements" in science. At the end of 2008, Hansen was named by EarthSky Communications and a panel of 600 scientist-advisors as the Scientist Communicator of the Year, citing him as an "outspoken authority on climate change" who had "best communicated with the public about vital science issues or concepts during 2008."[73]

In 2009, Hansen was awarded the 2009 Carl-Gustaf Rossby Research Medal,[73] the highest honor bestowed by the American Meteorological Society, for his "outstanding contributions to climate modeling, understanding climate change forcings and sensitivity, and for clear communication of climate science in the public arena."[74]

Hansen won the 2010 Sophie Prize, set up in 1997 by Norwegian Jostein Gaarder, the author of the 1991 best-selling novel and teenagers' guide to philosophy "Sophie's World",[75] for his " key role for the development of our understanding of human-induced climate change."

Why not post his prediction from 30 years ago that accurately predicts today's climate based on his theories regarding the growth of CO2?

Okey-dokey, code4stupid, here ya go.

J. Hansen, D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, "Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide", Science, vol. 213, 1981, pp. 957-966. DOI

Fig.6 (from the paper) gives a projection for the global mean temperature up to 2100. In 1981 the northern hemisphere was cooling somewhat and the average global temperature was lower than the average temperatures of the early 1940s, but Hansen and his colleagues confidently predicted a rise in temperature due to increasing CO2 emissions. Their graph assumes that that the world would start taking some actions to deal with this situation starting in the late 1990s, so they modeled the results of several different energy-use scenarios.

Looking back at the actual temperature record since 1981 (in red) reveals that Hansen slightly underestimated the rise in temperatures.

Sooooo CO2 has more than doubled his prediction and the temps havn't reached even his lowest guestimate. In fact he's 300% off on his guess. And you think that's good? Sylvia Brown has a better track record than that and she's a well known charlatan.

How do you explain that?

 

[westwall]

I have peer reviewed this and find it 100% accurate. We have CONSENSUS!

ROTFLMAO.....a 'consensus' of clueless retards.....how incredibly amusing.....

Yes, it is. So kind of you to notice

 

[IanC]

Retarded dogs could cheat you at cards, walleyed, you poor deluded cretin.

And of course, as usual, you're completely clueless about the real world. Your denier cult myths, like the ones about Dr. Hansen's work, are, as always, utter BS. Most of the predictions that Dr. Hansen has made have come to pass or are happening now. He is an eminent scientist, honored and respected by his peers.

James Hansen
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Honors and awards



Hansen was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1996 for his "development of pioneering radiative transfer models and studies of planetary atmospheres; development of simplified and three-dimensional global climate models; explication of climate forcing mechanisms; analysis of current climate trends from observational data; and projections of anthropogenic impacts on the global climate system."[70] In 2001, he received the 7th Annual Heinz Award in the Environment (endowed with US$250,000) for his research on global warming,[71] and was listed as one of Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential People in 2006. Also in 2006, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) selected James Hansen to receive their Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility "for his courageous and steadfast advocacy in support of scientists' responsibilities to communicate their scientific opinions and findings openly and honestly on matters of public importance."[72]

In 2007, Hansen shared the US $1 million Dan David Prize for "achievements having an outstanding scientific, technological, cultural or social impact on our world". In 2008, he received the PNC Bank Common Wealth Award of Distinguished Service for his "outstanding achievements" in science. At the end of 2008, Hansen was named by EarthSky Communications and a panel of 600 scientist-advisors as the Scientist Communicator of the Year, citing him as an "outspoken authority on climate change" who had "best communicated with the public about vital science issues or concepts during 2008."[73]

In 2009, Hansen was awarded the 2009 Carl-Gustaf Rossby Research Medal,[73] the highest honor bestowed by the American Meteorological Society, for his "outstanding contributions to climate modeling, understanding climate change forcings and sensitivity, and for clear communication of climate science in the public arena."[74]

Hansen won the 2010 Sophie Prize, set up in 1997 by Norwegian Jostein Gaarder, the author of the 1991 best-selling novel and teenagers' guide to philosophy "Sophie's World",[75] for his " key role for the development of our understanding of human-induced climate change."

Why not post his prediction from 30 years ago that accurately predicts today's climate based on his theories regarding the growth of CO2?

Okey-dokey, code4stupid, here ya go.

J. Hansen, D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, "Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide", Science, vol. 213, 1981, pp. 957-966. DOI

Fig.6 (from the paper) gives a projection for the global mean temperature up to 2100. In 1981 the northern hemisphere was cooling somewhat and the average global temperature was lower than the average temperatures of the early 1940s, but Hansen and his colleagues confidently predicted a rise in temperature due to increasing CO2 emissions. Their graph assumes that that the world would start taking some actions to deal with this situation starting in the late 1990s, so they modeled the results of several different energy-use scenarios.

Looking back at the actual temperature record since 1981 (in red) reveals that Hansen slightly underestimated the rise in temperatures.

a 30+ year old paper written back in the cooling scare huh? perhaps Hansen was a better scientist 35 years ago. care to explain his last few graphs?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Scientists have done that quite thoroughly. You are just too much of a brainwashed moron to comprehend that. CO2 is actually a fairly powerful greenhouse gas. Mankind has raised CO2 levels about 40% over pre-industrial levels and that extra CO2 is mostly responsible for the abrupt warming trend of the last 60 years. Those facts have been scientifically determined and verified. Those facts are very inconvenient for your puppet masters in the fossil fuel industry because they threaten the trillion dollar a year profit flow that industry is currently enjoying. So those greedy mo-fo's propagandize scientifically ignorant people like you to create doubt about the very real scientific facts of the matter and delay any effective collective action to place the necessary limits on carbon emissions. Just like the tobacco companies used twisted and phony 'science' to delay public recognition that smoking tobacco causes a whole lot of serious health problems, some of them life threatening, and thereby delayed for years the appropriate governmental actions to regulate and tax tobacco sales. Those regulatory actions eventually resulted in a reduction in the cancer and other disease rates associated with smoking and cut the number of smokers considerably. So too now are the fossil fuel companies and vested interests (oil billionaires like the Koch brothers, etc.) trying to delay the very necessary and appropriate governmental and international actions to regulate and tax carbon emissions in order to move the world off of fossil fuels and onto non-carbon emitting energy sources. This move to renewables is vital to the future of our world ecology, our civilization and future generations. It is too bad you and the rest of the deniers are too bamboozled and confused to realize this.

I find it insulting that you think that reasonably well informed people can have their opinions 'bought'. how exactly does that happen? did I miss out on the cheques?

I understand the evidence for AGW and find it very thin. the small amount of warming caused by CO2 is not catastrophic. feedbacks are not positive, they are most likely negative just like every other natural earth system. the predictions of doom are just a way to make people feel guilty so they wont complain when they are taxed and regulated.

Sure enough, the glaciers are nor receding, the arctic ocean ice is not decreasing in area and volume, the arctic ocean clathrates are not creating 1 kilometer wide boils of methane directly to the atmosphere, and Swiss Re and Munich Re are lying about the record increase in weather related disasters in the last three decades.

Just a bunch of people wanting to tax poor Ian. Damn, I did not take you for one of the fruitloops.

Sure enough, the glaciers are nor receding,

OMG! This must be the first time in human history that glaciers have retreated. LOL!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Plenty.

Dr. Jim Hansen. A paper with several very accurate predictions, in spite of his caveats about the state of knowledge at that time.

28 August 1981, Volume 213, Number 4511 Science

http://thedgw.org/definitionsOut/..\docs\Hansen_climate_impact_of_increasing_co2.pdf

Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and
1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is
consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of
atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar
luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend
of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming
should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the
century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on
climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North
America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West
Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the
fabled Northwest Passage.

Sylvia Brown has a better prediction rate than Hansen you fool.

Retarded dogs could cheat you at cards, walleyed, you poor deluded cretin.

And of course, as usual, you're completely clueless about the real world. Your denier cult myths, like the ones about Dr. Hansen's work, are, as always, utter BS. Most of the predictions that Dr. Hansen has made have come to pass or are happening now. He is an eminent scientist, honored and respected by his peers.

James Hansen
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Honors and awards

Hansen was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1996 for his "development of pioneering radiative transfer models and studies of planetary atmospheres; development of simplified and three-dimensional global climate models; explication of climate forcing mechanisms; analysis of current climate trends from observational data; and projections of anthropogenic impacts on the global climate system."[70] In 2001, he received the 7th Annual Heinz Award in the Environment (endowed with US$250,000) for his research on global warming,[71] and was listed as one of Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential People in 2006. Also in 2006, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) selected James Hansen to receive their Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility "for his courageous and steadfast advocacy in support of scientists' responsibilities to communicate their scientific opinions and findings openly and honestly on matters of public importance."[72]

In 2007, Hansen shared the US $1 million Dan David Prize for "achievements having an outstanding scientific, technological, cultural or social impact on our world". In 2008, he received the PNC Bank Common Wealth Award of Distinguished Service for his "outstanding achievements" in science. At the end of 2008, Hansen was named by EarthSky Communications and a panel of 600 scientist-advisors as the Scientist Communicator of the Year, citing him as an "outspoken authority on climate change" who had "best communicated with the public about vital science issues or concepts during 2008."[73]

In 2009, Hansen was awarded the 2009 Carl-Gustaf Rossby Research Medal,[73] the highest honor bestowed by the American Meteorological Society, for his "outstanding contributions to climate modeling, understanding climate change forcings and sensitivity, and for clear communication of climate science in the public arena."[74]

Hansen won the 2010 Sophie Prize, set up in 1997 by Norwegian Jostein Gaarder, the author of the 1991 best-selling novel and teenagers' guide to philosophy "Sophie's World",[75] for his " key role for the development of our understanding of human-induced climate change."

Www! Look at all that money and all those awards.
Who says exaggerating doesn't pay?