NASA's James Hansen, whose work is continually exposed as shoddy while he refuses to share data gathering techniques and computer codes used for such things with others, has been criticized by a contributing scientist to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as moving "dangerously away from scientific discourse to advocacy."
What has drawn the ire of Andrew Weaver, a physicist at the University of Victoria who works on the dynamics of the polar ice caps, are recent statements by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies chief that oceans could rise as much as 82 feet in the next hundred years due to global warming.
Bear in mind that the IPCC's most recent report downgraded its expectations for such sea level increases to less than two feet.
However, according to Canada's Globe and Mail, Hansen believes the IPCC is dramatically underestimating the imminent doom (emphasis added throughout, h/t to Marc Morano and James Lewis):
"If we follow 'business-as-usual' growth of greenhouse gas emissions," he writes in an e-mail interview, "I think that we will lock in a guaranteed sea-level rise of several metres, which, frankly, means that all hell is going to break loose."
The scientific basis for this idea - which Prof. Hansen and five co-authors gleaned from geological records, ice core samples and analysis of the sea floor - is outlined in a recent paper published by the British journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society.
In stark contrast to estimates put forward by the IPCC, Prof. Hansen and his colleagues argue that rapidly melting ice caps in Antarctica and Greenland could cause oceans to swell several metres by 2100 - or maybe even as much as 25 metres, which is how much higher the oceans sat about three million years ago.
Of course, lost upon Hansen - and, quite frankly, the entire global warming alarmism crowd - is that if oceans were indeed so much higher three million years ago before man was emitting so much carbon dioxide, it seems quite specious to suggest that man is responsible for today's warming and sea level rise.
Yet, there was a more telling segment of this article that even further demolished the "debate is over," "the science is settled" nonsense that alarmists like soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore and his not so merry sycophants continue to disingenuously espouse:
Certain positive feedback effects, as well as recent data on the melting of the Greenland ice sheet, were not included in the IPCC's report. "Because of the cumbersome IPCC review process, they exclude recent information," Prof. Hansen says, "so they are very handicapped."
That's correct, James, and the point that skeptics all around the world have been making for years: the IPCC is INDEED handicapped, and DOES exclude MUCH recent information, not just that which supports your views.
Frankly, I'm very pleased to see Hansen admit this, and wish that our media would immediately report that one of the top scientists involved in global warming change research believes the IPCC is actually NOT the end all and be all when it comes to climate change information.
That said, Richard Peltier, a University of Toronto physicist and the director of the Centre for Global Change Science, isn't buying Hansen's recent alarmism, nor do others:
"We really don't know what the future has in store. I am incapable of predicting how fast the ice sheets will melt, and so is he. But I don't think we are going to hell in a handbasket."
Others are even less convinced of the catastrophic predictions put forward by Prof. Hansen. Andrew Weaver, a physicist at the University of Victoria who works on the dynamics of the polar ice caps and also contributes to the IPCC reports, says he thinks the "upper bound for sea-level rise this century is a metre.
"I don't disagree with the seriousness of the issue or the importance of these positive feedback effects," he says, "but runaway feedbacks have extraordinarily low probabilities, which is why they are not given much attention by the IPCC."
He adds that the Greenland ice sheet will almost certainly melt away completely, but the IPCC predicts that this will take 1,700 years - not a century. "The complete disintegration of the ice sheets cannot happen in 100 years," he says.
Moreover, although he calls Prof. Hansen his "hero" for speaking out about global warming in the 1980s "when nobody was listening," he criticizes the tone of his recent paper and the use of words such as "cataclysm," which he believes move "dangerously away from scientific discourse to advocacy."
Hmmm. So, one of the members of the IPCC thinks that Hansen has moved from scientific discourse to advocacy. Ask any of the skeptics around the world, and they would have told you the exact same thing.
Isn't it sad that America now has an advocate in one of the most powerful climate positions in the nation rather than a scientist?
For more information on Hansen's absurdities, please see James Lewis's piece in today' American Thinker.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Comments Policy
Professor Hansen appears to be cranky
August 27, 2007 - 10:28 ET by ThalpyDisagreement with the left may be dangerous to your health. Even at NASA, where science should be valued, agenda driven pronouncements and decisions are made. Had they continued to use R-11 as a urea-resin foam propellant instead of the green-friendly type, they might keep the insulation on our space shuttles during lift-off. From all that I have seen about Mr. Hansen, he has never been one to suffer fools gladly. He should be cautious.
Shouldn't Hansen be spending
August 27, 2007 - 10:41 ET by Hero SquadShouldn't Hansen be spending more time on things like making sure tiles aren't falling off Space Shuttles, and less time promoting junk science?
*****
"Some people have a way with words. Other people, er, I don't know. Not have way, I guess
What are you trying to do,
August 27, 2007 - 11:19 ET by dscottWhat are you trying to do, have him sabotage the space program too??? He needs to be in the employ of Al Gore not NASA. From what has been exposed so far, Hansen's attention to detail is on par with the dolts who confused metric versus english measurements on the Hubble's mirror and the Mars Climate Orbiter. http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric.02/
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
One Word of Caution, Noel
August 27, 2007 - 11:00 ET by Dr_LibertyFirst, count me in as one of the skeptics of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. But in that vein, I think we need to be very careful in our critiques of global warming theories. If we accuse Hansen and others of sloppy thought, we have to do it in a way that doesn't lead to our own sloppiness. That is why I offer this nitpicky comment in good faith as I think Noel makes a series of excellent points.
Noel writes, "...if oceans were indeed so much higher three million years ago before man was emitting so much carbon dioxide, it seems quite specious to suggest that man is responsible for today's warming and sea level rise."
Comment: The presence of prehistoric global warming does not make the argument for anthropogenic warming specious. It is still possible that humans are causing warming via various methods. What prehistoric warming does do, however, is suggest an alternative explanation and/or additional variables (e.g., solar cycles, volcanism) that have more effect upon climate than man-made causes.
Let me put it this way. It is plausible that human release of CO2, methane and other gasses do contribute to warming. But the effect of that release may only be 1% of the overall cause, leaving 99% due to non-human causes (e.g., solar cycles). The anthropogenic hypothesis is not specious (it may have a causal effect), but man's contribution may be substantively irrelevant and certainly not worth the cost of the various proposals floating around.
I am of the ilk that the burning of fossil fuels does have an effect, but that effect is so inconsequential as to be not worth worrying about. Moreover, it is also possible that other activities may have a negating effect -- e.g., while human produced CO2 may insignificantly increase warming, particulate matter may actually reduce it by making the atmosphere more reflective. (Instead of driving Priuses, we should all install mirrors on the top of our Hummers!)
Does this make sense?
<insert witty signature here>
Overthinking
August 27, 2007 - 11:06 ET by Mica the MagnificentYou're overthinking, Dr.
'Global warming' is all about hurting capitalism and increasing taxes on Americans and more gov't control of our lives.
Period.
Careful...
August 27, 2007 - 11:15 ET by mattmIt's not sloppiness...
Jst as it was with Sandy Burglar, whose defenders brushed his crime off as "sloppiness," what Hansen is guilty of is not "sloppy thought," it's shoddy science and maybe even worse.
If a scientist makes a declaration of a conclusion and then refuses to reveal his method of how he arrived at that conclusion...that's scientific fraud, in my estimation, and renders his conclusion suspect at best, and probably false...especially when properly applied scientific methods show the contrary to his conclusions.
Hansen gets an F for not showing his work.
Hansen is guilty of the
August 28, 2007 - 10:57 ET by dscottHansen is guilty of the same sloppiness as Mann with his debunked hockey stick. Now, if it were just a matter of a scientific debate his sloppiness would be an innocent forgivable mistake, indeed part of the normal scientific process of discovery, however, Hansen himself has upped the ante by claiming the debate is over and how irresponsible anyone is having a different opinion than AGW, then telling us how we should give ourselves over to Socialism. All true science is open for debate and alternative ideas.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
Clarification and Overthinking
August 27, 2007 - 11:34 ET by Dr_LibertyThat's all fine and good, but my point here is that we need to be careful in our counterarguments to the global warming crowd. We need to be more exact in where we attack the global warming arguments. It is well established that CO2 does exert a "greenhouse effect," which is a beneficial thing that makes the earth habitable. The point of criticism is that there are many, many other factors that contribute to climate fluctuations than just CO2 emissions.
If we make the argument that CO2 has nothing to do with a "greenhouse effect," we can be shot down easily. If we aim our argument at the marginal effect that humans have and point to other more important factors, then we have a stronger argument.
This goes back to the old Linus Pauling Vitamin C study. Pauling found out that there was a statistically significant effect linking high doses of Vitamin C consumption with the prevention of the common cold. However, the amount of Vitamin C needed to get this effect was not really worth the substantively insignificant reduction in the risk of getting a cold. A megadose of Vitamin C reduced your chance of getting a cold by 1%. The high sample size made this result statistically significant, but it was not substantively significant. The same thing is at work here, methinks. While human factors may have some impact on climate fluctuations, it is substantively insignificant relative to other causes. This is not the same thing as saying antrhopogenic warming is a specious argument.
Admittedly I may be overthinking the problem, but our critics will pick up on words like this.
<insert witty signature here>
The vitamin C issue is a
August 27, 2007 - 12:22 ET by dscottThe vitamin C issue is a good a example of using a statistical means to tease out a claim to do one thing or another. We all know who the two biggest liars are.
However, let's review the track record shall we?
1. Hockey Stick graph debunked, Mann matched incompatible data sets to eliminate the Medieval Optimum and Little Ice Age to make the specious claim that temperatures were rising in an unprecedented manner.
2. CO2 graph debunked, mixing of incompatible data sets, ice cores (zero feet elevation), 50 to 80 year gap and then adding current measurements at 16,000 ft on Mauna Laua (a volcano-CO2 emitter). This was done dispite having chemical measurements of CO2 levels since the late 1800s, in other words they excluded data that would have shown CO2 levels were pretty close to what we measure now.
3. Ocean level rising and flooding of cities debunked, a French scientist who has been working 30 years in the field rebuked the IPCC for adjusting satellite data to fabricate a rising level when in fact it actually lowered! Using tide guages on land that settling is not the scientific idea of careful attention to detail.
4. A Y2K error that results in 1998 not being the hottest year and then having to revise the data to acknowledge 1934 as being the hottest year in the US indicates two problems: 1. If the US which spans many times zones and climate zones from Arctic to desert doesn't show a warming, and the Southern Hemisphere is not either, then GW is NOT a "GLOBAL" phenomonon, but a regional one. 2. If the US temperature data has had problems, what makes anyone think that the readings from China or elsewhere are equally as reliable and subject to revision?
5. When a 15 year old girl can point out the obvious regarding the Urban Heat Island effect by showing where temperature recording stations are situated next to parking lots, trash burning barrels, etc. then what can we say about the level of careful scientific data collection just in this country, never mind any other part of the world??? The results of any calculation are only as good as the data that is collected. Hence any statistical analysis on bad data is invalid.
6. AGWers are now starting to claim 2009 will be the next hottest temperature on record by claiming natural variability is swamping the last 9 years. If nature is so variable as to swamp so called AGW how can one possibly conclude that man did anything to affect the temperature???? Please notice 2009 is exactly at the predicted upswing of Solar Cycle 24. If all previous temperature swings have been attributed to the solar cycle, it is completely specious to claim that any temperature swing in 2009 is man's fault.
The track record so far has pointed to a wanton failure of detail which is inexcusable by any standard of science. Any high school student doing this kind of data collection and work would get an F by his science teacher and we should give any of their assertions the benefit of the doubt?????? I believe in the 3 strike rule, basically what these guys like Hansen are claiming they have 2 strikes and they can hit all the foul balls they want and not be considered out. Hansen's credibility is zero when it comes to science. When these guys http://www.surfacestations.org/ finish their survey of all the US temp stations, I strongly suspect based on what they are preliminarily finding is NOAA will have to do a total revision of the temperature data for the US. Once done, the rest of the remaining recent so called hottest years will probably drop off the top 10 as well. I suspect, in fact that Global Cooling will be issue dejur.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
Number 1. Mann's hockey
August 27, 2007 - 12:30 ET by danboNumber 1. Mann's hockey stick. If my memory of McIntyre's work on Mann is correct. Mann truncated his data. There was an existing tree ring series that went back farther than used. The older tree ring series showed a warmer period.
Likewise they stopped using proxy data after about 1980 and started splicing in surface tempertures. Does the recent proxy data show warming. I keep hearing it doesn't.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Doctor
August 27, 2007 - 12:02 ET by Noel SheppardDoctor,
Understood. However, what I was trying to point out was the inanity in ascribing a cause to a current environmental condition to one that didn't exist three million years ago when the same environmental condition was observed.
For example, you bring your 15-year-old son into my office because of a terrible acne condition. In his history, he has had such flare-ups before going back to when he was an infant. I tell you it's caused by raging adolescent hormones. Isn't that absurd?
Now, it is possible that your son's current condition is being impacted by said hormones. However, as the condition was observed well before adolescence, blaming it solely on teenage hormonal changes is specious, and doesn't address what likely is a much larger precipitating factor in your kid's acne problem.
People like Hansen and Gore are blaming global warming on recently observed behaviors while completely ignoring the past. THAT is specious in my view. ns
The Wizard of Odd
August 27, 2007 - 11:08 ET by mattmHansen's refusal to share his data gathering techniques reminds me of the Wizard of Oz saying,
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"
Another government sponsored liar...
So tired
August 27, 2007 - 11:32 ET by jay_1975I am so tired of the Global Warming fiasko. One nut job says to change your ways while having her new 30,000 square foot home built (Laurie David) and then another nut job says that the seas will rise up to 25 meters (likely to scare only the most weak minded or most indoctrinated). Here's what I say: Anytime someone buys a SUV, the government should give them $5,000. Why? Because they are helping to end our depedency of oil by using it up faster. Anyone who uses anything in excess should be rewarded for helping to force us to find alternative energy. I say leave the lights on all the time and keep the A/C set to 39 degrees (don't want to freeze). Burn all garbage before throwing it out. If it says "made from recycled..." burn it. Who wants to use someone's left overs? Start anew I say. Only use aresols since the non aresol sprayers make my wrist hurt after a while. Just by taking these easy steps, you too can end Americas dependency on coal and foreign oil. Global Warming is a scam and every day the facts get a little more light shed on them. We do need to look at other energy sources (nuclear) but not because Al Gore said to, but because one day we will run too low on oil and coal to maintain our current way of life.
9 Va Localities Get Freeze Loans
August 27, 2007 - 11:37 ET by PawpawNPosted this elsewhere, but needs to be here also!!
Won't see this anywhere in MSM front pages or even in regular part of news. This was hidden on page 4 of Business Journal tab of 8/27/2007 Charlottesville Daily Progress: The headline(small) "9 localities qualify for freeze disaster loans." The story starts: "Eight southwest Virginia counties and an independent city qualify for disaster loans from the U. S. Small Business Administration as a result of the freeze in early April." & the story goes on. This was from MEDIA GENERAL NEWS SERVICE.
MSM
August 27, 2007 - 12:05 ET by Sergeant ROCKWell, if they do, it will reported as 'ONLY 9 Localities Qualify for Freeze Relief.'
Money Speaks
August 27, 2007 - 12:00 ET by roconnellI wonder if this has anything to do with the $250,000 (or was it $100,000) that was awarded to Hanson from Teresa Hinze's Foundation.
roconnell aka climate change skeptic
http://climatechangeskeptic.blogspot.com/
The point
August 27, 2007 - 12:24 ET by cleverpigI think you guys are missing the point. First of all, science is always about debate. At this point there is consensus (which is not the same as 100% agreement) that global warming is happening. The debate is effectively over. There is also consensus that human activities are affecting global warming. There is still debate as to how much we are affecting global warming. There is huge debate about what affect global warming will have on the planet and our lives. The fact that significant disagreement exists over some aspects of the phenomenon does not mean that the consensus over the existence of a problem is meaningless.
But honestly, who cares how much of global warming is "our fault?" Maybe it's 5%, maybe it's 50%. The fact is that we can affect global warming, and it is to some degree or another going to affect us. So why not do what we can to make sure that the oceans rise 2 feet instead of 10? To make sure that people in Asia still have glacier water to drink in 20 years? The changes we make will depress some parts of the economy, and they will stimulate others. That's how change happens.
Does that really sound so terrible?
Cleverswine.......Yes....but back off on the "terrible"
August 27, 2007 - 12:56 ET by JayTeeThink this ...."global warming is happening" AGAIN.
Everyone agrees, man affects the Environment, but I think we affect water, animals, trees, more so than the "Atmosphere" around the World. Cetainly we affect the air in Los Angeles. And as you say, this man effect isn't "meaningless".
BUT, the SUN has the BIGGEST effect on Global warming, as defined in the book "Irrevesable Global warming every 1500 years". There is "EVIDENCE" of this....GW by man is looking for Evidence while ignoring the "Again" suffix.
If you want to save the planet, clean up the water....then Talk about "what's the Problem ?" and "how do we fix it ?". Take dead aim, use real science, and address REAL issues, and stop already with the Baloney, Salami, Pastrami Scenarios.
And PUBLISH TRUTH....if the Canadian Polar Bear Populations are Stable....then SAY THAT....and KEEP REPEATING IT on MSM along with other Truths.....not the one sided agenda half truths.
We can't see the TRUTH mixed in with AL GORE's movie, thus he is discredited by the Truth, along with his theory being discredited.
We are all Journalists, and we can find the Temperature Gathing stations in our neighborhoods, and question formula's used for adjusting those reports of Temps., if Hanson will divulge his Software calculations...........which he will not.
What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ? David Foote GoE
"Does that really sound so
August 27, 2007 - 16:40 ET by ckc1227"Does that really sound so terrible?"
When your entire premise is built on nonsense, yes, it really sounds terrible.
"The fact is that we can affect global warming, and it is
to some degree or another going to affect us. So why not do what we
can to make sure that the oceans rise 2 feet instead of 10? "
And while we're at it, let's make sure there are no more volcanic eruptions, no more earthquakes, make sure the rain from hurricanes goes to drought affected areas of the U.S. only, while keeping the wind from hurricanes blowing harmlessly in the middle of the ocean. Oh yeah, let's also create world peace and end all hunger and poverty in the world, create cars and trucks that run on smiles and happy thoughts, and lastly, my personal favorite, make me irresistable to all beautiful women. Should take about a week, if only mean ol' George Bush would stop holding things up because of his oil buddies.
"But honestly, who cares how much of global warming is "our fault?"
I care. If you have one group of idiots, errr, "scientists" telling me the rash on my arm is my fault, and the only cure is amputation, and another group tells me to put some hydrocortisone on it and stay away from poison ivy, I think I'm going to go with the latter.
Here's a fact for you: nothing that is occuring is unprecedented. If you are in need of constant catastrophic drama in your life, so be it. Knock yourself out. But leave me out of it. I don't play make-believe anymore, at least not on a global scale that involves scamming the entire planet.
What's next, the threat of global grass growth, where grass exhibits the unusual, never before seen characteristic of growing at an increased rate 4-5 months out of the year?
Save us Obiwan-Algore, you're our only hope!
And while we're at it,
August 27, 2007 - 20:10 ET by cleverpigAnd while we're at it, let's make sure there are no more volcanic eruptions, no more earthquakes, make sure the rain from hurricanes goes to drought affected areas of the U.S. only, while keeping the wind from hurricanes blowing harmlessly in the middle of the ocean. Oh yeah, let's also create world peace and end all hunger and poverty in the world, create cars and trucks that run on smiles and happy thoughts, and lastly, my personal favorite, make me irresistable to all beautiful women. Should take about a week, if only mean ol' George Bush would stop holding things up because of his oil buddies.
Well, we should definitely be working on half of those things. Thanks for the reminder!
If you have one group of idiots, errr, "scientists" telling me the rash on my arm is my fault, and the only cure is amputation, and another group tells me to put some hydrocortisone on it and stay away from poison ivy, I think I'm going to go with the latter.
On the other hand, if you have a strange discoloration on your arm and one doctor tells you it's gangrene and the only cure is to amputate, while another gives you hydrocortisone cream and tells you to stay away from poison ivy, you are probably going to go with the second doctor. Might not work out so well for you, though. Who knows, maybe we'll all be supremely lucky and the minority of GW skeptics will turn out to be right. That's a long time to keep your fingers crossed, though!
-
August 27, 2007 - 17:02 ET by dahliatraversMaybe it's 5%, maybe it's 50%
Such carelessness about reality. Are you sure you're not James Hansen?
Contrary to the myth that seems to have sprung up in the msm and among Al Gore's Hollywood friends, if AGW were proven, countering it would not involve anything blithely simple like all of us changing our light bulbs. The lifestyle changes would be onerous to the point of draconian and, as someone else pointed out, they would not be limited to the rich and comfortable.
-
August 27, 2007 - 18:03 ET by dahliatraversCleverpig, possibly you are truly not aware that man is not the only generator of greenhouse gases. In fact, at 6%, man is by far the smallest contributor of greenhouse gases; Mother Nature generates the other 94%.
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
So all of man's considerable activity around the world is making only 6% of the greenhouse gases. If, emphasize if, it is proven that this small percentage is the tipping point for global warming, think of what it would take, all the sacrifices that would have to be made, to even begin to have an effect.
Understand that most sceptics are in favor of reducing man's consumption of fossil fuels for a host of other reasons. But we resent the attempt to stampede everyone into drastic measures on the basis of a badly researched premise.
cleverpiggy:
August 27, 2007 - 15:02 ET by krismcsherry"To make sure that people in Asia still have glacier water to drink in 20 years? The changes we make will depress some parts of the economy, and they will stimulate others. That's how change happens."
Change happens on the backs of the poor.
Stimulate others? How? In California, they spend our tax money to tell us silly things like "global warming is a choice", a complete lie, and advise us to change a light bulb. It's like they're talking to 5-yr- olds.
Inflation continues as they consider more taxes to support our infrastructure. In the meantime they waste resources with phantom bandaids on AGW and in the hiring of a 130K-a-year AGW appointee who will save the world, I suppose, while China wins top prize as carbon-spewer.
They harp on how bad the air is and create board after board to deal with it, adding on regulations, yet our air has improved since 1980 in every particulate when we should be working towards nuclear energy not buying into carbon trading schemes.
This is political; it's out-of-control political frosting on the cake of global warming alarmism and it's encouraging higher energy prices with no end in sight. For what? A non-proven theory of AGW?
What if the skeptics (the "non-consensus" group) are right?
Carbon schemes aren't working in Europe and it won't work here without damaging our economy and putting more hardship on the underclass.
Eight EU countries are suing the European Commission because they don't want to see their GDP strangled by low quotas on the production of Co2. It's an imbroglio that this country would do well to avoid.
Other stuff:
On polar bears from the Scotsman in 2005:
"THE world’s polar bear population is on the increase despite global warming, which scientists had believed was pushing the animal towards extinction. According to new research, the numbers of the giant predator have grown by between 15 and 25 per cent over the last decade."
I'm on the search for more recent info.
On environmental bullies: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/valdis_dombrovskis/2007/08/environmental_bullies.html
On harming the poor while others benefit through AGW's religious excesses:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2126614,00.html
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/43671/story.htm
Have you read Bjorn Lomberg's book? A believer in AGW who proposes sensible solutions to prepare for the impending doom some are afraid of. If you have to believe, then believe sensibly, keeping the whole big nasty political picture fully in mind.
Krismcsherry, you use way
August 27, 2007 - 15:27 ET by jay_1975Krismcsherry, you use way too much logic. The fight to end "global warming" must be fought with name calling, arrogance and emotion. Logic has no place, especially since "the debate is over". It doesn't matter if CO2 is only a third as strong at trapping heat as the computer models say. It doesn't matter that we only produce one third of all of the CO2 in the atmosphere. We must act and screw over as many people (particuallry in America) as possible. C'mon, geniuses like Al Gore and Leo Dicapro said this is important. And who can ever put aside the revelations given us by Laurie David and Shryl Crow? No No No, keep the logic out and bring in more emotion. There is a consensus that the flawed computer models all say the same thing, well some of them, a part of them...ok, hardly any of them agree, but we must act before it's too late for anyone to believe this crap.
It is absolutely the
August 27, 2007 - 20:38 ET by cleverpigIt is absolutely the responsibility of environmentalists to make sure that our initiatives do not place undue burdens on people who are already disadvantaged. I won't argue with that. However, the status quo hasn't exactly been great for the world's poor either. We simply have to work hard to make sure that we're keeping an eye out for everyone.
The last article you linked is actually quite encouraging-- while I knew approximately how the carbon trading schemes worked in Kyoto, I hadn't previously realized how much of a priority the accord places on aid to developing countries. It seems clear that the Kyoto protocol is designed to be first an environmental initiative, and second a vehicle for economic aid to the third world. Fabulous! Unfortunately, it sounds like not much has happened yet on the aid side, but also cites some promising projects that are in the works. Hopefully lots of people read about the issue.
Seriously, you can always point to excesses on both sides of any controversy. The key to navigating these things sanely is to find the consensus and watch the outliers without getting too hysterical about them! Liberals are not out to get you or make your life miserable. Like you, we honestly believe that we're doing the right thing ;)
*snicker*
August 27, 2007 - 20:42 ET by Sergeant ROCKLiberals are not out to get you or make your life miserable.
Ha.. Ha.. Ha.. Ha.. Ha..!
Yeah... right.
Fabulous
August 27, 2007 - 20:45 ET by BlondeIt seems clear that the Kyoto protocol is designed to be first an environmental initiative, and second a vehicle for economic aid to the third world. Fabulous!
If you think it's so fabulous....why don't you fund it yourself instead of digging into my pocket (and those of my fellow taxpayers) to do it?
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
This is precisely why we
August 27, 2007 - 20:53 ET by dscottThis is precisely why we oppose Kyoto beyond the hoax of AGW, it's just a transfer of wealth scheme, nothing more. We recognized this early on, what took you so long to figure this out? If you want to do the right thing, then advocate honest accountable government in the third world. The poor are poor in third world nations because of the corruption and failed economic models their leaders insist on enforcing on their people. Zimbawve under Robert Mugabe being the classic example of a corrupt government. No amount of wealth transfer will overcome corrupt officials robbing their people. In fact, you make it worse by making them all the more richer and greedier.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
Doomed to repeat it
August 27, 2007 - 20:56 ET by Sergeant ROCKNo amount of wealth transfer will overcome corrupt officials robbing their people.
We haven't learned that with NPRK yet.
You're wrong, Cleverpig
August 27, 2007 - 21:13 ET by RJIf you were spend time, honestly looking into how Kyoto is set up, you'd find that Liberals and Socialists ARE "out to get" the rest of us. This entire Kyoto scam is nothing less than a scheme to reduce America's power and gain control over the economies of the world.
jay_1975
August 27, 2007 - 15:53 ET by krismcsherryYeah don't I though, use too much logic. I simply don't want to patronize anyone (today) the way the FlexYourPower and other green gov't mouthpieces patronize California citizens.
Next time I'll focus on ad hominems and crying babies and such a la the School of Hansen and Gore, et al.
Like the poor in Africa
August 27, 2007 - 16:09 ET by dscottLike the poor in Africa that will be denied technological advancement or the millions in Africa that died because of Rachel Carlson's deception over DDT or all those starving babies in Africa that died when the UN promoted powdered milk over breast feeding? Only dolt UN administrators of UNICEF don't consider mixing tainted water with baby formula is a potentially bad thing. Liberalism is so helpful. <sarcasm>
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
Hansen
August 27, 2007 - 19:04 ET by pbthinkerHansen has been on the political side of this for a long time, like when he claimed he was being silenced by administration officials. Perhaps, if he was being silenced, it was because he was going to say stupid stuff like this.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
cleverpig
August 28, 2007 - 00:27 ET by krismcsherryThis thought: "We simply have to work hard to make sure that we're keeping an eye out for everyone."
(Sounds kind of big brother-ish)
vs.
"We Liberals are not out to get you or make your life miserable. Like you, we honestly believe that we're doing the right thing"
I don't doubt you think you're doing the right thing. What I believe is that libs are working hard to keep an eye out on everyone so that they can make us miserable--perhaps unintentionally. There is an annoying, prevailing undercurrent from libs that sends the message that they want everyone to feel guilty about things they perceive as wrong or bad.
Sorry, Charlie. Not buying it.
In the case of AGW, libs profess to want to help the world and its citizens but are not doing it much good by being short-sighted and overly emotional in their activism.
From the frontlines:
http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21NVDulanyaGreen90807.html
"It is crucial for the environmental elites to understand that what is possible in an already developed country may not be compatible to the survival of a developing one. " --Stella Dulanya
Well, I certainly wouldn't want a scientist ever to warn ME
August 28, 2007 - 07:09 ET by TokyoTomof a potentially serious problem - certainly not one that has been consistently warning for 25+ years and has moved most of the scientific community to his view - and besides, don't those pesky "scientists" sign away all of their First Amendment rights when they work for the Government, anyway?
That's why I pay attention to what firms like Exxon, who have their own scientists involved in the IPCC, the companies involved in the Business Roundtable, the Pew Foundation other corporate groups and skpetics that I trust, like libertarian Ron Bailey of Reason Magazine, who once wrote a book called "Ecoscam: The False Prophets of Ecological Apocalypse".
Noel, you and others might be interested in Ron's take, since he's clearly in no one's pocket. Here are links to some of Ron's recent pieces, easily accessible online:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/122081.html
Hurricane Harbingers; Are hurricanes becoming stronger and more numerous?
August 21, 2007
http://www.reason.com/news/show/121926.html
The Cost of Cooling the Climate; A non-alarmist guide for policymakers
August 14, 2007
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/121949.html
Another Free Marketeer for Carbon Taxes
August 14, 2007, 3:13pm
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/121909.html
Robert Samuelson on the Great Global Warming "Denial Machine"
August 13, 2007, 10:57am
http://www.reason.com/news/show/121799.html
Energy Mandates or Energy Taxes? Congress thinks you should pay more for power
August 7, 2007
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/121363.html
Can't Blame the Sun for Global Warming, Says Study
July 12, 2007, 12:18pm
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/120668.html
National Review on How to Handle Global Warming
June 11, 2007, 10:13am
http://www.reason.com/news/show/120381.html
Carbon Taxes Versus Carbon Markets; What's the best way to limit emissions?
May 24, 2007
http://www.reason.com/news/show/120026.html
Fixing Climate Change Is Cheap; Or so says a new United Nations report
May 4, 2007
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/119601.html
Newt Gingrich = Al Gore?
April 11, 2007, 11:38am
http://www.reason.com/news/show/118479.html
Global Warming -- Not Worse Than We Thought, But Bad Enough; The IPCC issues its summary for policymakers on the scientific basis of climate change.
February 2, 2007
http://www.reason.com/news/show/117271.html
Global Warming Solutions; Markets, taxes, or nothing at all?
December 15, 2006
http://www.reason.com/news/show/116751.html
Pay It Forward; What can carbon markets do for economic development?
November 15, 2006
http://www.reason.com/news/show/116401.html
Stern Measures; Averting climate change is surprisingly affordable. Or is it?
November 3, 2006
http://www.reason.com/news/show/36811.html
Confessions of an Alleged ExxonMobil Whore; Actually no one paid me to be wrong about global warming. Or anything else.
September 22, 2006
http://www.reason.com/rb/rb040306.shtml
LOSING BET ON CLIMATE CHANGE
Temperatures are rising—what now?
Reason Online, 3 April 2006
http://www.reason.com/news/show/34079.html
We're All Global Warmers Now ; Reconciling temperature trends that are all over the place
August 11, 2005
http://www.reason.com/news/show/34976.html
Betting on Climate Change; It's time to put up or shut up
June 8, 2005
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool."
-- Richard Feynman
TokyoTommy, you miss the irony
August 28, 2007 - 09:44 ET by RJthat you condemn Exxon for a supposed agenda, yet applaud Hansen's "warnings"....when he clearly has his own agenda.
Hansen's agenda, of course, is the subject of this thread, because his extremism has taken him far beyond objective science.
But shame on your boogyman "Exxon" and the scientists you apparently believe must not be taken seriously. Everyone knows that if they want to be taken seriously, they should stoop to name-calling...it's the hallmark of all serious scientists.
Dear Mr. Troll:
August 29, 2007 - 00:38 ET by TokyoTomShame on you, for pretending you want a conversation while persisting with familar diminutives that red flag your insincerity, arrogance and presumption.
Shame on you, for reflexively assuming that I was "condemn[ing] Exxon for a supposed agenda"
Shame on you, for presuming that for me Exxon is a "boogyman" that "must not be taken seriously".
Shame on you, for presuming to preach to me, when you've clearly both ignored the words I wrote and haven't got a clue yourself to what Exxon's position is on climate change.
Shame on you, for acting like you want to be taken seriously, when you can't be troubled to read straight or to do any research.
Shame, shame, SHAME!
So what exactly DOES Exxon say? Do any inquiring minds here really want to know? Because I am just so reflexively dishonest, allow me to post just one quote to get you started on a research project that you clearly have no interest in:
Thanks again for showing that presumption, ignorance and reflexive thinking are the hallmarks of so many "serious" commentators here.
Respectfully,
TT
PS. My mama always told me NOT to feed the trolls, but my broad streak of insincerity always gets in the way of my better judgment.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool."
(yawn)
August 29, 2007 - 00:43 ET by Free Stinker(yawn)
ExxonMobil's position on
August 29, 2007 - 08:20 ET by dscottExxonMobil's position on climate change is not revelant to this discussion. Hansen's incompetence and political advocacy are. TT, we are not buying the conspiracy theory of the oil companies when $50 billion dollars has been wasted on AGW research as compared to what? all of $19 million from the oil companies? If such a disproportionate funding balance has you and Hansen scared that the public won't listen to you, then you are paranoid and what's worse you have the entire MSM pushing AGW with doomsday storys night after night and yet the public is not impressed. This pretty much ends your agenda.
The fact that you have all the evidence you need to see that AGW is a hoax and yet in the face of all this evidence you continue to proclaim AGW means one of two things, either you are a "True Believer" whose faith in AGW is absolute to the exclusion of the facts or you are a deceiver whose agenda is world wide Socialism. In either case, the shame on you ploy won't get traction here, much less the public since the public has rejected your type of Fanaticism and Socialism outright.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
dscott -- as we know
August 29, 2007 - 08:33 ET by Jack Bauerdscott -- as we know liberals are all mendacious BIG LIE types.
But even they cannot seriously believe thinking people will fall for their BS on ExxonMobil's supposed spending of $19 million over the past few years to help manmade global warming skeptics.
$19 bleepin' million -- three mil a year?
Get this:
That would be profits of what? Over 500 billion in the time frame. They probably spend more than $20 mil on office supplies every year.
Man, these guys just ain't trying to trash manmade global warming huh?
It's really pathetic, and
August 29, 2007 - 08:59 ET by dscottIt's really pathetic, and shows the desparation of the AGW cultists. They are so afraid of debate or the support of dissent they blow the issues out of any semblence of proportion by exageration. I have made a postulate about this: The degree to which someone exagerates or deceives, is inversely proportional to the merit of the advocated position.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
TokyoTommy, your run-on sentence in the second paragraph
August 29, 2007 - 19:15 ET by RJmakes it difficult to be certain, but since your first paragraph was sarcastic, I assumed your second (run-on) paragaph was also. Am I wrong? Please enlighten me.
Regarding preaching, arrogance and ignoring words, it's a fairly common ploy for eogists like you to pretend that their own behavior belongs to others. But, I guarantee you that you're the only one on this board who doesn't believe that you are preachy, aggressively arrogant, and that you constantly ignore salient points in order to complain about foolish side issues.
BTW. thank you for properly recognizing me with the hororary "Mister."
Shall I call you "Tommy-san?"
Show the fools the IPCC Data
August 28, 2007 - 10:13 ET by PopularTechOnce you confront the alarmists with the IPCC data their argument simply dies. This is why Hansen feels compelled to make these statements. To the alarmists nothing can get in the way of their self-created doomsday.
Quick Facts:
- Global average sea level has risen only about 6 inches in the last 100 years. (Based on tidal gauge data) (IPCC)
- Global mean sea level rise is in the range of 1.0 to 2.0 mm/yr. (Based on tidal gauge data) (IPCC)
- No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected. (IPCC)
- 20 feet of sea level rise would take 3048-6096 years. (Based on tidal gauge data) (IPCC)
Greenland - ERS altimeter survey shows growth of Greenland Ice Sheet interior (ESA - European Space Agency)
Greenland - Fossil DNA Proves Greenland Once Had Lush Forests; Ice Sheet Is Surprisingly Stable (Science Daily)
Greenland - Greenland's Glaciers Have Been Receding for 100 Years (University of Aarhus, Denmark)
Greenland - Greenland’s Glaciers Take a Breather (The New York Times)
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
Must steal these for my
August 29, 2007 - 00:44 ET by Free StinkerMust steal these for my master list... ;-)
Fred Thompson and Ann Coulter walk into a bar. The bar is instantly destroyed because that much awesome cannot be contained in one building.