On May 18, NewsBusters introduced you to Kristen Byrnes, the fabulous fifteen-year-old from Maine who had torn apart many of the myths purported by the Global Warmingist-in-Chief, soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore, in his schlockumentary “An Inconvenient Truth.”
Now, the Precocious Ponderer from Portland is taking on the scientist that Gore relied on for much of his misinformation, James Hansen of NASA.
In her recent report entitled “Houston, We Have a Problem,” Byrnes identified a serious concern with this so-called scientist that many anthropogenic global warming skeptics have been addressing for years (emphasis added throughout):
James Hansen seems to have a busy life for someone from Iowa. But the real question seems to be is whether or not Hansen is too busy to realize what he is actually saying to the pubic.
As Hansen attempts to seduce, exaggerate, and alarm the public, some people (like me) attempt to inform the public of the reality of global warming, its impacts, and now, the truth behind James Hansen.
Next, Byrnes took on the myth Hansen likes to purport that he is politically independent:
Hansen claims that he is an “independent”, but he seems to be the only person who believes it. Readers may already be aware of this, but if not… James Hansen was granted a quarter of a million dollars from the Heinz Environment Award a.k.a. U. S. Senator and former Presidential Candidate John Kerry’s wife’s foundation. You know the old saying; “nothing in politics is free.” So my first question is: what did he do to get the quarter of a million dollars? Was it the price for switching his political standing from “independent” to democratic when he later endorsed John Kerry for President? Was it payment for interpreting his department’s data in a way that would benefit his political friends?
More evidence of his connections to the Democratic Party was his endorsement of Al Gore’s presidential campaign in 2000. James Hansen was also a science advisor to Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth.
As kids say these days, “Oh SNAP!”
Marvelously, she was just getting warmed up:
James Hansen is a scientist who admittedly uses scare tactics to convince the public that global warming will be “potentially disastrous”. Consider this statement from Hansen in his own document called “Can We Defuse the Global Warming Time Bomb?” [published in the journal Natural Science] in August of 2003.
Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as "synfuels," shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate forcing scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions. Scenarios that accurately fit recent and near-future observations have the best chance of bringing all of the important players into the discussion, and they also are what is needed for the purpose of providing policy-makers the most effective and efficient options to stop global warming.
Fascinating, wouldn't you agree? What Hansen wrote in 2003 was that he used to advocate lying to the public and policy makers to get them to act. Yet, we should believe his prognostications now because he’s decided it’s suddenly important to be truthful.
To demonstrate how Hansen clearly is still operating from his prior modus operandi regarding the need to exaggerate to impact the debate, Byrnes pointed out the following deliciously inconvenient truth:
It is important to understand that global warming has been measured in tenths of degrees, .77 degrees Celsius in the past 100 years. There has been a great deal of controversy about the accuracy of the temperature data, mainly the bias of temperature data due to urban heat island effect. This controversy has lead many to focus on rural temperature stations. Rural stations are intended to represent the cool breezy countryside, small towns, farms, trees and grass.
In recent weeks, researchers have been visiting these temperature stations. What they noticed was that there are serious problems with the quality of these temperature stations. They noticed that many of these temperature stations were located next to concrete buildings, near hot exhausts of air conditioning units, attached to metal towers and poles, surrounded by driveways and above gravel.
How delicious. And, here’s the excruciatingly painful punch line:
The photos of these temperature stations are not just a few of many; they are the first few dozen that have been visited. About 80% of the temperature stations that have been visited and photographed have serious quality problems. This brings up some more questions: How many tenths of a degree will temperatures rise when the thermometer is near the hot exhaust of an AC unit? Or how about when it is located above gravel or near a paved road or driveway? How many tenths of a degree will the temperature rise when the thermometer is above pavement and surrounded by buildings (no wind)? And in one case, as documented by the photograph below, how many tenths of a degree will the temperature rise when the caretaker of the facility burns trash in a metal barrel just 5 feet away from the temperature station?
For those interested, more pictures of these stations can be found here.
Now, putting this is some perspective, given the position and location of some of these stations, wouldn’t this be a fabulous thing for investigative journalists to be reporting? Can’t you just imagine a segment about this on “60 Minutes,” “20/20,” or “Dateline?” Why do you think that hasn’t happened?
Or, is it the job of fifteen-year-olds to point out that which adults find too inconvenient?
Brava, Kris. Brava!