Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
At the least, you are freely admitting that your opinion concerning climate change issues is based entirely upon politics and your political beliefs and considerations of some of the issue's political implications.
I can respect that for what it is.
It speaks not to the science, nor even, to a broader understanding of the full potential of physical, as well as socio-economic potentials, but it doesn't pretend to, nor does it seek to deny nor distort other aspects of the issue,...at least not in this post to which I am responding.
It speaks specifically to the history of the issue.
Environmentalists have predicted that all kinds of disastrous effects would take place since the early 1900's.
None have ever been correct. I refuse to let a few charts and graphs erase 100 years of lies.
If you are willing to outline, specifically, in Hansen's 1988 paper, which predictions you feel that Hansen was eggregiously in error about. Then we can define exactly what was stated and use the historic record to look at the actual climate data since 1988 and see for ourselves what this tells us.
In the links below are the predictions of the Hansen and the actual performance of the climate.
The three scenarios start at about the same point.
1984 is the starting point for the CO2 Readings.
The presentation was made in 1988. At that point the actual temperature was already lagging the projections by a tad with 1988 being a valley between peaks of 1987 and 1989.
There were three Scenarios and the one that most closely matches the CO2 scenario is B.
Warmers are a DoomsDay Cult
Yes, it will matter. A bit more warming will do wonders for improving the quality of human life just like it did during the Medieval Warming Period. The mini Ice Age ended in the mid 1880s, and the warming ever since has been very favorable to agriculture.
Yeah, but "The poor Third World is starving", don't you know. We in the evil industrialized West consume way more than them. Waaaaah. It's not fair; how dare we do that! Waaah, we should share their misery; Waaaaah, it's all OUR fault. That about right, Chicken Littles? Have I about covered your pathetic Leftist whining, (which is exactly what this issue is about!). Why did this start, in the leftist realm of academia (guess how many conservatives ever get tenure in these bastions of communist indoctrination?)? Why is it mostly Liberals who push this tree-hugging, the sky-is-falling, we're all gonna die nonsense? A mere cult of Leftist Pseudo-religion, masquerading as science; arrant nonsense, all of it. Maybe if we just ignore them, they'll go away.
If you are willing to outline, specifically, in Hansen's 1988 paper, which predictions you feel that Hansen was eggregiously in error about. Then we can define exactly what was stated and use the historic record to look at the actual climate data since 1988 and see for ourselves what this tells us.
In the links below are the predictions of the Hansen and the actual performance of the climate.
The three scenarios start at about the same point.
There is a good starting point, though to be honest I would prefer not to explore a blog post when we have the actual paper itself to go by. I would rather discuss Hansen's own words than some blogger's impressions of the paper and whether or not he properly evaluated the paper and the data which supports or doesn't support that paper. This is especially the case if you are going to dismiss the blogger's assessment regardless of his qualifications to make those assessments. By exploring the actual paper and what it actually says and then comparing those words to the actual data records for the initial periods since those words were published we should be able to see precisely what is going on and where the "predictions" you are concerned about are incorrect or correct.
Do you understand the difference in meaning and application between a "senario" and a "prediction?"
Mauna Loa instrumental atmospheric CO2 measurement readings began in 1958.
The presentation was made in 1988. At that point the actual temperature was already lagging the projections by a tad with 1988 being a valley between peaks of 1987 and 1989.
Please explain how the initial start point of a projection can "lag" behind that projection.
There were three Scenarios and the one that most closely matches the CO2 scenario is B.
Well, there was also the 100-year control run with CO2 levels held at the fixed 1958 level, and while that isn't a "prediction," it gets at the heart of the issue concerning the problems that come from trying to associate and call and think about senarios as if they were "predictions."
We can discuss the individual senarios in more detail if you'd like, and it would greatly help in the understanding of a term that post dates the 88 Hansen paper, that being the phrase now commonly known by the acronym SRES (Special Report on Emission Scenarios). If we really want to properly understand Hansen's senarios, we need to use his paper and see what it says rather than trying to work with other people's interpretations and considerations.
If you want to go back over what the paper actually says and explore this subject properly, I am more than willing to join you in that exploration, if however, you are only interested in proving or disproving what one blogger has said about another blogger in regards to the first blogger's considerations of the paper,...I'll allow you to continue on that path on your own
At the least, you are freely admitting that your opinion concerning climate change issues is based entirely upon politics and your political beliefs and considerations of some of the issue's political implications.
I can respect that for what it is.
It speaks not to the science, nor even, to a broader understanding of the full potential of physical, as well as socio-economic potentials, but it doesn't pretend to, nor does it seek to deny nor distort other aspects of the issue,...at least not in this post to which I am responding.
It speaks specifically to the history of the issue.
The history of climate change in the media.The history of what particular and specific issue?
Environmentalists have predicted that all kinds of disastrous effects would take place since the early 1900's.
Anyone who convinces the media that their predictions about climate are worth publishing. Hunters, etc., don't report to the media, but environmentalists and climate scientists do.Who are you labelling "environmentalists" and by what measure do you distinguish them from hunters, fishermen, farmers and outdoorsmen in general?
In 1902, the Los Angeles Times reported that the great glaciers were undergoing "their final annihilation" due to rising temperatures. But by 1923, it was the ice that was doing the annihilating: "Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada," the Chicago Tribune declared on Page 1.
So it was curtains for the Canadians? Uh, not quite. In 1953, The New York Times announced that "nearly all the great ice sheets are in retreat." Yet no sooner did our neighbors to the north breathe a sigh of relief than it turned out they weren't off the hook after all: "The rapid advance of some glaciers," wrote Lowell Ponte in "The Cooling," his 1976 bestseller, "has threatened human settlements in Alaska, Iceland, Canada, China, and the Soviet Union." And now? "Arctic Ice Is Melting at Record Level, Scientists Say," the Times reported in 2002.
Over the years, the alarmists have veered from an obsession with lethal global cooling around the turn of the 20th century to lethal global warming a generation later, back to cooling in the 1970s and now to warming once again. You don't have to be a scientist to realize that all these competing narratives of doom can't be true. Or to wonder whether any of them are.
Jeff Jacoby
None have ever been correct. I refuse to let a few charts and graphs erase 100 years of lies.
I'm sure you're aware of the current fear mongering. Here are a few examples from 40 years ago..what specific claims of disaster/lies are you referring to?
This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000.
—Lowell Ponte in “The Cooling”, 1976
If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. … This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.
—Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970)
The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer.
—Paul Ehrlich, in The Population Bomb (1968)
I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.
—Paul Ehrlich in (1969)
I tend to think that these two quotes represent the real motivation behind the hype.
Free Enterprise really means rich people get richer. They have the freedom to exploit and psychologically rape their fellow human beings in the process…. Capitalism is destroying the earth.
—Helen Caldicott, Union of Concerned Scientists
We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects…. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres of presently settled land.
—David Foreman, Earth First!
No, he's not an AGW cultist.Yeah, but "The poor Third World is starving", don't you know. We in the evil industrialized West consume way more than them. Waaaaah. It's not fair; how dare we do that! Waaah, we should share their misery; Waaaaah, it's all OUR fault. That about right, Chicken Littles? Have I about covered your pathetic Leftist whining, (which is exactly what this issue is about!). Why did this start, in the leftist realm of academia (guess how many conservatives ever get tenure in these bastions of communist indoctrination?)? Why is it mostly Liberals who push this tree-hugging, the sky-is-falling, we're all gonna die nonsense? A mere cult of Leftist Pseudo-religion, masquerading as science; arrant nonsense, all of it. Maybe if we just ignore them, they'll go away.
You poor deluded, clueless moron.
No, he's not an AGW cultist.Yeah, but "The poor Third World is starving", don't you know. We in the evil industrialized West consume way more than them. Waaaaah. It's not fair; how dare we do that! Waaah, we should share their misery; Waaaaah, it's all OUR fault. That about right, Chicken Littles? Have I about covered your pathetic Leftist whining, (which is exactly what this issue is about!). Why did this start, in the leftist realm of academia (guess how many conservatives ever get tenure in these bastions of communist indoctrination?)? Why is it mostly Liberals who push this tree-hugging, the sky-is-falling, we'
nce; arrant nonsense, all of it. Maybe if we just ignore them, they'll go away.
You poor deluded, clueless moron.
Do you understand the difference in meaning and application between a "senario" and a "prediction?"
(...)
Well, there was also the 100-year control run with CO2 levels held at the fixed 1958 level, and while that isn't a "prediction," it gets at the heart of the issue concerning the problems that come from trying to associate and call and think about senarios as if they were "predictions."
(...)
If you want to go back over what the paper actually says and explore this subject properly, I am more than willing to join you in that exploration, if however, you are only interested in proving or disproving what one blogger has said about another blogger in regards to the first blogger's considerations of the paper,...I'll allow you to continue on that path on your own
You posted a link to the paper by Hansen. In that paper were the scenarios and based on those scenarios were the predictions.
Page 9347 of you posted link shows the predictions that you dismiss as a blogger's work.
(...)
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf
Is this some of that famed liberal tolerance I hear so much about, but rarely see?No, he's not an AGW cultist.You poor deluded, clueless moron.
No, he's an ignorant anti-science denier cultist like you, daveboy. Neither of you know the first thing about this issue (or shit from Shinola). You both just parrot some lame bullshit you heard Rush say or got off some dumb-ass denier cult blog. Nothing to gadfluff's post but idiotic slogans and puerile posturing.
Why should we suffer fools gladly? Willfull ignorance is ugly in the best of circumstances.
Then quit doin' it!Why should we suffer fools gladly? Willfull ignorance is ugly in the best of circumstances.
Is this some of that famed liberal tolerance I hear so much about, but rarely see?No, he's not an AGW cultist.
No, he's an ignorant anti-science denier cultist like you, daveboy. Neither of you know the first thing about this issue (or shit from Shinola). You both just parrot some lame bullshit you heard Rush say or got off some dumb-ass denier cult blog. Nothing to gadfluff's post but idiotic slogans and puerile posturing.
Is this some of that famed liberal tolerance I hear so much about, but rarely see?No, he's not an AGW cultist.
No, he's an ignorant anti-science denier cultist like you, daveboy. Neither of you know the first thing about this issue (or shit from Shinola). You both just parrot some lame bullshit you heard Rush say or got off some dumb-ass denier cult blog. Nothing to gadfluff's post but idiotic slogans and puerile posturing.
And there it is, folks. The leftist view of the freedom of speech.Is this some of that famed liberal tolerance I hear so much about, but rarely see?No, he's an ignorant anti-science denier cultist like you, daveboy. Neither of you know the first thing about this issue (or shit from Shinola). You both just parrot some lame bullshit you heard Rush say or got off some dumb-ass denier cult blog. Nothing to gadfluff's post but idiotic slogans and puerile posturing.
Translation: 'Aren't you guys supposed to be nice to retards like us?'. LOLOLOL.
No, bozo, 'liberals' don't need to 'tolerate' ignorant, obstructionist tools of the fossil fuel industry anymore than we needed to 'tolerate' Nazis in WWII.
Why should we suffer fools gladly? Willfull ignorance is ugly in the best of circumstances.
Dude, you have to answer how a 60PPM increase in atmospheric CO2 lowers ocean Ph.
Your credibility is on the line
