Hansen's way of dealing with inconvenient history

[gslack]

Love it when the Algorians pull out the colorful maps and graphs. Okay who left the crayons and markers out? Love the pretty colors!

 

[edthecynic]

Love it when the Algorians pull out the colorful maps and graphs. Okay who left the crayons and markers out? Love the pretty colors!

I love the mindless DittoTards who get their science from the most scientificly ignorant person in any room he walks into. Their MessiahRushie tells them to spell Gore's name as one word and the mindless drones are POWERLESS to do anything else!!!

April 3, 2007
RUSH: Mark my brilliant words on this. That's how this stuff starts. Now, the question is: is CO2 even a pollutant? Is it an air pollutant? Because if it is, then all the water vapor on this planet is a pollutant. The vast majority of CO2 that's in the atmosphere comes from water vapor.

For the dumb DittoTards, not one molecule of CO2 in the entire universe has ever come from H2O.

 

[skookerasbil]

Love it when the Algorians pull out the colorful maps and graphs. Okay who left the crayons and markers out? Love the pretty colors!

I love the mindless DittoTards who get their science from the most scientificly ignorant person in any room he walks into. Their MessiahRushie tells them to spell Gore's name as one word and the mindless drones are POWERLESS to do anything else!!!

April 3, 2007
RUSH: Mark my brilliant words on this. That's how this stuff starts. Now, the question is: is CO2 even a pollutant? Is it an air pollutant? Because if it is, then all the water vapor on this planet is a pollutant. The vast majority of CO2 that's in the atmosphere comes from water vapor.

For the dumb DittoTards, not one molecule of CO2 in the entire universe has ever come from H2O.

yeah.........how 'bout the dittotards?? s0n..........in the real world, they are cleaning the clocks of the real science genius'. The real world is defined as EVERYWHERE outside gay blogging websites such as this one.

I'd rather be a dittotard and be winning.


Of course, maybe you can do a google search and find me a single link showing anybody in congress falling all over themselves to bring legislation to the floor to combat "the global warming threat".


winning s0n.............

 

[Big Fitz]

BULLSHIT! .

A blog? Really? You guys don't accept blogs. Remember?

Oh, and you didn't look around it very much, did you?

» Climate Change Documents

Check out all the doomsaying predictions of global cooling from the Seventies.

There was a small minority of deniers back in the 1970s it is true, and they were just as wrong then as they are now!!!

This was my favorite pull quote from your link, which if anything shows that without man made warming we should be cooling, therefore we are warming as a result of man's influence.
Thank you!!!

Variations in the Earth’s Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages
Science, 12/10/76

A model of future climate based on the observed orbital-climate relationships, but ignoring anthropogenic effects, predicts that the long-term trend over the next seven thousand years is toward extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation.​

Wait... you're using THAT stupid pull quote to claim that it's all man's fault???

You're even loopier than I gave you credit! I mean, come on! This is supposed to support science?!?

Did the concept of the prediction being WRONG ever enter that void between your ears?

I doubt it.

 

[Big Fitz]

Love it when the Algorians pull out the colorful maps and graphs. Okay who left the crayons and markers out? Love the pretty colors!

I love the mindless DittoTards who get their science from the most scientificly ignorant person in any room he walks into. Their MessiahRushie tells them to spell Gore's name as one word and the mindless drones are POWERLESS to do anything else!!!

April 3, 2007
RUSH: Mark my brilliant words on this. That's how this stuff starts. Now, the question is: is CO2 even a pollutant? Is it an air pollutant? Because if it is, then all the water vapor on this planet is a pollutant. The vast majority of CO2 that's in the atmosphere comes from water vapor.

For the dumb DittoTards, not one molecule of CO2 in the entire universe has ever come from H2O.

You listen to Rush religiously like the whacko from Moral Depravity watching films for indecent images and naughty words, don't you? Pencil in hand for every utterance you can copy down?

Y'all need to get some help.

 

[edthecynic]

A blog? Really? You guys don't accept blogs. Remember?

Oh, and you didn't look around it very much, did you?

» Climate Change Documents

Check out all the doomsaying predictions of global cooling from the Seventies.

There was a small minority of deniers back in the 1970s it is true, and they were just as wrong then as they are now!!!

This was my favorite pull quote from your link, which if anything shows that without man made warming we should be cooling, therefore we are warming as a result of man's influence.
Thank you!!!

Variations in the Earth’s Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages
Science, 12/10/76

A model of future climate based on the observed orbital-climate relationships, but ignoring anthropogenic effects, predicts that the long-term trend over the next seven thousand years is toward extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation.​

Wait... you're using THAT stupid pull quote to claim that it's all man's fault???

You're even loopier than I gave you credit! I mean, come on! This is supposed to support science?!?

Did the concept of the prediction being WRONG ever enter that void between your ears?

I doubt it.

DumbAssDave gave a link to that quote as proof that scientists were predicting an Ice Age in the 1970s and I made him eat it by highlighting what it said. It clearly predicts an Ice Age WITHOUT man's influence. Somehow Dave thought that discredited man made global warming, and I merely pointed out it did the exact opposite!!!! I rebutted his claim with his own quote by showing him what the quote meant, I made no claim of my own.
Get IT?

 

[Big Fitz]

There was a small minority of deniers back in the 1970s it is true, and they were just as wrong then as they are now!!!

This was my favorite pull quote from your link, which if anything shows that without man made warming we should be cooling, therefore we are warming as a result of man's influence.
Thank you!!!

Wait... you're using THAT stupid pull quote to claim that it's all man's fault???

You're even loopier than I gave you credit! I mean, come on! This is supposed to support science?!?

Did the concept of the prediction being WRONG ever enter that void between your ears?

I doubt it.

DumbAssDave gave a link to that quote as proof that scientists were predicting an Ice Age in the 1970s and I made him eat it by highlighting what it said. It clearly predicts an Ice Age WITHOUT man's influence. Somehow Dave thought that discredited man made global warming, and I merely pointed out it did the exact opposite!!!! I rebutted his claim with his own quote by showing him what the quote meant, I made no claim of my own.
Get IT?

I made him eat it by highlighting what it said.

yes. We know. And since Anthropogenesis is only ASSUMED, not PROVEN, you made no one 'eat' anything. But you did highlight your utter fanaticism to an earth worship fantasy religion.

Bravi bravi bravisimi!

Would you like to buy a tiger repellent rock? Never has a tiger come within 10 miles of it. I know where I can get some where a tiger has never been within 1000 miles, but the prices of those have gone up. Never fear slaughter by tiger again just by buying this rock off of me. No COD.

 

[daveman]

"Science" is not a blog, but nice deflection anyway!

And thank you for admitting SUVs and other man made fossil fuel burners are responsible for the fact that the natural cooling cycle of a coming Ice Age has not happened.

Holy shit, you're gullible.

But then, you're an AGW cultist. They're all gullible.

I made you EAT the words from YOUR own link, and I'm the one that's gullible!
Brilliant!

You couldn't make a starving man eat a cheeseburger.

So, you believed them in the '70's when they said we're all gonna freeze. You believe them now when they say we're all gonna burn.

Face it...you believe them no matter what they say. It's an article of faith for you.

 

[RollingThunder]

url=http://www.dirckthenoorman.com/?page_id=38]» Climate Change Documents

Check out all the doomsaying predictions of global cooling from the Seventies.

So, you believed them in the '70's when they said we're all gonna freeze. You believe them now when they say we're all gonna burn.

Face it...you believe them no matter what they say. It's an article of faith for you.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL......you can always trust ol' Davedrivel to come up with the oldest, moldiest, most debunked denier cult myths that he's retarded enough to still believe. And you can count on denier cult drones like Big Fizzlebrain to mindlessly support the idiocy. It would be hard to find better examples of brainwashed dupes of the FFI propaganda campaign. And of course, Davedumb uses an idiotic denier cult blog called 'dirckthenoorman.com' as his 'expert source' to determine what "they" (the monolithic science community?) said back in the 70's. LOLOLOL.

Meanwhile, in the real world...

What 1970s science said about global cooling
(excerpts)

A persistent argument designed to discredit the field of climate science is that scientists predicted an ice age in the 1970s. So popular in fact that it ranks an impressive #7 in the most cited skeptic arguments. The logic goes that climate scientists got it completely wrong predicting global cooling in the 1970s (it started warming instead). Hence climate science can't be trusted about current global warming predictions. Setting aside the logical flaws of such an ad hominem argument, was there any consensus among 70s climate scientists predicting global cooling?

Over time, William Connelly has been steadily documenting 70s research predicting global cooling. It's a rich resource but as he admits, could be more accessible. Now he has collaborated with Thomas Peterson and John Fleck to publish The Myth of the 1970's Global Cooling Scientific Consensus, in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. The paper surveys climate studies from 1965 to 1979 (and in a refreshing change to other similar surveys, lists all the papers). They find very few papers (7 in total) predict global cooling. This isn't surprising. What surprises is that even in the 1970s, on the back of 3 decades of cooling, more papers (42 in total) predict global warming due to CO2 than cooling.

Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting future global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more global cooling papers than global warming papers.

So in fact, the large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than climate science predicting cooling, the opposite is the case. Most interesting about Peterson's paper is not the debunking of an already well debunked skeptic argument but a succinct history of climate science over the 20th century, describing how scientists from different fields gradually pieced together their diverse findings into a more unified picture of how climate operates. A must read paper.

 

[Uncensored2008]

"To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest."

- Leading greenhouse advocate, Dr Stephen Schneider
( in interview for "Discover" magazine, Oct 1989)

So, Schneider is lying, and it is he that Clinton relies on for global warming predictions.
But, what about Schneider? Isn’t he a reputable climatologist? Why should we not trust him to know best? One answer involves his position on global warming during the 70’s.

"There is a finite possibility that a serious worldwide ***cooling*** could befall the Earth within the next 100 years."
(emphasis added)

“However, the effect on surface temperature of an increase in the aerosol content of the atmosphere is found to be quite significant. An increase by a factor of 4 in the equilibrium dust concentration in the global atmosphere, which cannot be ruled out as a possibility within the next century, could decrease the mean surface temperature by as much as 3.5 deg. K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age.” (1971)

Hmmm, Dr. Schneider appears to be a bit confused. Maybe he simply examined the data and adjusted his theory.

“Looking at every bump and wiggle of the record is a waste of time - it's like trying to figure out the probability of a pair of dice by looking at the individual rolls. You've got to look at averages. So, I don't set very much store in looking at the direct evidence.“ (1991)

Since he professes disdain for evidence, maybe he simply takes a position which insures publicity.

Not to single Schneider out, those in the global warming scam are universally lacking in professional credibility. Note another “great” greenhouse gas doomsayer, Dr John Gribbin.

In the 70’s he put forth the theory that in 1982 the alignment of Jupiter would destroy Los Angeles. This is the great “California falling into the sea” hoax that was so popular at the time.

"A remarkable chain of evidence, ...points to 1982 as the year in which the Los Angeles region of the San Andreas fault will be subjected to the most massive earthquake unknown in the populated regions of the earth in this century. ... in 1982 when the Moon is in the Seventh House, and Jupiter aligns with Mars and with the other seven planets of the solar system, Los Angeles will be destroyed."

Gribbin’s book, "The Jupiter Effect" was the basis of this hoax. Now he has returned as a heavyweight of the global warming fraud.

Ultimately, the cultists plan to deal with the failed Ice Age the way they deal with the Medieval Warming Period - by altering the historical data and deleting it...

 

[RollingThunder]

http://state-of-the-nation.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/time_iceage1.jpg[IMG]

"To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest."

- Leading greenhouse advocate, Dr Stephen Schneider
( in interview for "Discover" magazine, Oct 1989)

So, Schneider is lying, and it is he that Clinton relies on for global warming predictions.
But, what about Schneider? Isn’t he a reputable climatologist? Why should we not trust him to know best? One answer involves his position on global warming during the 70’s.

"There is a finite possibility that a serious worldwide ***cooling*** could befall the Earth within the next 100 years."
(emphasis added)

“However, the effect on surface temperature of an increase in the aerosol content of the atmosphere is found to be quite significant. An increase by a factor of 4 in the equilibrium dust concentration in the global atmosphere, which cannot be ruled out as a possibility within the next century, could decrease the mean surface temperature by as much as 3.5 deg. K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age.” (1971)

Hmmm, Dr. Schneider appears to be a bit confused. Maybe he simply examined the data and adjusted his theory.

“Looking at every bump and wiggle of the record is a waste of time - it's like trying to figure out the probability of a pair of dice by looking at the individual rolls. You've got to look at averages. So, I don't set very much store in looking at the direct evidence.“ (1991)

Since he professes disdain for evidence, maybe he simply takes a position which insures publicity.

Not to single Schneider out, those in the global warming scam are universally lacking in professional credibility. Note another “great” greenhouse gas doomsayer, Dr John Gribbin.

In the 70’s he put forth the theory that in 1982 the alignment of Jupiter would destroy Los Angeles. This is the great “California falling into the sea” hoax that was so popular at the time.

"A remarkable chain of evidence, ...points to 1982 as the year in which the Los Angeles region of the San Andreas fault will be subjected to the most massive earthquake unknown in the populated regions of the earth in this century. ... in 1982 when the Moon is in the Seventh House, and Jupiter aligns with Mars and with the other seven planets of the solar system, Los Angeles will be destroyed."

Gribbin’s book, "The Jupiter Effect" was the basis of this hoax. Now he has returned as a heavyweight of the global warming fraud.

Ultimately, the cultists plan to deal with the failed Ice Age the way they deal with the Medieval Warming Period - by altering the historical data and deleting it...[/quote]
Quite a load of denier cult bullcrap.

Reiterating your debunked denier cult myths won't make them any more real, Unintelligent. Most scientists, even in the 70's, predicted warming, as the material I just posted shows.

Quoting one line out of context of something that Dr. Schneider didn't actually say himself (he was quoting a US National Academies of Science report from 1975) in the 70's where the report talks about a "[I]possibility[/I]" of cooling and imagining that that 'proves' something amounts to just more of your usual denier cult cherry-picking plus a really braindead belief that science doesn't progress over time as they learn more.

He said, as you quoted: "[I]An increase by a factor of 4 in the equilibrium dust concentration in the global atmosphere, [B]which cannot be ruled out as a [U]possibility[/U][/B] within the next century...[/I]" and guess what, Unintelligent? That didn't happen. The levels of reflective dust and aerosols went down and CO2 forcing became the dominant factor in mankind's contribution to changing the climate.

When he says that: "[I]looking at every bump and wiggle of the record is a waste of time - it's like trying to figure out the probability of a pair of dice by looking at the individual rolls. You've got to look at averages.[/I]", he's just saying what all scientists say - 'you've got to look at long term averages to smooth out random chance variability and other noise in the system'.

You claim that: "t[I]hose in the global warming scam are universally lacking in professional credibility[/I]" but that is one of your more insane denier cult myths. You are an ignorant shit-for-brains reality denier who wouldn't know "[I]professional credibility[/I]" if it bit you. There are tens of thousands of highly credentialed and very competent scientists all around the world working on the global warming/climate change issues. The only place "[I]professional credibility[/I]" is lacking is among the handful of paid-off science-whores stooging for the fossil fuel industry like some of them did previously for the tobacco industry.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Quite a load of denier cult bullcrap.

Sorry stupid fuck - thems the facts. Your cult is run by swindlers and stooges - depending on retards like you to lap up the feces, and lap you do....

Reiterating your debunked denier cult myths won't make them any more real, Unintelligent. Most scientists, even in the 70's, predicted warming, as the material I just posted shows.

Sorry stupid fuck, everything I listed is fact.

Quoting one line out of context of something that Dr. Schneider didn't actually say himself (he was quoting a US National Academies of Science report from 1975) in the 70's where the report talks about a "possibility" of cooling and imagining that that 'proves' something amounts to just more of your usual denier cult cherry-picking plus a really braindead belief that science doesn't progress over time as they learn more.

Try again. Schneider was a proponent of the Ice Age, until the grants ran out..

Your religion is a fraud and you are a moron.

 

[daveman]

url=http://www.dirckthenoorman.com/?page_id=38]» Climate Change Documents

Check out all the doomsaying predictions of global cooling from the Seventies.

So, you believed them in the '70's when they said we're all gonna freeze. You believe them now when they say we're all gonna burn.

Face it...you believe them no matter what they say. It's an article of faith for you.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL......you can always trust ol' Davedrivel to come up with the oldest, moldiest, most debunked denier cult myths that he's retarded enough to still believe. And you can count on denier cult drones like Big Fizzlebrain to mindlessly support the idiocy. It would be hard to find better examples of brainwashed dupes of the FFI propaganda campaign. And of course, Davedumb uses an idiotic denier cult blog called 'dirckthenoorman.com' as his 'expert source' to determine what "they" (the monolithic science community?) said back in the 70's. LOLOLOL.

Meanwhile, in the real world...

What 1970s science said about global cooling
(excerpts)

A persistent argument designed to discredit the field of climate science is that scientists predicted an ice age in the 1970s. So popular in fact that it ranks an impressive #7 in the most cited skeptic arguments. The logic goes that climate scientists got it completely wrong predicting global cooling in the 1970s (it started warming instead). Hence climate science can't be trusted about current global warming predictions. Setting aside the logical flaws of such an ad hominem argument, was there any consensus among 70s climate scientists predicting global cooling?

Over time, William Connelly has been steadily documenting 70s research predicting global cooling. It's a rich resource but as he admits, could be more accessible. Now he has collaborated with Thomas Peterson and John Fleck to publish The Myth of the 1970's Global Cooling Scientific Consensus, in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. The paper surveys climate studies from 1965 to 1979 (and in a refreshing change to other similar surveys, lists all the papers). They find very few papers (7 in total) predict global cooling. This isn't surprising. What surprises is that even in the 1970s, on the back of 3 decades of cooling, more papers (42 in total) predict global warming due to CO2 than cooling.

Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting future global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more global cooling papers than global warming papers.

So in fact, the large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than climate science predicting cooling, the opposite is the case. Most interesting about Peterson's paper is not the debunking of an already well debunked skeptic argument but a succinct history of climate science over the 20th century, describing how scientists from different fields gradually pieced together their diverse findings into a more unified picture of how climate operates. A must read paper.

A blog again!

Oh, wait, I get it. YOUR blogs are all righteous. OUR blogs are all paid shills of BIGOIL.

That about sum it up, Thunder Thighs?

You're dismissed.

 

[RollingThunder]

url=http://www.dirckthenoorman.com/?page_id=38]» Climate Change Documents

Check out all the doomsaying predictions of global cooling from the Seventies.

So, you believed them in the '70's when they said we're all gonna freeze. You believe them now when they say we're all gonna burn.

Face it...you believe them no matter what they say. It's an article of faith for you.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL......you can always trust ol' Davedrivel to come up with the oldest, moldiest, most debunked denier cult myths that he's retarded enough to still believe. And you can count on denier cult drones like Big Fizzlebrain to mindlessly support the idiocy. It would be hard to find better examples of brainwashed dupes of the FFI propaganda campaign. And of course, Davedumb uses an idiotic denier cult blog called 'dirckthenoorman.com' as his 'expert source' to determine what "they" (the monolithic science community?) said back in the 70's. LOLOLOL.

Meanwhile, in the real world...

What 1970s science said about global cooling
(excerpts)

A persistent argument designed to discredit the field of climate science is that scientists predicted an ice age in the 1970s. So popular in fact that it ranks an impressive #7 in the most cited skeptic arguments. The logic goes that climate scientists got it completely wrong predicting global cooling in the 1970s (it started warming instead). Hence climate science can't be trusted about current global warming predictions. Setting aside the logical flaws of such an ad hominem argument, was there any consensus among 70s climate scientists predicting global cooling?

Over time, William Connelly has been steadily documenting 70s research predicting global cooling. It's a rich resource but as he admits, could be more accessible. Now he has collaborated with Thomas Peterson and John Fleck to publish The Myth of the 1970's Global Cooling Scientific Consensus, in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. The paper surveys climate studies from 1965 to 1979 (and in a refreshing change to other similar surveys, lists all the papers). They find very few papers (7 in total) predict global cooling. This isn't surprising. What surprises is that even in the 1970s, on the back of 3 decades of cooling, more papers (42 in total) predict global warming due to CO2 than cooling.

Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting future global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more global cooling papers than global warming papers.

So in fact, the large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than climate science predicting cooling, the opposite is the case. Most interesting about Peterson's paper is not the debunking of an already well debunked skeptic argument but a succinct history of climate science over the 20th century, describing how scientists from different fields gradually pieced together their diverse findings into a more unified picture of how climate operates. A must read paper.

A blog again!

Oh, wait, I get it. YOUR blogs are all righteous. OUR blogs are all paid shills of BIGOIL.

That about sum it up, Thunder Thighs?

You're dismissed.

You are quite the little retard, davedork. Too stupid to read what is in front of you, apparently. The study being quoted was published in a peer reviewed science journal, the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. The information is quite accurate. Too bad it demolishes your idiotic and meaningless denier cult myth that you are so attached to.

 

[skookerasbil]

My God........how do these far left bomb throwers navigate life socially? Besides being in a state of perpetual misery, how B O R I N G and P R E D I C T A B L E is their shit on here? Anybody got a good analogy? Coffee still hasnt kicked in yet!

 

[daveman]

You are quite the little retard, davedork. Too stupid to read what is in front of you, apparently. The study being quoted was published in a peer reviewed science journal, the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. The information is quite accurate. Too bad it demolishes your idiotic and meaningless denier cult myth that you are so attached to.

I'm looking at Prius brochures and looking for my local Democratic Party office right now.

Say, when I register D, do I get to be a faux-superior sanctimonious asshole? Will they give me lessons, or just refer me to your posts?

 

[Oddball]

You are quite the little retard, davedork. Too stupid to read what is in front of you, apparently. The study being quoted was published in a peer reviewed science journal, the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. The information is quite accurate. Too bad it demolishes your idiotic and meaningless denier cult myth that you are so attached to.

Wait a minute....

Aren't weather (meteorology) and climate supposed to be two different things?

Which way do you warmist cargo cultists want it?

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'm looking at Prius brochures and looking for my local Democratic Party office right now.

Say, when I register D, do I get to be a faux-superior sanctimonious asshole? Will they give me lessons, or just refer me to your posts?

What they give you Dave, is a lobotomy - then acting like Rolling Thunder and the rest will just come naturally...

 

[daveman]

You are quite the little retard, davedork. Too stupid to read what is in front of you, apparently. The study being quoted was published in a peer reviewed science journal, the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. The information is quite accurate. Too bad it demolishes your idiotic and meaningless denier cult myth that you are so attached to.

Wait a minute....

Aren't weather (meteorology) and climate supposed to be two different things?

Which way do you warmist cargo cultists want it?

The way that supports their dogma, natch.

 

[daveman]

I'm looking at Prius brochures and looking for my local Democratic Party office right now.

Say, when I register D, do I get to be a faux-superior sanctimonious asshole? Will they give me lessons, or just refer me to your posts?

What they give you Dave, is a lobotomy - then acting like Rolling Thunder and the rest will just come naturally...

Does Obamacare pay for that?