So how are those predictions panning out there?

[westwall]

Turns out not too damn good If we had made a prediction like this and had it turn out as it did, why we would be called charlatans...or even worse psychics
1969 to now and the predictions were off by a measly 1200 percent in one case

"Rather than spiking by 3.9 C (7 degrees F), the actual temperature increase between 1969 and the year 2000 was a practically imperceptible 0.3 C. Which means the experts were off by 1200 percent.

And 2950 percent in the other
"Most embarrassing of all, rather than rising 305 cm (10 feet), sea level increased by a paltry 10 cm (3.9 inches). Which means the experts overestimated that particular danger by 2950 percent."

No Frakking Consensus: 1969 Climate Predictions Miss by a Mile

Yep real good predictions there people! Keep it up!

 

[Old Rocks]

Very good. Not a single name as to who made that prediction.

The scientific consensus on that subject for that time was actually written in an article published by the PNAS in 1975, in which they concluded that at that time, they simply did not know enough about the forcings in climate to make accurate predictions.

In fact, Dr. Hansen's predictions made in 1988 were pretty accurate until 2000. Then the warming accelerated ahead of the predictions, particularly in the Arctic.

 

[westwall]

Very good. Not a single name as to who made that prediction.

The scientific consensus on that subject for that time was actually written in an article published by the PNAS in 1975, in which they concluded that at that time, they simply did not know enough about the forcings in climate to make accurate predictions.

In fact, Dr. Hansen's predictions made in 1988 were pretty accurate until 2000. Then the warming accelerated ahead of the predictions, particularly in the Arctic.

Geez old fraud you make it too easy sometimes. Had you bothered to actually READ the memo you would have seen that Dr. Hugh Heffner (I'm not making this up) and Dr. Bob White (at that time head of the US Weather Bureau) were the authors of that particular memo.

If you're going to reply to items like this in the future I suggest you actually read them first so that you don't present yourself as a complete fool. Remember the old addage "it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt."


And really you think Hansens 1988 predictions to congress were accurate? Well lets see what the numbers show us shall we?

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/06/gret-moments-in.html

Looks like he was pretty far off the mark all the way around.

 

[Old Rocks]

Real climate has a much better analysis.

http://www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen06_fig2.jpg

RealClimate: Hansen’s 1988 projections

 

[L.K.Eder]

"As with so many of the more interesting environmental questions, we really don't have very satisfactory measurements of the carbon dioxide problem. On the other hand, this very clearly is a problem, and, perhaps most particularly, is one that can seize the imagination of persons normally indifferent to projects of apocalyptic change.
.."


the memo was to ehrlichman from moynihan.

 

[L.K.Eder]

and here is what hubert heffner had to say in response.

I am replying to your note querying whether we should become involved in the issue of C02 and atmospheric temperature rise. The more I get into this, the more I find two classes of doorn-sayers with, of course, the silent majority in between. One group says we will turn into snow-tripping mastodons because of the atmospheric dust and the other says we will have to grow gills to survive the increased ocean level due to the temperature rise from CO2,
Since the potential consequences are so large, it is important that we find out what the true situation is. I am asking Bob White of ESSA to devote some attention to the problem. I have also been booked for a speech at an environmental session of a large engineering society and am using this as an example of the kind of problem they can tackle.
Hubert Heffner

so moynihan sends a memo to ehrlichman, cannot even get the name of the scientist right (where was his mind), makes alarmist predictions.

westwall in his never-ending crusade to surf the net and find ridiculous blog entries, gets it wrong again.

 

[editec]

A memo witten by John Erlickman, identified by the blogger as having been

Written by presidential advisor Daniel Moynihan in 1969

That does not really say who made claims but notes that some guys in the weather bureau

Hugh Heffner knows a great deal about this, as does also the estimable Bob White, head of the U.S. Weather Bureau. (Teddy White's brother.)

WTF?!

This MEMO couldn't poossbly be more confused or less meaningful.

No science, no sources, even the blogger was confused by it.

 

[L.K.Eder]

A memo witten by John Erlickman, identified by the blogger as having been

Written by presidential advisor Daniel Moynihan in 1969

That does not really say who made claims but notes that some guys in the weather bureau

Hugh Heffner knows a great deal about this, as does also the estimable Bob White, head of the U.S. Weather Bureau. (Teddy White's brother.)

WTF?!

This MEMO couldn't poossbly be more confused or less meaningful.

No science, no sources, even the blogger was confused by it.

it was written to ehrlichman by moynihan.

 

[editec]

A memo witten by John Erlickman, identified by the blogger as having been

Written by presidential advisor Daniel Moynihan in 1969

That does not really say who made claims but notes that some guys in the weather bureau

Hugh Heffner knows a great deal about this, as does also the estimable Bob White, head of the U.S. Weather Bureau. (Teddy White's brother.)

WTF?!

This MEMO couldn't poossbly be more confused or less meaningful.

No science, no sources, even the blogger was confused by it.

it was written to ehrlichman by moynihan.

How do you know?

It doesn't say from whose desk it originated.

More to the point it it a MEMO written by somebody (not identified as a scientist) about some predictions by SOMEBODY who is not identified.

This could not be less significant.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Very good. Not a single name as to who made that prediction.

The scientific consensus on that subject for that time was actually written in an article published by the PNAS in 1975, in which they concluded that at that time, they simply did not know enough about the forcings in climate to make accurate predictions.

In fact, Dr. Hansen's predictions made in 1988 were pretty accurate until 2000. Then the warming accelerated ahead of the predictions, particularly in the Arctic.

Science by consensus?

 

[L.K.Eder]

A memo witten by John Erlickman, identified by the blogger as having been



That does not really say who made claims but notes that some guys in the weather bureau




WTF?!

This MEMO couldn't poossbly be more confused or less meaningful.

No science, no sources, even the blogger was confused by it.

it was written to ehrlichman by moynihan.

How do you know?

It doesn't say from whose desk it originated.

More to the point it it a MEMO written by somebody (not identified as a scientist) about some predictions by SOMEBODY who is not identified.

This could not be less significant.

i know it because i read the memo. i quoted passages of it in this very thread.

 

[konradv]

Regardless, the article doesn't do anything to disprove AGW science. Once again, a mere difference in opinion over time course, doesn't change the basic fact that some gases absorb energy and we're a prime candidate for the reason why those gases are rising.

 

[westwall]

The reason why the memo is cute is it is a nice analog to how the cultists work. Just take a simple look at the IPCC report. Himalyan glaciers are going to disappear in 35 years. Really? Who told you so? "Oh some guy I was talking to on the phone."

Amazon forest is going to disappear in 40 years. Really? Who told you so? "Oh, I read it on a WWF website but I don't know who they got it from..."

My point is that even way back in 1969 the clowns were doing the same thing...but you're to smart to figure that out aren't you...

 

[L.K.Eder]

The reason why the memo is cute is it is a nice analog to how the cultists work. Just take a simple look at the IPCC report. Himalyan glaciers are going to disappear in 35 years. Really? Who told you so? "Oh some guy I was talking to on the phone."

Amazon forest is going to disappear in 40 years. Really? Who told you so? "Oh, I read it on a WWF website but I don't know who they got it from..."

My point is that even way back in 1969 the clowns were doing the same thing...but you're to smart to figure that out aren't you...

it is cute that you are back, without having read the memo, or just blatantly lying about it, you silly hack.

 

[westwall]

The reason why the memo is cute is it is a nice analog to how the cultists work. Just take a simple look at the IPCC report. Himalyan glaciers are going to disappear in 35 years. Really? Who told you so? "Oh some guy I was talking to on the phone."

Amazon forest is going to disappear in 40 years. Really? Who told you so? "Oh, I read it on a WWF website but I don't know who they got it from..."

My point is that even way back in 1969 the clowns were doing the same thing...but you're to smart to figure that out aren't you...

it is cute that you are back, without having read the memo, or just blatantly lying about it, you silly hack.

Please point out to the class where I lied. You twerps like to talk big but you can never back up your claims.

Typical.

 

[L.K.Eder]

The reason why the memo is cute is it is a nice analog to how the cultists work. Just take a simple look at the IPCC report. Himalyan glaciers are going to disappear in 35 years. Really? Who told you so? "Oh some guy I was talking to on the phone."

Amazon forest is going to disappear in 40 years. Really? Who told you so? "Oh, I read it on a WWF website but I don't know who they got it from..."

My point is that even way back in 1969 the clowns were doing the same thing...but you're to smart to figure that out aren't you...

it is cute that you are back, without having read the memo, or just blatantly lying about it, you silly hack.

Please point out to the class where I lied. You twerps like to talk big but you can never back up your claims.

Typical.

you are the typical little amateur crusader, wailing wall.

you either did not read the memo, or did not comprehend it, or did blatantly lie about it.

how else would you explain this:

"Had you bothered to actually READ the memo you would have seen that Dr. Hugh Heffner (I'm not making this up) and Dr. Bob White (at that time head of the US Weather Bureau) were the authors of that particular memo.

If you're going to reply to items like this in the future I suggest you actually read them first so that you don't present yourself as a complete fool. Remember the old addage "it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.""

too long into the abyss you have looked, or you have been an abyss-dweller from the beginning.

 

[westwall]

it is cute that you are back, without having read the memo, or just blatantly lying about it, you silly hack.

Please point out to the class where I lied. You twerps like to talk big but you can never back up your claims.

Typical.

you are the typical little amateur crusader, wailing wall.

you either did not read the memo, or did not comprehend it, or did blatantly lie about it.

how else would you explain this:

"Had you bothered to actually READ the memo you would have seen that Dr. Hugh Heffner (I'm not making this up) and Dr. Bob White (at that time head of the US Weather Bureau) were the authors of that particular memo.

If you're going to reply to items like this in the future I suggest you actually read them first so that you don't present yourself as a complete fool. Remember the old addage "it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.""

too long into the abyss you have looked, or you have been an abyss-dweller from the beginning.

Ok,
I agree I did indeed mispeak. I should have written "the source of info for the memo were the two aformentioned people", however my point still remains about how the AGW proponents operate. They take information from unknown sources and present it as "peer reviewed" literature. Then they use that information to pass laws that affect the citizenry of the planet.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Please point out to the class where I lied. You twerps like to talk big but you can never back up your claims.

Typical.

you are the typical little amateur crusader, wailing wall.

you either did not read the memo, or did not comprehend it, or did blatantly lie about it.

how else would you explain this:

"Had you bothered to actually READ the memo you would have seen that Dr. Hugh Heffner (I'm not making this up) and Dr. Bob White (at that time head of the US Weather Bureau) were the authors of that particular memo.

If you're going to reply to items like this in the future I suggest you actually read them first so that you don't present yourself as a complete fool. Remember the old addage "it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.""

too long into the abyss you have looked, or you have been an abyss-dweller from the beginning.

Ok,
I agree I did indeed mispeak. I should have written "the source of info for the memo were the two aformentioned people", however my point still remains about how the AGW proponents operate. They take information from unknown sources and present it as "peer reviewed" literature. Then they use that information to pass laws that affect the citizenry of the planet.

i quoted what the scientist said who was mentioned in the memo, heffner was in cc.
his name was wrong and he had some enlightening stuff to say.

the source of the info were not the two aforementioned people.


read the memo, read the response, too.

refrain from reading denier-blogs, you are as ridiculous as alarmists.

if you read them, understand them before posting them, or get laughed at.

 

[westwall]

you are the typical little amateur crusader, wailing wall.

you either did not read the memo, or did not comprehend it, or did blatantly lie about it.

how else would you explain this:



too long into the abyss you have looked, or you have been an abyss-dweller from the beginning.

Ok,
I agree I did indeed mispeak. I should have written "the source of info for the memo were the two aformentioned people", however my point still remains about how the AGW proponents operate. They take information from unknown sources and present it as "peer reviewed" literature. Then they use that information to pass laws that affect the citizenry of the planet.

i quoted what the scientist said who was mentioned in the memo, heffner was in cc.
his name was wrong and he had some enlightening stuff to say.

the source of the info were not the two aforementioned people.


read the memo, read the response, too.

refrain from reading denier-blogs, you are as ridiculous as alarmists.

if you read them, understand them before posting them, or get laughed at.

Oh but I did read the memo. It is actually unclear who Moynihan got his information from but the memo implies it came from the aformentioned men. Heffners response

"The more I get into this, the more I find two classes of doom-sayers, with, of course, the silent majority in between," he wrote. "One group says we will turn into snow-tripping mastodons because of the atmospheric dust and the other says we will have to grow gills to survive the increased ocean level due to the temperature rise."

is an accurate description of what we have today. All these decades and billions of dollars later.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Ok,
I agree I did indeed mispeak. I should have written "the source of info for the memo were the two aformentioned people", however my point still remains about how the AGW proponents operate. They take information from unknown sources and present it as "peer reviewed" literature. Then they use that information to pass laws that affect the citizenry of the planet.

i quoted what the scientist said who was mentioned in the memo, heffner was in cc.
his name was wrong and he had some enlightening stuff to say.

the source of the info were not the two aforementioned people.


read the memo, read the response, too.

refrain from reading denier-blogs, you are as ridiculous as alarmists.

if you read them, understand them before posting them, or get laughed at.

Oh but I did read the memo. It is actually unclear who Moynihan got his information from but the memo implies it came from the aformentioned men. Heffners response

"The more I get into this, the more I find two classes of doom-sayers, with, of course, the silent majority in between," he wrote. "One group says we will turn into snow-tripping mastodons because of the atmospheric dust and the other says we will have to grow gills to survive the increased ocean level due to the temperature rise."

is an accurate description of what we have today. All these decades and billions of dollars later.

so what we have here is one politician writing a memo to another politician, trying to get attention.

now, after you have finally read the relevant document, congrats, you can see what one scientist thought about the subject matter. scientist, not pr agent, not politician, not blogger, not shill.

score one for science.