Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Hansen says CO2 is NOT the prime driver in this paper
Who is Hanson and why should I give a crap what he says?
Dr. Hansen is a scientist who is paid by NASA to to one thing and then does something else. He has no credentials that identify him as a climatologist and is absolutely worshipped by the AGW Crowd.
That's funny I hadn't even heard of him until you guys brought him up.
Weird how the right wing talks about all the people the left supposedly worships about 100 times more than the left talks about them.
I honestly wouldn't have known or even cared about the opinions of Hollywood celebrities or who the hottest names in climate science are until the right brought those things to my attention.Before then Hollywood celebrities were just people in movies and only a select few nerds knew and cared who Hansen is.
Either you are the most uninformed, unconcious scientist I have ever heard of or you are not exactly telling the truth.
does anybody else find it sad that good scientist like Hansen became so obsessed over a controversial hypothesis that he was willing to forgo scientific methods to twist information to support it? it would be pathetic, like the last days of Pauling and vitaminC, if it wasnt such an important subject that involves such huge sums of money.
does anybody else find it sad that good scientist like Hansen became so obsessed over a controversial hypothesis that he was willing to forgo scientific methods to twist information to support it?
Link?
does anybody else find it sad that good scientist like Hansen became so obsessed over a controversial hypothesis that he was willing to forgo scientific methods to twist information to support it? it would be pathetic, like the last days of Pauling and vitaminC, if it wasnt such an important subject that involves such huge sums of money.
does anybody else find it sad that good scientist like Hansen became so obsessed over a controversial hypothesis that he was willing to forgo scientific methods to twist information to support it?
Link?
does anybody else find it sad that good scientist like Hansen became so obsessed over a controversial hypothesis that he was willing to forgo scientific methods to twist information to support it? it would be pathetic, like the last days of Pauling and vitaminC, if it wasnt such an important subject that involves such huge sums of money.
Hansen's history suggests that he has always been first and foremost an activist. To my way of thinking, that in and of itself is contradictory with being a good scientist. He was abusing science to promote and further is activist goals long before there was big money in corrupting science for political purposes.
OPPD- just a month or two ago I started a thread about Hansen's GISS. that was for just the last 12 months or so. go read it and come back with a thoughtful comment on it and I will discuss other examples of Hansen twisting data to suit his storyline
You claim to have a PhD, Google it.
OPPD- just a month or two ago I started a thread about Hansen's GISS. that was for just the last 12 months or so. go read it and come back with a thoughtful comment on it and I will discuss other examples of Hansen twisting data to suit his storyline
Link?
OPPD- just a month or two ago I started a thread about Hansen's GISS. that was for just the last 12 months or so. go read it and come back with a thoughtful comment on it and I will discuss other examples of Hansen twisting data to suit his storyline
Link?
He just gave you an example.. If you're a scientist, you're a lazy one and -- I'm Neptune, god of the seas.. Go read about the fraud and data fakometry and get back to us..
Link?
He just gave you an example.. If you're a scientist, you're a lazy one and -- I'm Neptune, god of the seas.. Go read about the fraud and data fakometry and get back to us..
No link. That's like me saying "There's this thread I started that disproves everything you're saying. Go find it!"
He just gave you an example.. If you're a scientist, you're a lazy one and -- I'm Neptune, god of the seas.. Go read about the fraud and data fakometry and get back to us..
No link. That's like me saying "There's this thread I started that disproves everything you're saying. Go find it!"
Wonder how scientists handled this kind of bullshit before the internet.. Did they have to go to the library and check out the book for you??
No link. That's like me saying "There's this thread I started that disproves everything you're saying. Go find it!"
Wonder how scientists handled this kind of bullshit before the internet.. Did they have to go to the library and check out the book for you??
Listen there's this book in the library that proves everything you've ever said is wrong. Go find it. If you refuse, you're just lazy.
No link. That's like me saying "There's this thread I started that disproves everything you're saying. Go find it!"
Wonder how scientists handled this kind of bullshit before the internet.. Did they have to go to the library and check out the book for you??
Listen there's this book in the library that proves everything you've ever said is wrong. Go find it. If you refuse, you're just lazy.
And you're the same genius who argued with me for a month about how the Social Security Trust Fund had $Trills in it of real equity and that current taxpayers wouldn't have to pay a DIME for the next 2 decades... Because you had "links".
You're all "card file" and no text...
There is actually someone out there who believes that there is a single thin dime in the social security trust fund? Quick, sell him some mountain property in south florida, or some beach property in tennessee, or some prime farming property deep in the dismal swamp or the everglades. Hell give him a hell of a deal on the statue of liberty, the brooklyn bridge, the grand canyon, and mount rushmore while you are at it.The Sun, or rather the amount and character of solar radiance that intersects our planet, is the primary Driver of Climate, how our surface compostions and systems interact with the climate drivers are the various forcing factors that together, in concert, determine whether that energy exits the system with little delay leaving less energy in our planet's environment or lingers in our system adding more energy into our planet's surface environment.
Another and apparently very significant factor is how much of the TSI is reflected away before it gets to the surface.
Well, technically the "surface" starts at the top of the atmosphere; atmospheric composition results in the first interaction for impinging solar radiances.
Indeed, they never have been considered so. Clouds on the daylit face of the Earth tend to reflect significant amounts of Sunlight back up through the atmosphere, whereas clouds on the night face of the planet tend to absorb and disperse even more of the emitted solid and liquid surface radiations. One adds a cooling effect, the other adds a warming effect.
The charlatans at CERN postulated that cosmic rays might affect cloud formation and demonstrated that this effect might have as heavy an influence on our climate as CO2.
Actually, though this is an oft considered proposition, many researchers around the globe have looked very hard for direct and indirect connections, so far without any compelling evidence of at connection. The basic concept is not unreasonable, but in real world application, it just doesn't seem to work that way. Heavy levels of cosmic rays do seem to produce a lot of charged particle species in the atmosphere, unfortunately, these small clumps of charged particles dissipate before they can interact with the other atmospheric constituents and grow to a size where they can actually form viable cloud condensation nuclei. LIndzen's Iris theory is intriguing, it is simply without compelling evidentiary support.
Whatever the actual causes and effects, the system seems to be too complex for our current understanding of the science to predict.
To predict weather, yeah, I'd tend to agree. I doubt that we'll ever get weather analysis to the point where you aren't talking about percentages of likelihood. Climate however, is a bit different. Just as we can't accurate predict precisely where an atom of Nitrogen in a balloon is going to be ten minutes from the time we identify it (weather), but we can tell you some basic characteristics about how all of the nitrogen in the balloon is going to generally react when we heat or cool the gas, compress or expand the balloon, or add other gases into the balloon (climate).
That said, the start of every period of falling temperatures and increasing glaciation over the last half million or so years has always occurred when the CO2 was at the absolute maximum in the interglacial that preceded it.
CO2 always increased as the effect of the cause of rising temperature and always decreased as the effect of the cause of decreasing temperature. While the CO2 forcing may stop the onset of another period of glaciation, It has never been equal to this task in recent geologic history.
All forcings aside, though,I'm rooting for the Beach Boys' Endless Summer.
"Always" isn't correct, though when natural conditions are the primary forces at play, this is what one should usually expect. We've rarely had situations where formerly sequestered Carbon was added into the active carbon cycle at the current rates and volumes. And to be truthful, if all we were talking about was a couple of degrees warmer in every season, I wouldn't see much wrong with it myself.
And you're the same genius who argued with me for a month about how the Social Security Trust Fund had $Trills in it of real equity and that current taxpayers wouldn't have to pay a DIME for the next 2 decades... Because you had "links".
You're all "card file" and no text...
He what!!!
