Why is climate science political?

[Big Fitz]

Fitz -

It has been answered, and in considerable detail. I'm not answering it again.

If you aren't interested in looking into the info provided because it was produced by the evil IIPC, that's fine with me.

Your post where you answered is where? I haven't found it in this thread.

Oh, I'm sure you haven't.

I dare say anyone genuinely interested will have found it fairly easily though - I only posted it a few hours ago.

YOU posted YOUR answer "In detail" a few hours ago?

Huh. When'd you delete it then? Or did you answer via sock? I don't see it and I went all the way back to Sunday looking at every post you did. Or did you mean DAYS ago?

So, how is it again that 0.0024% of atmospheric content produced by man is controling the world climate? How is this greater than the impact of nature, the sun, other more powerful greenhouse gases we "don't control" and can't measure accurately?

You cower behind the skirts of intellectual frauds pretending their title and appointment give them the ability to pronounce fact against evidence.

And now a documented liar in of yourself.

 

[westwall]

Well, you have to be careful to actually perform objective financial and technological analyses, which can be difficult with as much politicized distortion and rhetoric as gets thrown around about such issues. Solyndra is a case in point in this regard. There are so many lies and distortions in the mainstream media (not to mention the blogosphere) that this can be a tedious process.

For instance:
http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/Hearings/Oversight/091411/Silver.pdf - "The 2006 solicitation resulted in 143 submissions. The loan program staff and others at the department reviewed those for eligibility, which is a thinner review than the full due diligence, and recommended 16 applications to file a full application. A dozen did so. Solyndra was one of those. And the department conducted due diligence on all of those 11." - Solyndra was approved and given the initial go ahead approval by the Bush administration back many years before Barry even began campaigning for president.

Now, I'm sure that there are political threads where this discussion would be more appropriate, and I don't want to derail this thread into a thorough discussion of those politics, so I feel there is more fruit in the focus on what companies like this did wrong rather than trying to wrestle with sorting fact from political connivance.

Solyndra, according to the financial experts I've read, was more a victim of bad timing, a devastated general economy, and a sluggish recovery that still feels like recession to many Americans. Though the other solar company startup loans made at the same time as Solyndra are actually still running and turning a profit, China's fully subsidized solar panel industry is rapidly gobbling up the global market and it is going to be more difficult than many anticipated early on to profittably counter their advances and market dominance as long as the Chinese government sees such developments as low risk and profittable. Technologically, Solyndra, produces a high quality prodict at a reasonable cost, their failure is not due to technological flaw or conceptual mistake.

Technologically, Solyndra, produces a high quality prodict at a reasonable cost

And yet, not good enough or reasonable enough to produce a profit.

The panels were profittable, they merely were not able to compete with the fully subsidized Chinese industry in the international market place during the current global economic doldrums. Additionally, the leadership of Solyndra apparently made several poor business decisions, but none of this reflects on the basic technologies or alternative power concepts, it merely speaks to timing issues in the financial cycle and the business accumen of the company's administrators.

They were? Si prices plummeted (given as the reason they failed, why that is I have no idea, if their product was so much better that fact shouldn't have mattered), they were heavily subsidised by OUR government (or didn't you read about the half billion they were given?), their claimed efficiency levels were 12-14 percent, only slightly better than their competitors though they did claim that if installed on a white roof their efficiency jumped to 20%, something I have never, ever been able to confirm. There simply is no support for their claim, none.

You did get one thing correct however, the management of the company was incredibly bad. What planet they were raised on I have no idea but i doubt it was this one.

 

[westwall]

My experiance, direct and personal, is with the glaciers and timberlines in the Cascades, Blues, Sierra Nevadas, and the Rockies. In all of these, we see rising timberlines, and rapidly receding and disappearing glaciers. Shorter winters, more heat and fires in the summer. In fact, a much longer fire season. Bug infestations that are greater than any we have experianced before in the timber. People that I have talked to from other parts of the world are seeing these same things to greater and lessor degrees, depending on where they are from. I have yet to talk to anyone that is saying that they are seeing cooling in any area of appreciable size over the last few decades.

Now the only thing left is to make the connection between the warming and the CO2 and explain how CO2 works within the climate system and why it seems to be such a weak forcer.

Scientists have done that quite thoroughly. You are just too much of a brainwashed moron to comprehend that. CO2 is actually a fairly powerful greenhouse gas. Mankind has raised CO2 levels about 40% over pre-industrial levels and that extra CO2 is mostly responsible for the abrupt warming trend of the last 60 years. Those facts have been scientifically determined and verified. Those facts are very inconvenient for your puppet masters in the fossil fuel industry because they threaten the trillion dollar a year profit flow that industry is currently enjoying. So those greedy mo-fo's propagandize scientifically ignorant people like you to create doubt about the very real scientific facts of the matter and delay any effective collective action to place the necessary limits on carbon emissions. Just like the tobacco companies used twisted and phony 'science' to delay public recognition that smoking tobacco causes a whole lot of serious health problems, some of them life threatening, and thereby delayed for years the appropriate governmental actions to regulate and tax tobacco sales. Those regulatory actions eventually resulted in a reduction in the cancer and other disease rates associated with smoking and cut the number of smokers considerably. So too now are the fossil fuel companies and vested interests (oil billionaires like the Koch brothers, etc.) trying to delay the very necessary and appropriate governmental and international actions to regulate and tax carbon emissions in order to move the world off of fossil fuels and onto non-carbon emitting energy sources. This move to renewables is vital to the future of our world ecology, our civilization and future generations. It is too bad you and the rest of the deniers are too bamboozled and confused to realize this.

Correlation does not equal causation!
The fact that the temps have stalled in the face of ever rising CO2 levels would is further proof of the complete lack of evidence for AGW.

 

[westwall]

Scientists have done that quite thoroughly. You are just too much of a brainwashed moron to comprehend that. CO2 is actually a fairly powerful greenhouse gas. Mankind has raised CO2 levels about 40% over pre-industrial levels and that extra CO2 is mostly responsible for the abrupt warming trend of the last 60 years. Those facts have been scientifically determined and verified. Those facts are very inconvenient for your puppet masters in the fossil fuel industry because they threaten the trillion dollar a year profit flow that industry is currently enjoying. So those greedy mo-fo's propagandize scientifically ignorant people like you to create doubt about the very real scientific facts of the matter and delay any effective collective action to place the necessary limits on carbon emissions. Just like the tobacco companies used twisted and phony 'science' to delay public recognition that smoking tobacco causes a whole lot of serious health problems, some of them life threatening, and thereby delayed for years the appropriate governmental actions to regulate and tax tobacco sales. Those regulatory actions eventually resulted in a reduction in the cancer and other disease rates associated with smoking and cut the number of smokers considerably. So too now are the fossil fuel companies and vested interests (oil billionaires like the Koch brothers, etc.) trying to delay the very necessary and appropriate governmental and international actions to regulate and tax carbon emissions in order to move the world off of fossil fuels and onto non-carbon emitting energy sources. This move to renewables is vital to the future of our world ecology, our civilization and future generations. It is too bad you and the rest of the deniers are too bamboozled and confused to realize this.

With all of that science to back you up, you should be able to produce a prediction of climate activity from 30 years ago that is accurate.

How about 15 years ago?

Whataya got?

Plenty.

Dr. Jim Hansen. A paper with several very accurate predictions, in spite of his caveats about the state of knowledge at that time.

28 August 1981, Volume 213, Number 4511 Science

http://thedgw.org/definitionsOut/..\docs\Hansen_climate_impact_of_increasing_co2.pdf

Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and
1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is
consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of
atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar
luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend
of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming
should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the
century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on
climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North
America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West
Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the
fabled Northwest Passage.

Sylvia Brown has a better prediction rate than Hansen you fool.

 

[RollingThunder]

Fitz -

It has been answered, and in considerable detail. I'm not answering it again.

If you aren't interested in looking into the info provided because it was produced by the evil IIPC, that's fine with me.

Your post where you answered is where? I haven't found it in this thread.

Oh, I'm sure you haven't.

I dare say anyone genuinely interested will have found it fairly easily though - I only posted it a few hours ago.

YOU posted YOUR answer "In detail" a few hours ago?

Huh. When'd you delete it then? Or did you answer via sock? I don't see it and I went all the way back to Sunday looking at every post you did. Or did you mean DAYS ago?

So, how is it again that 0.0024% of atmospheric content produced by man is controling the world climate? How is this greater than the impact of nature, the sun, other more powerful greenhouse gases we "don't control" and can't measure accurately?

You cower behind the skirts of intellectual frauds pretending their title and appointment give them the ability to pronounce fact against evidence.

And now a documented liar in of yourself.

BigFritz, you are a total retard. He told you the number of the post he is referring to and you still can't find it. That is unbelievably stupid. As are all of your worthless and moronic posts. You imagine that because you can't understand something then nobody can, but in reality you're just too much of an ignorant idiot to understand something like the atmospheric physics of greenhouse gases.

 

[westwall]

Scientists have done that quite thoroughly. You are just too much of a brainwashed moron to comprehend that. CO2 is actually a fairly powerful greenhouse gas. Mankind has raised CO2 levels about 40% over pre-industrial levels and that extra CO2 is mostly responsible for the abrupt warming trend of the last 60 years. Those facts have been scientifically determined and verified. Those facts are very inconvenient for your puppet masters in the fossil fuel industry because they threaten the trillion dollar a year profit flow that industry is currently enjoying. So those greedy mo-fo's propagandize scientifically ignorant people like you to create doubt about the very real scientific facts of the matter and delay any effective collective action to place the necessary limits on carbon emissions. Just like the tobacco companies used twisted and phony 'science' to delay public recognition that smoking tobacco causes a whole lot of serious health problems, some of them life threatening, and thereby delayed for years the appropriate governmental actions to regulate and tax tobacco sales. Those regulatory actions eventually resulted in a reduction in the cancer and other disease rates associated with smoking and cut the number of smokers considerably. So too now are the fossil fuel companies and vested interests (oil billionaires like the Koch brothers, etc.) trying to delay the very necessary and appropriate governmental and international actions to regulate and tax carbon emissions in order to move the world off of fossil fuels and onto non-carbon emitting energy sources. This move to renewables is vital to the future of our world ecology, our civilization and future generations. It is too bad you and the rest of the deniers are too bamboozled and confused to realize this.

I find it insulting that you think that reasonably well informed people can have their opinions 'bought'. how exactly does that happen? did I miss out on the cheques?

I understand the evidence for AGW and find it very thin. the small amount of warming caused by CO2 is not catastrophic. feedbacks are not positive, they are most likely negative just like every other natural earth system. the predictions of doom are just a way to make people feel guilty so they wont complain when they are taxed and regulated.

LOLOLOL....you are such a great example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action.

"I find it insulting" - TS
"reasonably well informed people" - you are so far from being "well informed", it's not even in radar range of you.
"can have their opinions 'bought'" - you poor retard - they 'buy' your opinions by hiring clever propagandists to play on your prejudices and ignorance.
"how exactly does that happen?" - oooooh, that's easy......

US oil company donated millions to climate sceptic groups, says Greenpeace
Report identifies Koch Industries giving $73m to climate sceptic groups 'spreading inaccurate and misleading information'
The Guardian
John Vidal
30 March 2010
(excerpts)

A Greenpeace investigation has identified a little-known, privately owned US oil company as the paymaster of global warming sceptics in the US and Europe. The environmental campaign group accuses Kansas-based Koch Industries, which owns refineries and operates oil pipelines, of funding 35 conservative and libertarian groups, as well as more than 20 congressmen and senators. Between them, Greenpeace says, these groups and individuals have spread misinformation about climate science and led a sustained assault on climate scientists and green alternatives to fossil fuels. Greenpeace says that Koch Industries donated nearly $48m (£31.8m) to climate opposition groups between 1997-2008. From 2005-2008, it donated $25m to groups opposed to climate change, nearly three times as much as higher-profile funders that time such as oil company ExxonMobil. Koch also spent $5.7m on political campaigns and $37m on direct lobbying to support fossil fuels.

Climate Cover-Up
The Crusade to Deny Global Warming
(excerpts)

Starting in the early 1990s, three large American industry groups set to work on strategies to cast doubt on the science of climate change. Even though the oil industry’s own scientists had declared, as early as 1995, that human-induced climate change was undeniable, the American Petroleum Institute, the Western Fuels Association (a coal-fired electrical industry consortium) and a Philip Morris-sponsored anti-science group called TASSC all drafted and promoted campaigns of climate change disinformation.

The success of those plans is self-evident. A Yale/George Mason University poll taken late in 2008 showed that — 20 years after President George H.W. Bush promised to beat the greenhouse effect with the “White House effect” — a clear majority of Americans still say they either doubt the science of climate change or they just don’t know. Climate Cover-Up explains why they don’t know. Tracking the global warming denial movement from its inception, public relations advisor James Hoggan (working with journalist Richard Littlemore), reveals the details of those early plans and then tracks their execution, naming names and exposing tactics in what has become a full-blown attack on the integrity of the public conversation.

Climate change denial


"I understand the evidence for AGW" - no, you poor deluded retard, you have made it very, very obvious that you don't even begin to understand the evidence for AGW....your delusion that you do is just the Dunning-Kruger Effect biting you in the butt again.
"and find it very thin" - it is your mental powers that are pretty "thin"....the mountains of evidence supporting AGW have been more than sufficient to convince every scientific organization, society, institute and university in the world as well as virtually all of the climate scientists of the reality and seriousness of AGW.
"the small amount of warming caused by CO2 is not catastrophic" - it hasn't been too catastrophic so far, you short sighted fool, but it will get increasingly catastrophic as this century goes on and the warming, climate changes and sea level rising will continue for centuries. The world still has some choice about how bad it will eventually get, but it is indeed going to be quite catastrophic, as the world scientific community is affirming.
"feedbacks are not positive" - that's one of your idiotic and fraudulent denier cult myths but it has nothing to do with reality. In reality, there are a number of positive feedbacks such as the loss of Arctic ice cover caused by AGW that is itself causing more warming as the ice that reflects 90% of the sun's energy back out into space is replaced by dark ocean or land that absorbs about 90% of the sun's energy. The release of locked up methane from under the fast melting 'perma-frost' or from the methane hydrates on the ocean floor is one of the most dangerous positive feedbacks.
"they are most likely negative just like every other natural earth system" - your suppositions are based only on your own ignorance and the propaganda you've absorbed, you clueless retard. Anthropogenic global warming is not a "natural" part of the Earth's climate processes.
"the predictions of doom" - are the scientifically based warnings of the top experts in many fields of science connected to the Earth's climate. Your willingness to ignore and discount these warnings for the sake of politics or your own wallet is a good indication of just what a blind, deluded idiot you are.

Let's see, millions on the side of sceptics and BILLIONS on your side. Which number is bigger?

 

[westwall]

Well, it looks like Saigon's yet another intellectual coward on the left. They want to hide behind big names and fancy titles, but don't give a **** about truth.

Wheras you hide behind small names and lunatic blogs, but don't give a **** about truth.

It does entertain the hell out of me that skeptics talk so passionately about science and truth - while presenting an argument virtually no scientists accept.

Wrong again. Climatologists won't accept it. That's because they make more money on alarmism then on truth. They have been making predictions for thirty years now and havn't been right once. Sylvia Brown is more accurate and she's a well known charlatan!

So on one side you have a charlatan with around a 60% accuracy rate and climatologists with zero.

And you believe them why?

 

[Big Fitz]

Well, it looks like Saigon's yet another intellectual coward on the left. They want to hide behind big names and fancy titles, but don't give a **** about truth.

Wheras you hide behind small names and lunatic blogs, but don't give a **** about truth.

It does entertain the hell out of me that skeptics talk so passionately about science and truth - while presenting an argument virtually no scientists accept.

Wrong again. Climatologists won't accept it. That's because they make more money on alarmism then on truth. They have been making predictions for thirty years now and havn't been right once. Sylvia Brown is more accurate and she's a well known charlatan!

So on one side you have a charlatan with around a 60% accuracy rate and climatologists with zero.

And you believe them why?

He probably is making bank on these predictions too. Or expecting a cabinet post or government job any day now because of it. It can't be because he's that big of a sucker. Nope nope.

 

[tjvh]

They believe the climatologists because they have "programmed" to by their handlers.

 

[westwall]

Fitz -

It has been answered, and in considerable detail. I'm not answering it again.

If you aren't interested in looking into the info provided because it was produced by the evil IIPC, that's fine with me.

No, it hasn't. All your little links do is trot out that old cannard of correlation equals causation which if you were a scientist would know is not true. Only in the minds of climatologists does that seem to be a fact. Yet more evidence of the pseudo scientific nature of that field.

 

[westwall]

Wheras you hide behind small names and lunatic blogs, but don't give a **** about truth.

It does entertain the hell out of me that skeptics talk so passionately about science and truth - while presenting an argument virtually no scientists accept.

Wrong again. Climatologists won't accept it. That's because they make more money on alarmism then on truth. They have been making predictions for thirty years now and havn't been right once. Sylvia Brown is more accurate and she's a well known charlatan!

So on one side you have a charlatan with around a 60% accuracy rate and climatologists with zero.

And you believe them why?

He probably is making bank on these predictions too. Or expecting a cabinet post or government job any day now because of it. It can't be because he's that big of a sucker. Nope nope.

Oh, some of them are definitley suckers like that. trakar though really reminds me of that dipshit Gleick. Two stupid unethical peas in a pod.

 

[RollingThunder]

With all of that science to back you up, you should be able to produce a prediction of climate activity from 30 years ago that is accurate.

How about 15 years ago?

Whataya got?

Plenty.

Dr. Jim Hansen. A paper with several very accurate predictions, in spite of his caveats about the state of knowledge at that time.

28 August 1981, Volume 213, Number 4511 Science

http://thedgw.org/definitionsOut/..\docs\Hansen_climate_impact_of_increasing_co2.pdf

Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and
1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is
consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of
atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar
luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend
of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming
should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the
century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on
climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North
America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West
Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the
fabled Northwest Passage.

Sylvia Brown has a better prediction rate than Hansen you fool.

Retarded dogs could cheat you at cards, walleyed, you poor deluded cretin.

And of course, as usual, you're completely clueless about the real world. Your denier cult myths, like the ones about Dr. Hansen's work, are, as always, utter BS. Most of the predictions that Dr. Hansen has made have come to pass or are happening now. He is an eminent scientist, honored and respected by his peers.

James Hansen
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Honors and awards

Hansen was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1996 for his "development of pioneering radiative transfer models and studies of planetary atmospheres; development of simplified and three-dimensional global climate models; explication of climate forcing mechanisms; analysis of current climate trends from observational data; and projections of anthropogenic impacts on the global climate system."[70] In 2001, he received the 7th Annual Heinz Award in the Environment (endowed with US$250,000) for his research on global warming,[71] and was listed as one of Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential People in 2006. Also in 2006, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) selected James Hansen to receive their Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility "for his courageous and steadfast advocacy in support of scientists' responsibilities to communicate their scientific opinions and findings openly and honestly on matters of public importance."[72]

In 2007, Hansen shared the US $1 million Dan David Prize for "achievements having an outstanding scientific, technological, cultural or social impact on our world". In 2008, he received the PNC Bank Common Wealth Award of Distinguished Service for his "outstanding achievements" in science. At the end of 2008, Hansen was named by EarthSky Communications and a panel of 600 scientist-advisors as the Scientist Communicator of the Year, citing him as an "outspoken authority on climate change" who had "best communicated with the public about vital science issues or concepts during 2008."[73]

In 2009, Hansen was awarded the 2009 Carl-Gustaf Rossby Research Medal,[73] the highest honor bestowed by the American Meteorological Society, for his "outstanding contributions to climate modeling, understanding climate change forcings and sensitivity, and for clear communication of climate science in the public arena."[74]

Hansen won the 2010 Sophie Prize, set up in 1997 by Norwegian Jostein Gaarder, the author of the 1991 best-selling novel and teenagers' guide to philosophy "Sophie's World",[75] for his " key role for the development of our understanding of human-induced climate change."

 

[Oddball]

From which college did Hansen get his degree in climatology?

 

[tjvh]

From which college did Hansen get his degree in climatology?

Ohhhhh, I thought you were talking about "Jim Hensen"... I see you meant "Jim Hansen". Well I suppose they are both highly skilled puppeteers. One makes a puppet, the other IS a puppet.

 

[IanC]

I know that no one is interested in actual politics in global warming but here is an interesting interview about the difficulties of getting a non-consensus paper published.

But the physical scientists do not respect the NO TRESPASSING sign. They are dominating the debate and many climate scientists think they have the prerogative to make political suggestions which society at large should take up because scientists always know best. And politicians and the media play along. Even some sociologists think we should suspend our critical faculties and leave our constructivist toolbox closed, and just “follow the climate scientists”. This is most unfortunate.

However, when it comes to practical solutions, climate science has little to offer. Social, political and cultural responses to the challenge of climate change are often determined by scientists and engineers who have no special knowledge base when it comes to making suggestions. Instead they theorize their own common sense about how they think society and politics operate. Often they are naive, wrong, or both. But social scientists have been colluding in this game by granting scientists the prerogative of defining the situation and offering solutions. So if one wanted expertise for climate policy, more social science would be needed. Having said that, no amount of expertise will solve the problem of climate change, which is a long term issue and requires public involvement and debate on a much larger scale than witnessed so far.

Die Klimazwiebel: Interview Reiner Grundmann

I suppose there are some who will dismiss any testimony that doesnt fit their worldview of stallward scientists upholding the sanctity of the scientific method but the evidence is certainly there in the climategate emails and other places.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Plenty.

Dr. Jim Hansen. A paper with several very accurate predictions, in spite of his caveats about the state of knowledge at that time.

28 August 1981, Volume 213, Number 4511 Science

http://thedgw.org/definitionsOut/..\docs\Hansen_climate_impact_of_increasing_co2.pdf

Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and
1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is
consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of
atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar
luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend
of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming
should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the
century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on
climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North
America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West
Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the
fabled Northwest Passage.

Sylvia Brown has a better prediction rate than Hansen you fool.

Retarded dogs could cheat you at cards, walleyed, you poor deluded cretin.

And of course, as usual, you're completely clueless about the real world. Your denier cult myths, like the ones about Dr. Hansen's work, are, as always, utter BS. Most of the predictions that Dr. Hansen has made have come to pass or are happening now. He is an eminent scientist, honored and respected by his peers.

James Hansen
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Honors and awards

Hansen was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1996 for his "development of pioneering radiative transfer models and studies of planetary atmospheres; development of simplified and three-dimensional global climate models; explication of climate forcing mechanisms; analysis of current climate trends from observational data; and projections of anthropogenic impacts on the global climate system."[70] In 2001, he received the 7th Annual Heinz Award in the Environment (endowed with US$250,000) for his research on global warming,[71] and was listed as one of Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential People in 2006. Also in 2006, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) selected James Hansen to receive their Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility "for his courageous and steadfast advocacy in support of scientists' responsibilities to communicate their scientific opinions and findings openly and honestly on matters of public importance."[72]

In 2007, Hansen shared the US $1 million Dan David Prize for "achievements having an outstanding scientific, technological, cultural or social impact on our world". In 2008, he received the PNC Bank Common Wealth Award of Distinguished Service for his "outstanding achievements" in science. At the end of 2008, Hansen was named by EarthSky Communications and a panel of 600 scientist-advisors as the Scientist Communicator of the Year, citing him as an "outspoken authority on climate change" who had "best communicated with the public about vital science issues or concepts during 2008."[73]

In 2009, Hansen was awarded the 2009 Carl-Gustaf Rossby Research Medal,[73] the highest honor bestowed by the American Meteorological Society, for his "outstanding contributions to climate modeling, understanding climate change forcings and sensitivity, and for clear communication of climate science in the public arena."[74]

Hansen won the 2010 Sophie Prize, set up in 1997 by Norwegian Jostein Gaarder, the author of the 1991 best-selling novel and teenagers' guide to philosophy "Sophie's World",[75] for his " key role for the development of our understanding of human-induced climate change."

It's not so easy, going Green (oh btw, kermit's "green" song is an absolute rip off of Jobim's "Dindi")

 

[bobgnote]

I don't see science as being a political issue.

Good governance should be about acting on accurate scientific data - not about distorting the truth, hiding from it, or pretending the facts are not what they are.

While I think the use of nuclear vs renewables is a political issue around the world, only in the US (and to a lesser extent, Australia) does climate change seem to be political.

The Conservative parties of the UK, France, Germany, Finland, Denmark, New Zealand and host of others ALL accept that human acitivty may be playing a role in climate change, and have developed policies to suit.

In many cases, this means nuclear.

But why do some Americans seem to think climate change is left wing conspiracy, when most conservatives around the world are saying the opposite?

Oil production in the US peaked in the 1970s. It has been going down, since.

This was always going to be the case. Alcoholic beverages and stills were banned in the Constitution, 1918, which was really directed, against possible brewing of alcohol, as fuel. When Henry Ford and Rudolph Diesel both advocated hemp alcohol for their engines, and Ford made a great, indestructible hemp-plastic, The Hemp Stamp Tax Act of 1938 was inevitable. When this was declared unconstitutional in 1972, Nixon founded the DEA. Democrats and Republicans oppose legal hemp, Canada legalized it and has a hemp-corn surplus, but Canada exports petroleum, so a lot of hemp products will not come from down north.

Democrats passed Obamacare, lost the House, and THEN they tried to pass CO2-neutral biomass research, which lost, 2012. Ds and Rs both get PAC money, from petroleum and nuclear special interests. Expect them to trash us and the planet.

Meanwhile, carbonic acid is building up, in oceans and on land. Die-offs from acid are allover the world, check YouTube for acidification vids. We can lose the food chain, oceans first, then see the bees? They are dying from pesticides, but I suspect carbonic acid plays a part. When they go, no more orchard crops.

Fracking continues, while Ds and Rs spank each other, in a circle.

Science which will not catch up with Henry Ford or Rudi Diesel is not modern. Science which hides how carbonic acid is the busiest killer, related to accelerating AGW is not good science. Science is corrupted because crime pays, Ds and Rs are getting some of the profiteering, and nobody is leading, to re-greening waters and lands.

We can die, from neglect of science, or from too much science, but not enough smarts, in perpetrators who like to manufacture nuclear gear, like generators and ammunition. All this killer gear gets around, without anybody with brains dodging the zombies, to take charge, to make sure we re-green. Mass extinction event 6 looms, while much of the science is junk media, sorting the garbage-input, leading to garbage output.

 

[Old Rocks]

From which college did Hansen get his degree in climatology?

Where did you get your degree in stupidity?

James Hansen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hansen was born in Denison, Iowa. He was trained in physics and astronomy in the space science program of James Van Allen at the University of Iowa. He obtained a B.A. in Physics and Mathematics with highest distinction in 1963, an M.S. in Astronomy in 1965 and a Ph.D. in Physics, in 1967, all three degrees from the University of Iowa. He participated in the NASA graduate traineeship from 1962 to 1966 and, at the same time, between 1965 and 1966, he was a visiting student at the Institute of Astrophysics at the University of Kyoto and in the Department of Astronomy at the University of Tokyo. Hansen then began work at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in 1967.[2]

[edit] Research and publications

As a college student at the University of Iowa, Hansen was attracted to science and the research done by James Van Allen's space science program in the physics and astronomy department. A decade later, his focus shifted to planetary research that involved trying to understand the climate change on earth that will result from anthropogenic changes of the atmospheric composition.

Hansen has stated that one of his research interests is radiative transfer in planetary atmospheres, especially the interpretation of remote sensing of the Earth's atmosphere and surface from satellites. Because of the ability of satellites to monitor the entire globe, they may be one of the most effective ways to monitor and study global change. His other interests include the development of global circulation models to help understand the observed climate trends, and diagnosing human impacts on climate.[3]
................................................................................................................
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Hansen published several papers on the planet Venus following his Ph.D. dissertation. Venus has a high brightness temperature in the radio frequencies compared to the infrared. Hansen proposed that the hot surface was the result of aerosols trapping the internal energy of the planet.[4] More recent studies have suggested that several billion years ago Venus's atmosphere was much more like Earth's than it is now, and that there were probably substantial quantities of liquid water on the surface, but a runaway greenhouse effect was caused by the evaporation of that original water, which generated a critical level of greenhouse gases in its atmosphere.[5]
........................................................................................................................
Hansen was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1996 for his "development of pioneering radiative transfer models and studies of planetary atmospheres; development of simplified and three-dimensional global climate models; explication of climate forcing mechanisms; analysis of current climate trends from observational data; and projections of anthropogenic impacts on the global climate system."[70] In 2001, he received the 7th Annual Heinz Award in the Environment (endowed with US$250,000) for his research on global warming,[71] and was listed as one of Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential People in 2006. Also in 2006, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) selected James Hansen to receive their Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility "for his courageous and steadfast advocacy in support of scientists' responsibilities to communicate their scientific opinions and findings openly and honestly on matters of public importance."[72

 

[IanC]

Hansen has clearly crossed over the line from physicist to fanatical prosthletizer.

is it sadly reminiscent of Linus Pauling's preoccupation with vitamin C at the end of his life.

 

[code1211]

Scientists have done that quite thoroughly. You are just too much of a brainwashed moron to comprehend that. CO2 is actually a fairly powerful greenhouse gas. Mankind has raised CO2 levels about 40% over pre-industrial levels and that extra CO2 is mostly responsible for the abrupt warming trend of the last 60 years. Those facts have been scientifically determined and verified. Those facts are very inconvenient for your puppet masters in the fossil fuel industry because they threaten the trillion dollar a year profit flow that industry is currently enjoying. So those greedy mo-fo's propagandize scientifically ignorant people like you to create doubt about the very real scientific facts of the matter and delay any effective collective action to place the necessary limits on carbon emissions. Just like the tobacco companies used twisted and phony 'science' to delay public recognition that smoking tobacco causes a whole lot of serious health problems, some of them life threatening, and thereby delayed for years the appropriate governmental actions to regulate and tax tobacco sales. Those regulatory actions eventually resulted in a reduction in the cancer and other disease rates associated with smoking and cut the number of smokers considerably. So too now are the fossil fuel companies and vested interests (oil billionaires like the Koch brothers, etc.) trying to delay the very necessary and appropriate governmental and international actions to regulate and tax carbon emissions in order to move the world off of fossil fuels and onto non-carbon emitting energy sources. This move to renewables is vital to the future of our world ecology, our civilization and future generations. It is too bad you and the rest of the deniers are too bamboozled and confused to realize this.

With all of that science to back you up, you should be able to produce a prediction of climate activity from 30 years ago that is accurate.

How about 15 years ago?

Whataya got?

Plenty.

Dr. Jim Hansen. A paper with several very accurate predictions, in spite of his caveats about the state of knowledge at that time.

28 August 1981, Volume 213, Number 4511 Science

http://thedgw.org/definitionsOut/..\docs\Hansen_climate_impact_of_increasing_co2.pdf

Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and
1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is
consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of
atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar
luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend
of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming
should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the
century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on
climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North
America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West
Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the
fabled Northwest Passage.

Oh, I see! In your world, a prediction is a statrement of what happened before.

Can you predict who will win Superbowl I?

A prediction is a statement of what will happen AFTER the prediction is made.

Try again and please produce a prediction and not a historical recap.