Speaking Out About Climate Change

[waldo]

James Hansen - award winning and world renowned scientist turned activist... his very name evokes the most outrageous vitriolic attacks from AGW/Climate Change deniers - of course it does, initially stemming from his scientific prowess/work. James Hansen is a red-flag for deniers, particularly given his most recent years focus on climate change activism. A recent Hansen book, 'Storms of my Grandchildren', speaks to why James Hansen has taken up a high-profile and very visible activists role - the following recent days TedTalks video extends upon that book:

[Moonbox]

Hansen is getting to be one of the less credible scientists out there these days. Even supporters of global warming theory are distancing themselves from him saying he's doing more harm than good. In his later year's he's become a pretty visible target for skeptics (some of them award winning scientists themselves) for his reliance on BS computer models, just like his buddy Al.

[TimG]

If we go by Hansen's track record we have nothing to worry about. In 1988 he said:

If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in [40] years?” He looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained, “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/22/a-little-known-but-failed-20-year-old-climate-change-prediction-by-dr-james-hansen/

There has been a 2.8" rise in 23 years. It will take another 10 feet or so in 17 years to make his prediction come true. To say that Hansen lacks credibility is an understatement.

[lukin]

Hansen has very little credibility and anyone with common sense knows not to take is rants seriously.

[waldo]

what did I say about Hansen being a red-flag to deniers!

[olpfan1]

Hansen has very little credibility and anyone with common sense knows not to take is rants seriously.

Just look at that hat he is wearing, how can anyone take that seriously?

[waldo]

To say that Hansen lacks credibility is an understatement.

that's a well worn one there, hey TimG? It's the one that purposely ignores the underlying premise of the question Hansen responded to; i.e., 40 years from the point of a doubling of CO2... details, details, hey?

James Hansen: "Michaels also has the facts wrong about a 1988 interview of me by Bob Reiss, in which Reiss asked me to speculate on changes that might happen in New York City in 40 years assuming CO2 doubled in amount. Michaels has it as 20 years, not 40 years, with no mention of doubled CO2."

guys, c'mon... your credibility is waning!

[waldo]

Just look at that hat he is wearing, how can anyone take that seriously?

well... at least you're moving up the scale on your comments - from vacuous to superficial - well done!

[waldo]

In his later year's he's become a pretty visible target for skeptics (some of them award winning scientists themselves) for his reliance on BS computer models, just like his buddy Al.

ohhh, a bonus!... another Al Gore reference!

BS computer models - do tell, do tell

[olpfan1]

well... at least you're moving up the scale on your comments - from vacuous to superficial - well done!

why must we fight? we're both on the same side here (against harper and the conservatives)

[TimG]

that's a well worn one there, hey TimG? It's the one that purposely ignores the underlying premise of the question Hansen responded to; i.e., 40 years from the point of a doubling of CO2... details, details, hey?

Where is that quotation? All you offered is Hansen's claim that is what he said. Frankly, I don't believe his recollection because it makes no sense that a reporter would ask a question on what would happen 40 years after CO2 doubles. It would either be what would happen in 40 years or what would happen when CO2 doubles?

[waldo]

why must we fight? we're both on the same side here (against harper and the conservatives)

what a most bizarre comment.

[waldo]

Where is that quotation? All you offered is Hansen's claim that is what he said. Frankly, I don't believe his recollection because it makes no sense that a reporter would ask a question on what would happen 40 years after CO2 doubles. It would either be what would happen in 40 years or what would happen when CO2 doubles?

where is the quotation? Buddy, yours is the original source... are you highlighting the incompleteness of your original source?

[TimG]

where is the quotation?

It is in the post I linked to with enough context to make Hansen's claims implausible. I did change the 20 to 40 to reflect what I considered to be a plausble error even though it could be an after the fact rationalization by an alarmists cultist protecting his leader. Edited March 9, 2012 by TimG

[waldo]

It is in the post I linked to with enough context to make Hansen's claims implausible. I did change the 20 to 40 to reflect what I considered to be a plausble error even though it could be an after the fact rationalization by an alarmists cultist protecting his leader.

now doesn't the following make you feel rather foolish? Of course, this is par for the course with you. That you actually had the nerve to source from the hopelessly flawed WTFIUWT site was gold!

here... have a cookie: Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway

One climate myth found on the internet, propagated by Anthony Watts, is that James Hansen erroneously predicted the West Side Highway would be underwater by 2008. James Hansen made his statement in response to a question by Bob Reiss, a journalist and author, in 1988. A close examination of the interview reveals Hansen did not, in fact, predict that the West Side Highway would be underwater in 20 years. Bob Reiss reports the conversation as follows:

"When I interviewe­­d James Hansen I asked him to speculate on what the view outside his office window could look like in 40 years with doubled CO2. I'd been trying to think of a way to discuss the greenhouse effect in a way that would make sense to average readers. I wasn't asking for hard scientific studies. It wasn't an academic interview. It was a discussion with a kind and thoughtful man who answered the question. You can find the descriptio­­n in two of my books, most recently The Coming Storm."

James Hansen reports the conversation as follows:

"Reiss asked me to speculate on changes that might happen in New York City in 40 years assuming CO2 doubled in amount."

The book The Coming Storm and the salon.com article are different. In The Coming Storm the question includes the conditions of doubled CO2 and 40 years, while the salon.com article which is quoted by skeptics does not mention doubled CO2, and involves only 20 years.

like I said:

what did I say about Hansen being a red-flag to deniers!

[TimG]

When I interviewe­­d James Hansen I asked him to speculate on what the view outside his office window could look like in 40 years with doubled CO2

A strange and meaningless question designed to deceive. Even at current rates CO2 will nearly 150 years before CO2 levels double so he was asking about a future 200 years from now but disguised the fact with his 40 years reference. When I said the question made no sense I had assumed that the reporter wanted to be honest. Since deceiving his audience appears to be his objective I was wrong. Edited March 9, 2012 by TimG

[waldo]

A strange and meaningless question designed to decieve. Even at current rates CO2 will nearly 150 years before CO2 levels double so he was asking about a future 200 years from now but disguised the fact with his 40 years reference.

learn how to quote properly... you've attributed words to me; of course, those were words from my quotation.

look, just accept your lumps and quietly go away... the authors book level rendering of the event doesn't match the salon.com article you/your source quoted. It's a shame your source blew up on you... blew up, reeeeal good!

[bush_cheney2004]

.... Since deceiving his audience appears to be his objective I was wrong.

We must remember that Hansen is no longer a physicist or scientist....he is now an alarmist and activist, obsessing on mountain top coal mines (instead of wind mills).

[lukin]

why must we fight? we're both on the same side here (against harper and the conservatives)

Do you make $$$ posting on this forum?

[Moonbox]

ohhh, a bonus!... another Al Gore reference!

lol...bringing either one of them into a debate concerning the credibility of climate science is a joke. Al Gore is the face of the idealogy and Hansen is his chief "scientist".

what did I say about Hansen being a red-flag to deniers!

Waldo man...He's a red flag to deniers because he's proven himself wildely inaccurate and prone to gross exaggeration and sensationalism. That's not a credit to him.

BS computer models - do tell, do tell

There isn't a scientist or computer in the world that accurately make predictions on the millions of variables that affect temperature and climate. We can't measure what the effect of long term weather patterns, ocean currents or the sun have on climate and temperature, nor can we control these variables. If we don't really understand the variables, can't control them and can't determine how they affect each other, any projections made by computer models are, at best, going to be useless.

As for your rhetoric about climate change 'deniers' Waldo, get a life. You sound like a bible-thumping republican and your tone is frighteningly similar to a religious zealot. You seem to think that either you accept everything you're told and agree 100% with man made global warming, or you're a pagan heretic denier. Is it not okay to be skeptical about a contentious science in its infancy, where the doom and gloom scenarios painted by its most vocal alarmists have ALREADY BEEN PROVEN WRONG???

[Michael Hardner]

There isn't a scientist or computer in the world that accurately make predictions on the millions of variables that affect temperature and climate. We can't measure what the effect of long term weather patterns, ocean currents or the sun have on climate and temperature, nor can we control these variables. If we don't really understand the variables, can't control them and can't determine how they affect each other, any projections made by computer models are, at best, going to be useless.

What does accurate mean ? They predicted that temperatures would go up, and they have been. Is that accurate enough ?

The weatherman is wrong sometimes too, but most people still listen to him.

[TimG]

What does accurate mean ? They predicted that temperatures would go up, and they have been. Is that accurate enough ?

The predictions that climate change will cause measureable harm to human society (measureable meaning it is clearly connected to climate change and not general patterns of population growth). So far I see none.

The weatherman is wrong sometimes too, but most people still listen to him.

The overwhelming majority of people would not make investment decisions based on a weathermans predictions. You cannot equate taking an umbrella when you leave in the morning to agreeing to pay three times as much for electricity. The consequences of the decisions are larger therefore the reliability of the source is a much bigger factor when it comes to climate change question. Edited March 9, 2012 by TimG

[waldo]

lol...bringing either one of them into a debate concerning the credibility of climate science is a joke. Al Gore is the face of the idealogy and Hansen is his chief "scientist".

since you were so quick out of the gate in this thread, being the first to mention credibility and Gore, it would appear to be... your joke. As for your scary quotes "scientist" slag, I understand Hansen is also (one of) NASA's chief scientists, NAS elected, the recipient of numerous scientific awards and a most prolific author/co-author of peer-reviewed scientific papers - and a red flag to deniers! Did I note how quick out of the gate you were in this thread

Waldo man...He's a red flag to deniers because he's proven himself wildely inaccurate and prone to gross exaggeration and sensationalism. That's not a credit to him.

your personal claim to inaccuracy, exaggeration and sensationalism would be a reflection on successful challenges to his position/writings, particularly in balance to the contextually relevant nature of said challenges. We just read a classic TimG fail in this very thread a few short posts back. In any case, your personal claim/assessment is noted.

There isn't a scientist or computer in the world that accurately make predictions on the millions of variables that affect temperature and climate. We can't measure what the effect of long term weather patterns, ocean currents or the sun have on climate and temperature, nor can we control these variables. If we don't really understand the variables, can't control them and can't determine how they affect each other, any projections made by computer models are, at best, going to be useless.

I recalled one of your past rants against models... so I was curious and just checked your posting history - over roughly 3 years you have had much to "say" about climate models; however, I do note you not once... ever... provided any citation/substantiation to anything you've ever stated about climate model capabilities, acknowledged uncertainties, hindcast reliability, success as predicated upon predictions/projections-to-observations, etc.. You certainly talk a good, uhhh... "game"!

Is it not okay to be skeptical about a contentious science in its infancy, where the doom and gloom scenarios painted by its most vocal alarmists have ALREADY BEEN PROVEN WRONG???

clearly, as I've stated/highlighted many times over, legitimate skepticism is the cornerstone/foundation of any/all science. Your favoured brand of 'fake skepticism' is nothing more than outright, overt denial. You could offer some perspective on your allCaps shouting, perhaps narrowing the field to your favoured brand of "vocal alarmist... PROVEN WRONG"; you know, just to gauge a real benchmark against your shouting denial.

[Moonbox]

What does accurate mean ? They predicted that temperatures would go up, and they have been. Is that accurate enough?

They had a 50% chance of being right, so good for them. Thus far the temperature changes have also been WELL within the type of changes seen over the last thousand years and more. If we're going to take their predictions and models seriously, however, they'd have to at least make the predictions that came close to the changes we're actually seeing.

The weatherman is wrong sometimes too, but most people still listen to him.

The weather man is often wrong, and people don't trust him at all.

[waldo]

So far I see none.

channeling Pielke, hey?

(on edit: damn you auto-correct)

Edited March 9, 2012 by waldo