SubscribeGet The Facts On Climate Hysteric Hansen
From our old friend Marc Morano via the Minority Page of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works:
Don’t Panic Over Predictions of Climate Doom - Get the Facts on James Hansen
‘High Crimes Against Humanity’ Trial for Climate Skeptics?
NASA scientist James Hansen has created worldwide media frenzy with his call for trials against those who dissent against man-made global warming fears.
Sampling of Key Information about NASA’s James Hansen (for full articles, see below):
1) The oil money’s paltry contribution pales in comparison to the well funded alarmist industry. (LINK)
2) Earth has COOLED since Hansen’s Dire Climate Warning in 1988 (LINK) See 1988 vs. 2008 temperature chart here:
3) Hansen’s Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis challenged by UN Scientists and new peer-reviewed studies. (LINK) & (LINK) & (LINK)
4) Hansen who alleged Bush administration muzzled him — did 1,400 on-the-job media interviews (LINK)
5) Media Ignores Skeptical NASA Scientists’ Claims of Censorship (LINK) & (LINK)
6) Hansen’s Claim that his 1988 Hottest Day testimony was the result of being ‘lucky’ is refuted – ‘We were just lucky’ (LINK)
7) Reality Check: Senator Admits Hot Day and AC Failure during Hansen’s 1988 Testimony was ‘Stagecraft’ (LINK)
8) An August 2007 NASA temperature data error discovery has lead to 1934 — not the previously hyped 1998 — being declared the hottest in U.S. history since records began. (LINK)
9) Hansen Received $250,000 from partisan Heinz Foundation & Endorsed Dem. John Kerry for Pres. in 2004 (LINK)
10) Media Darling Hansen Assailed by NASA Colleagues (LINK)
11) Scientist Alleging Bush Censorship Helped Gore, Kerry (LINK)
12) Hansen conceded that use of “extreme scenarios" to dramatize climate change “may have been appropriate at one time” (LINK) …
This is just the beginning of an excellent and highly documented two part exegesis on Mr. Hansen and his global warming hucksterism.
Consequently, it will be studiously ignored by our watchdog media.
We encourage everyone to peruse the full article, and indeed bookmark it for future reference.
Related Articles:
- Soros Stooge Wants Trials For Oil Execs
- AP: Everything Is Spinning Out Of Control!
- RFK Jr Explains The Democrat Energy Policy
- How The AP Lied About Gore's Energy Use
- Meanie Bush Lets Big Oil 'Annoy' Polar Bears
- Eco-Terrorists Ambush Coal Train In England
- 'Climate Change' Bill Could Cut Growth 7%
- An Ice Age Cometh - Due To Fewer Sunspots
- Climate Hysteria: "The Arctic Is Screaming"
- IBD: The George Soros Threat To Democracy
11 Responses to “Get The Facts On Climate Hysteric Hansen”
Leave a Reply
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.
June 24th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Sheesh, you’re giving FACTS and you’re giving REASONS. How dare you? Hand-waving is the order of the day. The Goracle has said so…
June 24th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Some inconvenient facts that most climate alarmists tend to ignore:
(i) When the Vikings landed on the Newfoundland coast in the 11th century, they found vines growing there, which made them call the place “Vinland”, or Land of Vines. Fancy growing a spruce tree in Newfoundland’s cold present-day climate, far less vines.
(ii) Agriculture was conducted on a limited basis along the fjords of Greenland in the 13th and 14th centuries before the “Little Ice Age” put to an end all agriculture there.
(iii) And then, from the 16th century till the end of the 19th century, we went through a mini-Ice Age, when the Hudson River froze solid every winter and snow fell in London in the summer months. The fact that this Ice Age ended as industrialization was picking up has made industrialization the preferred target of these climate moonbats.
(iv) Till a few months back, the buzz word was “global warming”. Faced with such anomalies as the coldest winter in ages in China, snow in Baghdad and record ice in the Arctic, the Gaia geeks have rechristened global warming as “climate change”. Quite conveniently, if anything goes wrong with the weather, bingo! Blame it on those nasty humans and their gas-guzzling SUVs. It’s just like if there’s anything wrong anywhere in the world, you know Bush is to blame…
June 24th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
sen! I like your style! Keep it up! As for “climate change”…..it wont be long before people who are freezing their collective asses off will just tell the “experts” to take a flying leap….and Gore et al will have to figure out a new way to grift billions of dollars from the populace.
As I have said before, and I will say it again to all those who demand I change my evil carbon emitting ways…..YOU FIRST! Once they set the example by ridding themselves of all carbon emitting implements…..ALL of them, live in a mud hut and dine on anaerobic microbes with only the sun for light and warmth….then I will consider changing my ways. Not before.
Plus, there needs to be a fifty decade study done to see if in fact it is us, and not a solar cycle. So all of those concerned with climate change can contact me then…..because if they do it before then, they will have to be concerned more about facial structure change instead.
June 24th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
“I will say it again to all those who demand I change my evil carbon emitting ways…..YOU FIRST”
Unfortunately, rules are made for thee, not for me. What ticks me off is to see these environmentalists sitting in their Manhattan penthouses or zooming across the globe in Gulfstream jets telling people like you and me to live in smaller houses and travel less to reduce our respective carbon footprints. Pray, has Mr. Gore ever thought of maybe shifting into a smaller house (instead of living in a mansion that supposedly uses enough electricity per year to power a few hundred normal American homes), or traveling coach class (or even taking the train)? Driving a Prius and eating organic vegetarian food may be hip and trendy, but in terms of doing something meaningful, these actions fall short of being anything concrete.
June 24th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
“Hansen Received $250,000 from partisan Heinz Foundation & Endorsed Dem. John Kerry for Pres. in 2004..”
You guys would be extremely surprised (well, maybe not) at how far left most scientists are. I can’t sit through a single lecture without a snickering scientist talking about how much of a loser ol’ GW is, abortion and cracking several Catholic jokes, making dumb remarks about “better not send that in a package, homeland security will come get you” etc., etc., etc.,. What most don’t know is they are becoming very influential politically, such places as the research triangle in NC harbor enough lefty votes to make a difference in election outcomes that are traditionally Republican leaning.
June 24th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
I’ve regressed the data for C02 levels against the Earth’s temperature. The coefficient of determination (R-squared) is 0.62 - and this assumes their data is normalized and complete (and not eliminating outliers, et cetera). The R-squared being the square of the correlation coefficient, not the causation coefficient, if you get my drift.
An R-squared of 0.62 is statistically marginal. Certainly not something for which to change our economy. And don’t get me started on correlation and linearity…
Global warming is mostly a function of Sun activity and not much else. Remember the Medieval Warm Period (c. 1000 AD) and olive trees growing in Germany? Thank goodness fat Al wasn’t around back then!
Sadly, Americans have lost/relinquished their analytical skills and are easy targets for Snake Oil salesmen like the Goracle.
‘Four legs good, two legs bad!’ God help us…
June 24th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
Colonel, funny enough, an R suqared value is usually acceptable at .95 or better, and in most cases, .99999 to 1.0 is considered “statistically significant.” .65 would get me laughed out of the room if I claimed it was statistically significant during a talk.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
1st,
So how much bigger would the sample size have to be in order to reach .95 r-squared coefficient of correlation? I suspect that it would require more years of data than exist in recorded history and with confounding variables during that time it probably wouldn’t be statistically signifigant if we had data back to the k-t boundary (150 million years of data). What assumptions have the computer models included and more importantly excluded?
June 25th, 2008 at 6:58 am
TNP, it would take at least another 90 million years of data that supported the cause in order to reach 90% certainty. That would still suggest that it would still be 10% uncertainty, and over 90 million years, 9 million year uncertainty is pretty significant, so you could imagine 35% uncertainty over 150 million years. Whatever has been included and excluded would be interesting to know because you may see a large amount of massaging just to get what the model suggests. They probably included high temp extremes and exluded the lows!
June 25th, 2008 at 10:30 am
1stRep, an R-squared of 0.62 would never fly in my business, either. We generally accept correlation at 0.80 (mainly because of the limited sample sizes we encounter).
I think there are enough data points to do a full analysis, but remember my caveat - I am using the bits and pieces of their released data. And you and no_prisoners are both in my court, I assume they’ve cherry-picked the data to the point of no return. And it has been suggested that they’ve left of the medieval warm period from their analysis! Cherry-picking, indeed.
p.s. let me also add that I am a proud alumnus of one of the few sane universities in the world when it comes to climatology - UAH!
June 25th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Why not counter-sue environmentalist groups , for their stubbon attitudes towards nuclear power and large scale hydroelectric power?
http://www.greenpeace.org/inte.....roelectric
http://www.greenpeace.org/inte.....ns/nuclear
By bullying governments into mandating a low CO2 future, and then bullying industries away from practical low CO2 technologies, they are condemning millions of people to abject poverty.
Question:
Why do liberals complain about oil consumption on Mondays, and high oil prices on Tuesdays, and prevent oil exploration on Wednesdays, and then complain about speculators on Thursdays, and then ….