Reading the publications of Romm/Guardian/Hansen and elsewhere, it is clear that there is a certain segment of the population who believe that any form of weather is a sign of human effects on the climate.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr8DIg3oHFI]
Again Steve this is absurd. This is a scene from a monty python movie and the characters are pretty stupid. Even the fair minded knight doesn’t come off as being very smart if you think hard enough about it. I think a fair assessment would show that these people are definitely stupider than Hansen/Romm/Gore. None of them have claimed, as far as I know, that ACC has turned anyone into a newt.
Nah, Hansen just said that it would make the planet unrecognizable and that Manhattan would be drowning by 2008. Turning someone into a newt is small potatoes compared to Jimbo’s plans for the planet.
Are you EVER going to give up on the Hansen “quote” that not one scientist, including Hansen has ever given credence to?
Why bring up something that someone said in private as proof of anything. It is rather bizarre.
Show me where Hansen said the author was lying.
Who CARES whether he was lying or not? if what he said is true, it is totally inconsistent with ANY science that ANYONE was predicting. The point is he never said it in public. He has never written anything saying that. It TOTALLY contradicts everything he HAD written then or since then. Your bringing it up is meaningless as an argument against alarmism, since he DIDN’T say it publicly.
Of course you have likely never exaggerated anything in private, that you would know would be ridiculous if repeated in public.
it’s not like Michelle Bachman and Limbaugh, etc saying the President spent $200 million a day on a trip to India. Or on the other side, saying a guy who wears nazi uniforms in reenactments is un-american. Now those are public statements that are on the record and they are alarmist and based on fantasy.
As we have gone over repeatedly Hansen’s recent statements about 5 meters he DID say in public, but he CLEARLY stated they were not based on science, and ONLY said because he believes IPCC parameters are not based on the full science either.
What you CAN go on about is sea level measurements and tide gauges. If there is no increase in those rates of increase in the next decade, then that will be significant evidence that ACC models are not accurate.
LOL,
It went zooming right over your head.
Of Course, I believe ACC is possible. I must be that stupid!
Not often we agree!!
LOL!!
Well, I would hate for things to get too contentious!
TonyD:
I have to agree with you. ACC is possible and can be shown to exist on a sub regional and micro climate basis. However on a full regional or global basis natural climate variations over ride any minor effects ACC might exhibit.
You need to get your head around what you believe. Just believing in ACC is like saying Fish Swim in water.
Do fish swimming in water or Butterflies flying in the air affect the global climate?
In a single day, temperature can shift 30 degrees. For any region, every year can be a different story; record highs, record lows, record snow, record rain. The falsified, er, uh, I mean, ADJUSTED temperature mean is up a whopping 1 degree and change. Yet this tiny change, part of which may result from a hot spot over Greenland one year, and over Africa the next, is somehow attributable for EVERY undesirable change in our world. Wildlife survives wide swings in local climate, yet a tiny change in the mean is somehow killing everything.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060112035218.htm