He is a victim of poor reporting. The press keeps hearing him make wild exaggerations which he actually never said. (Indeed remarkable how consistent interviewers are with their misinformation over a couple of decades.) It must be a conspiracy against the virtuous James Hansen, who only cares about getting accurate information to the press.
He is talking about 2006.
http://news.google.com/newspapers
He is talking about 2001.
http://news.google.com/newspapers
http://news.google.com/newspapers
I think our best measure is what happened in the past. We know that, for instance, 14,000 years ago sea levels rose by 20m in 400 years – that is five metres in a century. This was towards the end of the last ice age, so there was more ice around. But, on the other hand, temperatures were not warming as fast as today.
He is talking about the decade which just ended.
Well… the “press” loves to make stuff up about Palin and Bush, paging Dan Rather…. why not about Hansen…. heh
On the other hand, if I was that wrong that often and worked for the govt, I’d hope someone would try and muzzle my yap.
tw, they get away with it because no one really expects a weatherman to be right…….
What amazes me is that this guy has been a paid public official ho has embarked upon his own personal enviromental (sic) crusade for twenty years plus. Does he not have terms of employmnet? Can he not be fired? Where is Congress when you need them?
Stop funding GISS now! Only reinstate the funding when they start experimenting with rocket flight again!
The mainstream media has obediently lapped up Hansen’s drivel. What is he complaining about?
Given those “predictions” it is little wonder Bush wanted to “censor” the loon. Unfortunately as with most censorship, it backfired because people tend to think that if someone is being censored, they’re probably right about what they’re saying, so there’s a bit of lost ground to be made up.
Steve,
so is this your way of admitting that you were completely wrong about him saying Manhattan would be underwater by 2008? I don’t see that quote in here anywhere?
Are you mental?
Steve,
we just had such a long discussion on the other thread, and you have said dozens of times that Hansen said manhattan would be under water by 2008. here you have posted all these other “journalistic” 2nd hand references about Hansen, and yet you forgot to include your absolute favorite. What else am I supposed to think!
You do know that it is possible to admit to making a mistake. there are people who do that, and they survive. Some of them actually feel better after admitting it.
Showing that what he told Reiss was consistent with what he was telling everybody else. DOH.
Tony,
When will Hansen ever admit to his parade of errors?
And since they caused to many people – who foolishly believed him – so stress, when will he apologize?
Steven…
“Are you mental?”
Funny. I thought I was the last politically incorrect person to use this term.
Wayne’s World! Party Time! Excellent!
Groovy man! I forgot about Wayne’s World reviving it. The heat really is impacting my memory…
ROFLMAO!!!
Meanwhile you casually complain about ONE of his many errors.What about the other whopping prediction failures of his ,Tony?
This is why we laugh at you.
Sunset.
I don’t comment on most of Steve’s other errors.
Please do.
Hi Tony,
I have yet to read anywhere where Hansen states that he never made the Manhattan quotes. Looking at his other predictions I am inclined to believe that he did in fact make those predictions which turned out to be wrong so far. He has 9 years left for sea levels to start accelerating have not done so far. Be careful about the side you are on. Many predictions have been made and the Internet has a memory.
Jimbo,
I have yet to read anywhere in the hundreds of interviews that Steve says Hansen has given where he was asked if Manhattan would be underwater by 2008. he has never repeated the statement, and there is a book that gives the ACTUAL quote, that anyone could have checked for the last 10 years. The book is highlighted in the article that contains the wrong quote, but the people spreading this misinformation were uninterested in doing so. I was in fact attacked repeatedly for denying the quote, when i repeatedly wrote that i did not deny it. For that I am sorry and admit to making a mistake.
As of yet Steve has been unable to provide any other source where Hansen has said anything like this. Steve uses newspapers a lot, and having been the subject of newspaper articles i can tell you that they are not a good source for accurate information. Peer reviewed literature is slightly more exacting. You may not be aware of this but newspapers are private enterprises and they are predicated on making money, and therefore printing what they think will sell papers. They change or omit small things to create an impression. Having read some of Hansen’s papers he has in fact never published anything like this quote, so you, in fact, have no reason to believe it,
Hansen has also admitted his mistake of attributing CO2 forcing to 4.5°C/doubling CO2. This means his predictions using those numbers are going to be wrong. He knows it, Steve and Anthony know it, but they do not acknowledge this or many other facts. Just as Steve cannot ever admit a mistake, he can only see evidence which supports his ideology, and that means ACC has to be wrong..
I am on the side of being skeptical about ACC. I actually read information from many sources, and do find valuable info on this site that influences my views. I just am actually interested in what is really going on and not demonizing an idea because it doesn’t fit what I want to believe
What part of this is it that your are denying? It is incredibly explicit.
While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, “If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 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. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”
Tony, you’re missing the point of all of this.
When you state, “Hansen has also admitted his mistake of attributing CO2 forcing to 4.5°C/doubling CO2.”, does that suddenly negate the laws and policies enacted because of his erroneous judgment? It doesn’t. We’re stuck with them. When the IPCC report is thrashed and someone comes to say, ooops, we’re sorry, does that negate the emissions laws the EU passed? No, it doesn’t. It doesn’t magically un-impoverishment the people impoverished. It doesn’t suddenly grant nations electricity plants that were denied them on, in part, upon the dire predictions of Hansen and his ilk, nor the interpretations of a reporter. None of the clarifications, retractions, misstatements, and ooppsies undo the damage already done and continues to be done and will continue to be done. THESE THINGS ARE KILLING PEOPLE NOW!
Tony, I wish you and I could have a beer or two together, I think I could convey my thoughts in a much better manner than what I can with a keyboard. I’ve a feeling that were I to convey them properly, you’d see things in a different light. I’m just too inadequate in my attempts for eloquence.
SUYTS,
I think I would enjoy that, though I don’t drink!
I have been meaning to respond to your long comment on the other post. Quickly. I have great respect for your thinking (as I do Steve’s, even if I don’t want to inflate his ego ;-), and I have no doubt about your sincerity and character.
I strongly disagree with you in both perspective and many particulars, but you and others hear have given me a much more clear understanding of the complexity of these issues, have influenced my understanding to a large degree. So you have already caused me to see things in a different light. I have serious doubts that I would come to your viewpoint on this issue, but I would certainly be open to communicating on a different level.
Thanks Tony,
The comments are appreciated. There may be a time when we could communicate in a different manner. One never knows.
James
When are these psychos from the 1970s going to leave us alone. We had Rummy in the Bush admin, these recycled guys from the 1970s need to go home
Indeed. Love to learn more about Hansen’s youth. I suspect he was a real nerd who got bullied a lot.
Clearer with Canada’s David Suzuki. His childhood experience in a WW II internment camp explain why he’s a complete sociopath. Also explains his chronic ‘potty mouth’ and barely suppressed rage off camera.
They should never censor Hansen, in fact they should promote him. Make him the Tsar of Climate change, he makes me laugh. He is the Homer Simpson of Climate Change.
That’s the creepiest book cover EVAH!
I just noticed why I must read it. Finally, “The Truth about Global Warming”!
Always wondered about that. Maybe someday we will finally know The Truth about Climate Disruption? Or at least one of them.
The only ones censoring science now are the scientists who deny access to the science via ignoring FOIA requests that should be honored by law. Isn’t it interesting how quickly those that claim to have suffered oppression and condemn others as oppressors, become the oppressor when it is in their career and financial interest to do so?
Having a process for FOI in the realm of so called science ruins the “Science” as it is no longer science when FOIA is required! Attempting to defeat FOIA is fraud!
From Amazon’s ‘Editorial Review’…
“Frightening, as Hansen concludes that climate is significantly more sensitive than two years ago and that our choice may be not between no change and a significant change, but between a significant change and disaster.”
Yeah, misquoted indeed!
Even better is the review from ‘J Dykstra’…
“I think the following extremely important points can be gleaned from the book:
1) Hansen is a very meticulous scientist who shys away from political involvement or spectacular claims in public, in spite of how is he generally characterized by those hoping to smear him.
2) Hansen is perhaps the most important global warming researcher in the US, and has an incredible 30+ year record of solid work and correct predictions or views on things.
3) We have essentially lost many years of attacking the problem of global warming by allowing short-term corporate interests to dictate a policy that puts profit above long-term stability of the environment.
4) There is overwhelming and basically unassailable evidence of what is going on, and a strong basis for solid predictions of what could happen.”
No wonder it’s #849,949 on the best seller list!
“2) Hansen is perhaps the most important global warming researcher in the US, and has an incredible 30+ year record of solid work and correct predictions or views on things.”
Can someone contact J Dykstra and inform hime that it is taboo to use the phrase “global warming”. Hansen is perhaps the most important climate changing astrologist in the US, there is no perhaps about it.
According to Schmidt at RealClimate Jan21/2011, Hansen’s 1988 predictions are fine, Jim and dandy.
I’m at a loss to understand how black can become white so easily, so quickly and in so many minds that are able to get their owners home on the bus by themselves.
“I’m at a loss to understand how black can become white so easily, so quickly and in so many minds that are able to get their owners home on the bus by themselves.”
Most of these geniuses have assistants. There is no way Hansen could figure out a bus schedule, he cannot even properly identify a driver!
What is disappointing is that individuals making alarmist predictions, that turn out to be totally incorrect, are never held to public account. But what is more insane, is that the media, IPCC, governments, etc., etc., simply continue to listen to such individuals. This probably because it is what they want to keep hearing, and it is what they need to keep hearing, after all, they’ve all nailed themselves to the ‘catastrophic man-made global warming cross’. It really is a case of ‘together they stand; divided they fall’.
But fall, they inevitably will as the science improves and the real-world data of Mother Nature exposes their flawed mantra.