http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt
This is a complete train wreck for warmists, but they will continue to ignore it. The only month out of 121 months which gave them any hope was January 2007.
In 1986, Hansen predicted 2-4 degrees warming during the first decade of the 21st century.
Page 5
I guess thay think this won’t be noticed, as people are bedazzled by that lone peak. But 1850’s temperature data…with decimal places?
Three decimal places is well within the Margin of error if you are dealing with Climatology! 😉 Even back two thousand years! Maybe that long ago requires 2 decimal places as they are not as certain about the records from that time!
OMG .. The Miami News said it ???
Faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaark it MUST BE TRUE !!!
Newspapers NEVER EVER misquote someone …. like DOH !!!
I hope you are getting well paid for this horse shit you call Real Science …
Here use my free text … and go slap on the missing word * FICTION * to the end of your title.
*twinkle*
“Just having Fun”
…………… whatever
Weird how so many newspapers had the same hearing problem.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/03/15/the-most-misunderstood-and-censored-man-in-the-world/
LOGICAL FALLACY —
argumentum ad nauseam
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Hasty generalization
Argumentum ad populum
BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU STEVEN
All of them could well be wrong, and when it comes to the Media they often are … get off ya ass mate .. AND
QUOTE HANSEN DIRECTLY, AND IN CONTEXT, PROVE THE MIAMI NEWS IS 100% ACCURATE … OR WTHDRAW YOUR WEASEL WORDS …
THAT IS WHAT A REAL MAN WOULD DO … I expect nothing will change much in that regard around here …
What are you babbling about? Unless you have invented a time machine, we rely on written records from times past. If Hansen didn’t believe something, he shouldn’t have said it to the press.
Twinkle:
Do we have a Real Man coming to visit? I can Not wait!
May we could have a real scientist explain long term climate as the IPCC and wanna be researchers playing scientist have got it wrong!
Hansen is FOS and you are worse because you defend his actions!
Actually Twinkle: The Burden of proof is on you! Steven is providing historic references to claims made by Hansen and YOU need to prove he did not make those claims. However ANY statement by Big Jim is not valid proof because of his history of rewriting past events.
Wow Steve, where did you pick this one up at? The burden of proof is on who? Well, I’d consider it upon the people wishing to send us back to the stone ages and have us all living in a hut. But, that’s probably just me.
And you use the term weasel words? Are those anything like, “if”, “may”, “could”, “potentially”, etc…. Alarmist are the ones perfecting the use of weasel words. Logical fallacy….lol. As if an alarmist would know what logic is, much less properly apply it.
What a real man would do? Really? I think we could start by not wetting our pants every time some one fires up a coal plant.
I’m traveling back in time and changing the news from the last few thousand years.
Hey Steve, so you wouldn’t be stuck using only HadCrut, I’ve gone through the trouble of making a decadal graph of RSSs temps.
Let me know if you want any changes to it.
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2rpsqc7&s=7
I think you were visited by the Waskly Wabbit or one of the Sheeple that hang on to his every word.
Their rewrite of history does not allow Big Jim to have made any wrong predictions. Whatever has happened since the 80s is consistent with something Big Jim has said even if he needed to properly adjust the results to make it so!
Remember It is NOT what he said But rather what he meant which can only be determined 20 years or more later.
Just because his model was used to project the coming Ice Age in the 70s!!!!
waskly wabbit n “sheeple” ?
is that all ya have … ad hominen bluster?
A smart man would have worked out the QUOTE was BS to start with … that it is irrelevant even if it was true, and is meaningless waffle woo wild wacky windbag wally … now that’s ad hom.
Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding conflicting ideas simultaneously. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance. They do this by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and actions. Dissonance is also reduced by justifying, blaming, and denying. It is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.
An example of holding just TWO conflicting ideas simultaneously:
1) You think you are real clever, smart, n intellijunt.
and
2) You can understand a word about the climate change science!
“Jist havin’ a bit a fun pardner”
It’s all just FUN now ain’t it?
Hansen is a moron, but you guys ain’t.
ha ha ha dee da
mirror mirror dudes
Funny how alarmists have a problem with inconvenient facts.
stevengoddard says:
March 16, 2011 at 6:45 pm
I’m traveling back in time and changing the news from the last few thousand years.
==============================================
lol, yes, a time machine built by the big oil money!
aren’t you showing temperature anomalies for the last decade (2001 to 2010)?? So first off, they are positive, right?
But since the article is talking about a 0.5 to 1 degree rise from 1990 to 2000 if current
trends are unchanged, don’t you first have to show the rise between 1990 and 2000, and then show what the trends were prior to that (I’m assuming Hansen is probably talking about the trends from 1850 to 1989 if he’s mentioning trends continuing since it was probably based on the station data). And then yes, he does mention a 2-4 degree rise the following decade, but that may be a miss-quote by the journalist. One way to check though would be to look at what the trend was and project out through this last decade to see what sort of temperature rise would have been expected if the trend had continued.
Of course natural variability is always going to lead to ups and downs along any trend, so any projections based on a continuation of trend alone is going to let you down when looking at short time-periods….
JS:
Tell that to Big Jim because he made those claims!
This paper was not the only one that QUOTED Big Jim with his wild claims about the Sky is Falling! This is consistent with his testimony before Congress in 1988.
You admit that natural variability will let you down and continue to rely on a short 30 year record as if that is in any way meaningful. Big Jim made his claims based on less than 15 years! Go Figure!!!!
Until Jim got his hands on the records the globe was cooling into the mid 70s but that was just a short term trend within even longer term variability going back thousands of years!
Do You feel let down by your beliefs in short term trends?
Hi Julienne,
I hear from climate scientists that Hansen’s professional persona is very different from what he presents to the press, but here is a comparison of his published forecasts.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/02/22/1988-hansen-forecast-fail/
yet more “weasel words”
The title of your Blog is “Real Science” .. no it is not.
Find a hard Quote by Hansen in a Science Paper, published in a Peer Reviewed Scientific Journal Publication, or in any reference made in ANY IPCC Report, or other CREDIBLE Science publication that states anything close to what the Miami News “reports” way back in 1988 ….
You will NOT find one, therefore all you have left is your endlessly deceitful and grossly manipulative and irrational Sophistry that fills your Blog.
You are not a valid “skeptic” at all but a simple low-grade spin-Meister with nothing better to do. If humour was a talent, you’d be rolling such lines out as a stand-up comic and not masquerading as a “science based” Blog at all.
Scientists are professional skeptics and Science by it’s very nature is not at all irrational nor based on personalities nor emotive button pushing, nor on what some incompetent spread in the news media 23 years ago as if it means anything to do with SCIENCE.
Personally tearing Hansen apart has NO EFFECT on the science, nor the scientific based measurements.
And they sure aren’t sophists either!
In modern usage, sophism, sophist, and sophistry are derogatory terms, due to the influence of many past philosophers.
A sophism is taken as a SPECIOUS argument used for DECEIVING someone. It might be crafted to seem logical while actually being wrong, or it might use difficult words and complicated sentences to intimidate the audience into agreeing, or it might appeal to the audience’s prejudices and emotions rather than logic; e.g., raising doubts towards the one asserting, rather than his assertion.
The goal of a sophism is often to make the audience believe the writer or speaker to be smarter than he or she actually is; e.g., accusing another of sophistry for using persuasion techniques.
A sophist is a user of sophisms, i.e., an insincere person trying to confuse or deceive people. Sophists will try to persuade the audience while paying little attention to whether their argument is logical and factual.
That fits the bill for the Real Science blog by Steven Goddard and his like-minded supporters.
This is where one so outed publicly then “blocks” further replies in order to avoid the growing “cognitive dissonance” now erupting internally and spewing out as ad hominens and other light-weight Logical Fallacies.
Hey, I am Just Having Fun … aren’t you?
I see, it is OK for scientists to say whatever they want to the press and politicians.
For the idiot that thinks he is Bugs Bunny, there are plenty of peer reviewed predictions that were just as wildly out e.g.
“The 1 [deg]C level of warming is exceeded during the
next few decades in both scenarios A and B; in scenario A
that level of warming is reached in less than 20 years and
in scenario B it is reached within the next 25 years.” J. HANSEN, I. FUNG, A. LACIS, D. RIND, S. LEBEDEFF, R. RUEDY, AND G. RUSSELL, “Global Climate Changes as Forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies Three-Dimensional Model, Journal of Geophysical Research, Atmospheres, 93, NO. D8, PAGES 9341-9364, AUGUST 20, 1988, p. 9346″
or
“The computed temperature changes are sufficient to have
a large impact on other parts of the biosphere. A warnting
of 0.5[deg] C per decade implies typically a poleward shift of
isotherms by 50 to 75 km per decade. This is an order of
magnitude faster than the major climate shifts in the
paleoclimate record, and faster than most plants and trees
are thought to be capable of naturally nilgrating [Davis,
1988]” J. HANSEN, I. FUNG, A. LACIS, D. RIND, S. LEBEDEFF, R. RUEDY, AND G. RUSSELL, “Global Climate Changes as Forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies Three-Dimensional Model, Journal of Geophysical Research, Atmospheres, 93, NO. D8, PAGES 9341-9364, AUGUST 20, 1988, p. 9357”
Have you really been so brainwashed, Bugs?
re AUGUST 20, 1988,
It’s now 2011 ….. get up to speed with MODERN SCIENCE and current KNOWN FACTS, revised past errors, and analysis … it’s improved a lot.
Do you choose NOT to fly a plane today because in the past unknowns or poor scientific rigour led to plane crashes in the 1920’s or what?
Fact is you hold a personal belief and an opinion … so what?
Go publish a Scientific Paper that PROVES your own critical thinking and accuracy and maybe someone might give you an ounce of positive attention.
Until then rave on with this ludicrous useless crap all you wish on an obscure know-nothing do-nothing Blog lost in cyberspace.
That’s all Folks !!!
roll the music
I know, they can make climate forecasts which are good to one tenth of a degree one hundred years in the future – but the fundamental science changes every couple of years.
A know nothing Blog with a larger readership than Airhead or Surreal Climate! WOW!
Most people do not comment here they just stop by to see folks like you make fools of them selves!
You are still attempting to make jokes by claiming IPCC reports are credible or that climatologists are unbiased sceptics using scientific methods!
FYI the entire scientific community is taking a big hit in credibility because of the antics of the CHOSEN members of the Chicken Little Brigade such as Big Jim and his band of strung out fanatics! NSIDC, NOAA, CRU, MET, CPC are a few more. I forgot to mention the folks at NCAR and it would be a travesty to leave them out!
I read recently that a chimpanzee was able to make better predictions than all the climate modelers put together! 🙂
Wow, that was a hoot…. apparently a cartoon character came by and blathered some nonsensical babbling. I’m not sure, but I don’t think he likes the tone and temper of your postings, Steve.
It babbled some incoherent stuff about science, but I noticed it was a bit short on presenting any. He seems to object to your historical recollections. He also displayed a rudimentary understanding of sophistry, which, should come as no surprise to anyone that follows the climate discussion in that many of his idols engage in that practice, and quite well, I would add.
It also seems a bit confused about published papers and proof. Maybe someone should tell it that they are not synonymous.
I also think this person needs some help, but I don’t think we’ve have that sort of professional in our midst.
It stated, “This is where one so outed publicly then “blocks” further replies in order to avoid the growing “cognitive dissonance” now erupting internally and spewing out as ad hominens and other light-weight Logical Fallacies. “
Yes, our cartoon friend is right! This happens often at alarmists blogs. But I’ve never seen it happen here.
Steve must have hit a nerve. He must be doing something right!
Alarmist Defender: “Find a hard Quote by Hansen in a Science Paper, published in a Peer Reviewed Scientific Journal Publication, or in any reference made in ANY IPCC Report, or other CREDIBLE Science publication that states anything close to what the Miami News ‘reports’ way back in 1988 ….”
Yes, the IPCC has no credibility issues whatsoever.