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.”
And so far, over the last 10 years, we’ve had 10 of the hottest years on record.
Didn’t he also say that restaurants would have signs in their windows that read, “Water by request only.”
Under the greenhouse effect, extreme weather increases. Depending on where you are in terms of the hydrological cycle, you get more of whatever you’re prone to get. New York can get droughts, the droughts can get more severe and you’ll have signs in restaurants saying “Water by request only.”
When did he say this will happen?
Within 20 or 30 years. And remember we had this conversation in 1988 or 1989.
Does he still believe these things?
Yes, he still believes everything. I talked to him a few months ago and he said he wouldn’t change anything that he said then.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Ellen Flees To The UK
- HUD Climate Advisor
- Causes Of Increased Storminess
- Scientist Kamala Harris
- The End Of Polar Bears
- Cats And Hamsters Cause Hurricanes
- Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- New BBC Climate Expert
- 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- “the United States has suffered a “precipitous increase” in hurricane strikes”
- Thing Of The Past Returns
- “Impossible Heatwaves”
- Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- “Not A Mandate”
- Up Is Down
- The Clean Energy Boom
- Climate Change In Spain
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
Recent Comments
- Bob G on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Bob G on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Gordon Vigurs on Causes Of Increased Storminess
- Ed on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Walter on Ellen Flees To The UK
- conrad ziefle on Causes Of Increased Storminess
- conrad ziefle on Scientist Kamala Harris
- conrad ziefle on Ellen Flees To The UK
- William on Ellen Flees To The UK
- William on Ellen Flees To The UK
Steve,
glad you are confirming point 3 of my comment on this post
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/05/21/consensus-is-in-the-world-did-not-end-today/
Now people just need to read my other points and see if they are just as accurate.
You did notice the prominent displaying of the book, the numerous mentions to it, all the info about its publication and a link to buy it?
You also see where in THIS interview he is SO specific about the info.
“Within 20 OR 30 years. And remember we had this conversation in 1988 OR 1989.”
So all people need to do to see you are perpetuating a lie is read the book, which was published BEFORE this article where Reiss writes down what Hansen actually said. and which fits with Hansen’s other public statement.
Again before you were informed of this misquote you were just negligently wrong. Much less shame in that than knowingly repeating a proven falsehood.
Yes, you are right. Hansen never predicted that Manhattan would drown, that is why he predicted it and confirmed it later.
But it was all predicated on an increase in CO2 which couldn’t possibly happen in the time frame which he meant but was not reported. Because he chose to spread ridiculous misinformation about both sea level rise and CO2. rise
And Salon is printing lies about Hansen, who always tells the truth . It is all perfectly clear now.
What a maroon.
stevengoddard says:
May 22, 2011 at 4:42 am
Yes, you are right. Hansen never predicted that Manhattan would drown, that is why he predicted it and confirmed it later.
The prediction was later changed, after the fact. His predictions just weren’t panning out. So suddenly he has selective memory.
Because, it’s not “Climate Change”. It’s “Prediction Change”.
Amino,
I find it also fascinating that you can not rebut any of the facts I have repeatedly pointed out, and yet you maintain that he changed his prediction AFTER the fact. I just pointed out that it is irrefutable that he did NOT change his prediction. It is in the book, which came out BEOFRE the article and is prominently displayed and discussed repeatedly int eh article with a link so that you can buy the book.
THAT is why Hansen said that “unmentionable sentence”, because it is consistent with all his other statements
I see, so he didn’t change anything. Got it.
BTW, why do you defend James Hansen so much?
How many years later was it these fellows changed the story? They’re kinda like Stephen Schneider. Oh, that’s right, you think he didn’t change anything either.
Nixon called it “plausible deniability.”
Amino,
THESE guys didn’t change their story. It is in the book. Did I mention that the book was published before the article?
As for Schneider he admitted he was wrong about the degree of attribution to aerosol cooling and also that the factor of increased aerosols his prediction was based on didn’t happen. Schneider was actually wrong about one thing and the other thing didn’t come to pass, and he admitted both things.
Hansen on the other hand has not been shown to be wrong with this prediction yet, even though Steve keeps perpetuating the fallacy.
Hansen made ridiculous predictions about sea level, CO2, temperature, crime, birds, police and crime. And you choose to ignore all that and nitpick about one thing you think the author got wrong, and then blame it on me. Pathetic.
Tony,
With how much different Hansen’s data set is from the other sets why is it a stretch for you to believe Hansen practices deception?
Tony
Where Schneider was wrong is in how he promoted man as the cause of change in climate, and in his continual carrying on about awful disasters coming to the earth from it. The ancients knew people like him existed and made the story of Chicken Little to warn children about them. Did you miss out on that story when you were little?
He was an alarmist for big grant money. Let’s not labor under the illusion that he was purely after science.
Amino,
I beg you to give me ANY evidence that Hansen would get Reiss to LIE in an article promoting a book that PROVES it is a lie.
Show me ANYWHERE else that Hansen made a similar prediction, and I will consider your insistence that Hansen’s evil nature forces him to have someone ELSE plant a wrong prediction, that is totally inconsistent with anything he has ever said, so that 9 years later anti GW bloggers will pick it up and be embarrassed when they are shown to be too lazy to read the book that has the actual quote in it.
Tony,
Why are you such an apologist for James Hansen?
Amino,
I am not an apologist for Hansen. I am an apologist for not perpetuating lies. This is an obvious one, and it is quite bizarre that Steve continues to do so, when I keep explaining the actual facts.
Steve has ridiculed many things that Hansen has ACTUALLY said, and he has every right to do so. Why he holds onto one that has been proven he DIDN’T say is quite interesting to me.
You are right. Hansen never made ridiculous, impossible predictions in those two interviews about both sea level rise and CO2 rise. He never tried to scare people with things that couldn’t possible happen.
I made the whole thing up and hacked the Salon web site.
Are you completely mental?
Tony Duncan says:
May 22, 2011 at 4:55 am
Amino,
I am an apologist for not perpetuating lies. This is an obvious one
Where is the obvious lie?
With how many times global warming scientists change their predictions and with how the media goes automatically along with without challenging them how could you not even consider that this is just another example of changing predictions? Also, with how many times it is the case that the global warming movement changes its predictions how is this an ‘obvious’ lie, even if you are right with your hypothetical?
Certainly with the condition global warming science is in you’d have to agree it is plausible they changed the story—wouldn’t you—at the very least?
You are letting Tony lead you down a rat hole. Hansen made ridiculous predictions about Manhattan. Tony thinks they were slightly less ridiculous than originally reported. Who gives a FF? We don’t have a measurement system large enough to measure all of Hansen’s BS.
Steve,
why do you keep bringing up totally irrelevant issues?
You have not once shown anything I have said is incorrect, yet you keep trying to ignore the only non ridiculous conclusion. . Hansen never said Manhattan would be underwater by 2008.
I have never maintained his REAL prediction is not alarmist. but I have ALWAYS maintained that the misquote is totally inconsistent with his other statements. You have never supplied anything to counter that (but I bet it is not cause you haven’t looked)
Also REISS brought up the question of CO2 doubling by 2030, NOT Hansen. Hansen just answered the “what if” question.
Stop flailing with your “mental”, :marooning” and otherattempts at deflections and provide some verifiable information that disputes anything I have written about this.
You are a complete moron.
Hansen predicted very clearly that Manhattan is going underwater. He did it to scare people. His predictions were ridiculous and dishonest or wildly deluded. You think that the exact date is wrong and have stated that about 5,000 times. Do you suffer from obsessive compulsive disorder?
Steve,
WHY do you care so much about this? You are right. Just say you were wrong about this, apologize to the man, and continue attacking the alarmist statements that he actually DOES make.
it is all quite simple, and I don’t know why you continue perpetuate something he didn’t say, when I just keep pointing out that you are lying about it. You are wasting everyone time.
I see, he predicted that Manhattan would drown because he didn’t mean it, and I should apologize for reprinting what he predicted but didn’t mean. You are a moron and your behavior is scurrilous.
?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.?
Earth to James…..HELLO!!
……..and he said he wouldn’t change anything that he said then……
The sentence that “must not be mentioned”.
Amino,
“The sentence that “must not be mentioned” is only if you are relating it to the misquote, and only Steve is doing that.
You call it a misquote. It’s sorta odd that you won’t even consider it was not a misquote.
Amino,
I would be happy to consider it is not a misquote if you can provide ANY shred of evidence to counter the elephantine weight of evidence that indicates it IS a misquote.
How many times do I have to repeat the facts in order for you to either accept them or provide something that disputes them?
elephantine, that’s funny.
you gotten enough of my attention.
There is no elephantine weight of evidence, just a bunch of post facto factoids that you have strung together with “he never said it again”. You would see it if your nose was not beginning where Hansen’s butt was ending. But then maybe it is you juggling balls fetish.
Well what is the misquote ?
a single digit ?
Because the rest of it seems a pretty deliberate quote that no one is denying he said.
So what Tony is doing here is saying that if we just wait a few more years till say, 2018, or 2028 that Hansens apocalyptic “Scenario”
will become the reality in NY despite no evidence of any
movement in that direction .
People are simply tired of buying that nonsense .
The idea that one must wait the full thirty years of some badly thought out or programmed predictive scenario, while patiently observing that no intermediate movement toward the scenario predicted is actually taking place, and somehow magically expect it to turn up as true all at once ,
and not to question this received wisdom at some point and ask the obvious questions is frankly, insane.
It is as Steven is implying in the course of his posts, as insane as believing that the world ended yesterday.
Uh, Tony? Jimmy has quadrupled down to 75 meters now. I don’t think this observation misrepresents him.
No More,
Hansen has said sea level rise of 75 meters by 2030? Well, I don’t know about you guys, but I think that is just crazy!
And you don’t think Steve repeatedly lying about what Hansen said is misrepresenting him? That is an odd way of defining “not misrepresenting” someone.
If you accuse me of lying one more time you are headed to the spam folder. Besides being a moron, you are scurrilous.
Steve ,
I am not ACCUSING you of lying. I am just pointing it out to you. the facts all clearly show what is truth and what is a lie in this case. it is not a matter of opinion. Whether he is lying about anything else or beats his wife is totally irrelevant to this post.
I was holding judgement regarding Steve picking up you true color – maroon. But he is right. “Don’t you think he is lying” is of course not calling him a liar. You sir are a moron.
Hansen is right!
“And the same birds won’t be there.”
With a couple of possible exceptions, all the birds alive in 1989 are now dead.
Al,
I am sure there are PLENTY of parrots still alive from 1989.
okay Tony, you’ve outed yourself. Parrots? You’re not a card carrying member of the warming church. You’re just a dinglebob. But, we already knew that.
Yes, I’m sure Hansen saw a lot of parrots flying around when he looked out that window at Broadway in 1989.
75 meters of sea rise is quite a bizarre prediction, but you think his other wild predictions are misquotes? That seems very unlikely.
Tony,
He wasn’t talking about caged birds.
But some parrots would be one of those possible exceptions.
Not many wild birds live over 30 years, since 1989.
Speaking of elephants let’s take a look at this elephant in the room…….
See James Hansen’s data set grow into an elephant and trample on the other data sets
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ROMzxA4A9c
Look at this big, fat divergence!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8ZhWZj8zfQ
Again these graphs do not indicate anything related to manhattan underwater by 2008.
I am waiting for any statement or paper by hansen that remotely suggests that.
Otherwise Steve is lying when he says Hansen said Manhattan would be underwater by 2008, and “”he wouldn;t change anything he said then”. that IS the title of the post.
All you need to do is say The Salon quote was obviously wrong. Sorry I just believed it was true without checking, but I think all his work is bullshit, and you can post all your videos and graphs to support that view.
then we won’t be wasting time every time Steve lies about 2008.
Please transport yourself back to 2008. You pick up on one twig you don’t like and miss the entire forest you are staring at. You are the only person who cares about 2008.
When is Manhattan going to be underwater? Give us a date, state your peace and then drop the subject. You are behaving like a total jackass.
Amino,
this doesn’t have anything to do with this post. Why do you keep ignoring my request for ANY information that undermines the facts as i have presented them? None of the graphs show anything that would remotely suggest Manhattan underwater by 2008
When is Manhattan going to be underwater?
Ummmm, ya, what would these graphs have to do with the nature of James Hansen! A tree is known by its fruits—except for James Hansen. With him the fruits are not an indication of who he is. He loves his grandchildren. He cares about the earth. He hates coal. And he dresses so smartly.
http://blogs.nature.com/news/hansen.arrest.jpg
Tony – “Hansen has said sea level rise of 75 meters by 2030? Well, I don’t know about you guys, but I think that is just crazy!”
Yet you can’t believe that the man who would make this bizarre prediction might also have said that a part of Manhatten would one day soon be under water?
Why dose he take these creepy pictures??
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/james-hansen.jpg
Steve,
are you asking ME when manhattan is going to be underwater? the whole thing, or just the west side highway? By underwater do you mean permanently, or just during storm surges or just at high tide? Without these sort of specifics your question is much too general to give a coherent answer to.
Although I must say I am pleased that after a year you trust me enough to ask my opinion on such a weighty matter!
Amino,
I have not asked you to anything about Hansen’s nature, just a shred of evidence that he actually made the 2o08 quote. Please restrict your comments to the subject under discussion.
We have the actual quote in the book that the article references. it doesn’t matter what else he lies about. I have no problem with you pointing out the problems with his ACTUAL statements.
If a capitalist is on the shoreline in Manhattan and throws a rock or brick from there into the river or ocean, wouldn’t “part of Manhattan” be underwater?
It would be human-caused. And since on a hot day AGW would make that concrete jungle even hotter, that heat could cause the thrower to be on the shoreline.
The link may be clear. It could be robust. It might be undeniable. And now that it is printed here it qualifies as gray material and the IPCC can use it in their next report.
“At an IPCC meeting earlier this week, this recommendation appears to have been approved. According to page 4 of this publication, the IPCC:
…agreed not to flag information derived from grey literature in the reports and focus instead on ensuring the high quality of all information, placing priority on peer-reviewed literature.”
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/05/17/ipcc-screw-the-rules/
Greg,
please give me the source of the 75 meter sea level rise by 2030. if it is accurate then I won’t believe anything he writes at all. Promise!
I don’t think any of Hansn’s bizarre predictions are misquotes. I just think OTHER peoples misquotes of him are misquotes, and people who don’t acknowledge them as misquotes when they have been repeatedly informed of the fact are given overwhelming proof that they are misquotes and can provide NO evidence that they aren’t misquotes are lying.
Greg. let’s say I quote you as saying “Greg Insists Hansen predicts sea level rise of 75 feet by 2030”. And then it gets picked up by blogs and repeated over the internet. You show them this comment thread and point out that you never actually said that. But then one person keeps insisting that you did. Would you not consider the possibility that they were lying, once they had the accurate information?
You were warned and are now spam.
Steve only asked you on a “weighty subject” so you could show your true colors — maroon.
Tony, you’re the only one who mentioned 2030. I was quoting you.
You were apparently responding to this:
“Clearly, if we burn all fossil fuels, we will destroy the planet we know. Carbon dioxide would increase to 500 ppm or more. We would set the planet on a course to the ice-free state, with sea level 75 metres higher.”
Now tell me honestly, isn’t this a bizarre prediction?
This is a link to the article in the Guardian written by James Hansen where that quote is from:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/15/james-hansen-power-plants-coal
Then there’s this classic from 1988—a heated testimony room
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhTxM2ith5k
Of course, some would want to bypass what is shown in the video about the heated room and talk only about the fraction of a degree statement at the end and if it is accurate or not—straining out a gnat and swallowing the camel—pay no attention to the Senator talking about the heated room, nothing to see there folks, move along.
Tony,
Hansen’s new prediction will most likely be wrong. Why?
The rate of sea level rise has decelerated over the past 80 years. Currently it is falling. Global warming has stalled. The rate of sea level rise will have to accelerate greatly if he is ever to be correct.
http://www.jcronline.org/doi/pdf/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1
Steven:
All this time I thought Tony was your alter Ego that was created to show the quality of the Chicken Little position.
It is your web site but it is to much fun to do a drive by on a comment made by the Chicken Little Brigade members that give us the pleasure of their company.
If you use the SPAM bucket for Tony it is understood by his history at this site. You have shown a lot more patience than other sites.
I don’t mind him spewing crap, but repeatedly calling me a liar – after he was warned – without presenting any evidence is not acceptable.
Oh PWEEASE, Mr. G just snip him a little, do not spoil my fun.
Hansen had glowing praise for the retched fiction An Inconvenient Truth back in 2006, in particular a no-nonsense assessment of the scientific content of the movie-
“The story is scientifically accurate and yet should be understandable to the public, a public that is less and less drawn to science…..An Inconvenient Truth is about Gore himself as well as global warming. It shows the man that I met in the 1980s at scientific roundtable discussions, passionate and knowledgeable, true to the message he has delivered for years.”
http://bigthink.com/ideas/21879
Being ‘true to the message’ sure helps explain why Gore owns two residences right next to the ocean, flies all over the world, has a colossal carbon footprint, eats too much, etc.
“…and continue attacking the alarmist statements that he [Hansen] actually DOES make.” – TD
So TD acknowledges that Jimmie “Death Trains” has no credibility yet insists on going to the mat over the accuracy of one particular incredible prediction. Sounds fishy to me.
He is just quibbling over the date, not the fact that Hansen made the prediction.
And the date was the least important issue about the statement.
Tony has been out pet ACD promoter! Acquired Cognitive Dissonance, NOT Anthropogenic Climate Disruption!!!!
Seems to me that TD was trying to say (and making a complete hhash of it) that Salon.com had misquoted Hansen (and/or that Reiss was misquoting his own book).
In which case, why does he not take-up the issue with Salon and Reiss? And why too hasn’t James Hansen corrected them?
Taken at face value the Salon.com CLEARLY reports that Hansen told SOMEONE that within 20/30 years of 1988/89 (= 2008 to 2019) the following would happen:
“The West Side Highway will be under water;
There will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds;
The same birds won’t be there;
The trees in the median strip will change.”
There will be signs in restaurants saying “Water by request only.”
But TD has another source of knowledge – Reiss’s book – that leads him to believe that this is a misquote. If so, he should take-up the issue with Salon.com and Reiss – and Ms. Suzy Hansen.
Who is Ms Suzy Hansen? (Yes, I wonder too!)
But I see, on closer inspection, that the contentious quote is from a much longer article called “Stormy Weather” by Suzy Hansen. The article starts with a review of Reiss’s book titled “The Coming Storm”. The book review ends and then we get this contentious quote, “While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen . . . and he said he wouldn’t change anything that he said then.” But the source is quite unclear (to me) – is it Reiss or Ms Hansen?
So if TD really wants to get to the bottom of this matter, he needs to sort out whether the quote is a) James Hansen talking to Mr. Reiss; or b) James Hansen talking to Ms S Hansen.
One thing is for sure, Salon.com need to lift their game – it was a crap article. Not worth the fuss really.
Maybe Hansen can argue that the reason New York isn’t underwater yet is beacuase of isostatic rebound when the WTC melted.
How close is the West Side Highway to being underwater? How close was it 23 years ago?