Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- COP29 Preview
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- A Giant Eyesore
- CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- Rats Jumping Off The Climate Ship
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- “False Claims” And Outright Lies”
- Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- Spoiled Children
- Great Lakes Storm Of November 11, 1835
- Harris To Win Iowa
- Angry Democrats
- November 9, 1913 Storm
- Science Magazine Explains Trump Supporters
- Obliterating Bill Gates
- Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- The End Of Everything
- Harris To Win In A Blowout
- Election Results
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
- Glaciers Vs. The Hockey Stick
Recent Comments
- Gamecock on CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- dearieme on COP29 Preview
- Greg in NZ on COP29 Preview
- conrad ziefle on A Giant Eyesore
- GeologyJim on A Giant Eyesore
- arn on UK Labour To Save The Planet
- Tel on UK Labour To Save The Planet
- dm on CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- D. Boss on Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- Robertvd on UK Labour To Save The Planet
GISS Used To Have An Intelligent Director, Before Hansen Took Over
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
“Verifying the major effects of greenhouse gas warming could take 10 to 20 years of observations, Hansen says.”
OK nothing unusual happened over the last 20+ years. We’ve seen a few mild positive benefits, nothing bad happened. Move along, nothing to worry about here. 😉
“,,, is a leading supporter of the climate models…”
“Though uncertainties remain, he says, they are unlikely to change his basic conclusion.”
Those statements alone should have warned us, and should have been sufficient to remove this ape from his position.
“…rising levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are responsible for global warming, and that is the basis of mathematical models being used…”
Ok it’s only a newspaper report, but that is exactly the issue with these models. “We assume CO2 is responsible for AGW and our models prove it — because our models assume CO2 is responsible for AGW”.
The relationships expressed in the models are specifically formulated to calculate a rise in temp with rising CO2. So, (and I’m sure this is your point also), the models cannot presume to prove anything about the veracity of the hypothesis – because they assume the hypothesis IS the cause of warming. They are literally designed to implicate CO2, and tuned to “fit” the other data, leaving out any parameters which might compete as the cause of warming.
I really think the models are the reason for the downward adjustment in old temp records. This adjustment wasn’t just for visual effect and record gerrymandering. It may well have specifically been done so the models could hindcast and forecast with the same algorithm.
“Common sense might suggest that rising levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses are responsible for global warming…”
Yes these rising levels of eeeevil gasses were so uncooperative at creating global warming the Team was compelled to change the name from global warming to climate change. Uncooperative to such a degree, common sense (for Gorebots unfamiliar with the concept, substitute PR or BS) among the Team now dictates reconstructing historical data to fulfill their prophecy of doom.
It must really suck to be Hansen.