Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Grok 3 Trusts The Government
- NPR Climate Experts
- Defending Democracy In Ukraine
- “Siberia might stay livable”
- Deep Thinking From The Atlantic
- Making Up Fake Numbers At CBS News
- Your Tax Dollars At Work
- “experts warn”
- End Of Snow Update
- CBS News Defines Free Speech
- “Experts Warn”
- Consensus Science With Remarkable Precision
- Is New York About To Drown?
- “Anti-science conservatives must be stopped”
- Disappearing New York
- New York To Drown Soon
- “halt steadily increasing climate extremism”
- “LARGE PART OF NORTHERN CALIF ABLAZE”
- Climate Trends In The Congo
- “100% noncarbon energy mix by 2030”
- Understanding The US Government
- Cooling Australia’s Past
- Saving The World From Fossil Fuels
- Propaganda Based Forecasting
- “He Who Must Not Be Named”
Recent Comments
- mwhite on Grok 3 Trusts The Government
- Bob G on Grok 3 Trusts The Government
- arn on Defending Democracy In Ukraine
- William on Defending Democracy In Ukraine
- gordon vigurs on “Siberia might stay livable”
- conrad ziefle on NPR Climate Experts
- conrad ziefle on NPR Climate Experts
- conrad ziefle on Defending Democracy In Ukraine
- conrad ziefle on “Siberia might stay livable”
- Timo, not that one! on “Siberia might stay livable”
“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.