Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Recycling The Same News Every Century
- Arctic Sea Ice Declining Faster Than Expected
- Will Their Masks Protect Them From CO2?
- Global Warming Emergency In The UK
- Mainstream Media Analysis Of DOGE
- Angry And Protesting
- Bad Weather Caused By Racism
- “what the science shows”
- Causes Of Earthquakes
- Precision Taxation
- On the Cover Of The Rolling Stone
- Demise Of The Great Barrier Reef
- Net Zero In China
- Make America Healthy Again
- Nobel Prophecy Update
- Grok Defending Climategate
- It Is Big Oil’s Fault
- Creative Marketing
- No Emergency Or Injunction
- The Perfect Car
- “usually the case”
- Same Old Democrats
- Record Arctic Ice Growth
- Climate Change, Income Inequality And Racism
- The New Kind Of Green
Recent Comments
- conrad ziefle on Recycling The Same News Every Century
- Bob G on Recycling The Same News Every Century
- arn on Recycling The Same News Every Century
- william on Arctic Sea Ice Declining Faster Than Expected
- conrad ziefle on Recycling The Same News Every Century
- conrad ziefle on Will Their Masks Protect Them From CO2?
- william on Will Their Masks Protect Them From CO2?
- gordon vigurs on Will Their Masks Protect Them From CO2?
- Tel on Will Their Masks Protect Them From CO2?
- Bob G on Will Their Masks Protect Them From CO2?
“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.