Harold Camping Shows More Integrity Than James Hansen

Harold Camping Admits He Was Wrong About End Of World Prediction

When Camping was wrong about the end of the world, he admitted it. Hansen on the other hand says that the world has been destroyed even more than he forecast.

An honest nutjob is definitely preferable to a dishonest one.

Fun with summer statistics. Part 2: The Northern Hemisphere Land « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Harold Camping Shows More Integrity Than James Hansen

  1. Sundance says:

    Speaking of nut jobs Paul “we will all die of starvation before 2000” Erlich, has become a twitter bug. He has become a huge supporter of Mike “hide the decline” Mann and tweeting that we will all die from the hockey stick graph. 🙂

      • PaddikJ says:

        Why are we not surprised?

        In a pre-industrial age, Erlich would have been regarded, if at all, as the village crank. 80 years ago he would have been the bearded, straggely-haired street-corner guy wearing nothing but one of those two-sided full-length placards reading something like “Repent – The End is Near!”

        Today, he is an overpaid tenured Professor at a respected (at least in science & engineering) university, is published regularly in high-profile journals, and regularly consults with our so-called leaders.

        We live in interesting times, indeed.

  2. Glacierman says:

    Hansen is never wrong, just misunderstood, or misquoted……right Tony D?

  3. Doug Proctor says:

    Connolly just replied to a comment I made about Archibald’s prediction, saying that Hansen wouldn’t be foolish enough to make a prediction, and that only a Wattie would use the CAGW term, because Hansen never would. Or Connolly, I gather. My head spins.

    What part of the warmist/skeptic argument are they in when a series of Scenarios specifiying a specific temperature by 2100 is not a prediction? When does a mathematical algorithm using only a small number of variables not create an easily verifiable prediction of time and temperatures? When does a Scenario that is not-predicted but, if it occurs, is said to cause the deaths of millions of people, the loss of biotic life in the oceans, and sea-levels rising fast enough to overwhelm Lower Manhattan not constitute a CATASTROPHIC temperature rise?

    I need help here. I thought I was engaged in a debate with humans on Earth regarding a forecast for planet Earth. Obviously I am mistaken.

    • Richard T. Fowler says:

      Told ya’, Doug. Feel free to let me know if you see those MiB. (Hint: they don’t always wear suits.)

      Take care of yourself.

      RTF

    • PaddikJ says:

      Ah, but you see, Famous Jimmy craftily covered his ass by calling them “scenarios.”

      “Predictions? I never made any ‘predictions.'”

      Of course, if they’d been even remotely close to actual reality, he and his fellow Thermogeddenists would be screaming “Told ya!”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *