Hansen’s 1988 Testimony

On June 23, 1988 NASA’s James Hansen gave his famous testimony to Congress which started the global warming scam in earnest. He warned of increasing heat and drought, both of which have dropped off dramatically in the 30 years since.

Global Warming Has Begun, Expert Tells Senate – The New York Times

Hansen and Senator Tim Wirth cherry-picked a hot day for the testimony, and then sabotaged the air conditioner.

we called the Weather Bureau and found out what historically was the hottest day of the summer. Well, it was June 6 or June 9 or whatever it was, so we scheduled the hearing that day, and bingo: It was the hottest day on record in Washington, or close to it. It was stiflingly hot that summer. [At] the same time you had this drought all across the country, so the linkage between the Hansen hearing and the drought became very intense.

… What we did it was went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right? So that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room and so when the, when the hearing occurred there was not only bliss, which is television cameras in double figures, but it was really hot. …  So Hansen’s giving this testimony, you’ve got these television cameras back there heating up the room, and the air conditioning in the room didn’t appear to work. So it was sort of a perfect collection of events that happened that day, with the wonderful Jim Hansen, who was wiping his brow at the witness table and giving this remarkable testimony.

Interviews – Timothy Wirth | Hot Politics | FRONTLINE | PBS

June 23, 1988 was one of the last really hot days the US has seen.

Hansen has no clue what he is talking about, but he and Senator Wirth did a great job picking a hot day to start their scam. This is what the US looked like on June 23 last year. Hot in the southwest, and 70 and 80 degree temperatures across most of the US.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

73 Responses to Hansen’s 1988 Testimony

  1. Disillusioned says:

    In that interview, Wirth[less] was proud of and practically bragging about the AC sabotage.

    • Douglas Hoyt says:

      Probably a crime to damage government property. But Wirth is rescued by the statute of limitations.

  2. Mac says:

    A strategy straight out of the Alinsky book. Typical liberals. Facts and the truth don’t matter, and the only thing that’s important is the destruction of capitalist economies and western civilization. Totally disgraceful.

    • RAH says:

      They aren’t liberals. They’re progressive socialists and with that crowd their desired ends always justifies any and all means they use.

      • Mac says:

        “Progressive socialist” = liberal. Same animal. They’ve always been sympathetic to socialism, and they’ve always disliked capitalism. They’ve just become more belligerent and radical over time. They’ve always been liars and petulant troublemakers forecasting doom for the planet, and blaming mankind for everything.

      • arn says:

        Indeed they are not classical liberals
        as the original ideology has absolutely nothing in common
        with Marxism and all its destructive branches and derivatives(feminism,sjw,AGW) hiding their destructivity behind good intentions.

        But the name liberal has been missused hijacked and rebranded.(just as the term gay for example)
        A similar fate happened to the original anarchists-
        as those were absolutely against a totalitarian hirarchy like
        the marxist-communist system .
        And the reason why marxist also like call anyone who disagrees an intolerant fascist or nazi is because they themselves intolerant and fascist and the only difference
        to a nazi is that nazis are national socialists(of united workers) while communists are international socialists of a
        (pretended) worker movement.

  3. arn says:

    A “science” that has to use sabotage to come into existence and prove its point
    is not a science.

    When you are rotten since the very beginning (eg. the founder of your cult is a pedophile massmurderer or the creator of your science a saboteur full of failed predictions)
    the result will in the end alawys be shit.
    Maybe not for those who invented and controle the scam(as those are the ones who benefit from the system)
    but for many million others who have to live with the consequences in the real world.

  4. establ says:

    Check out this article I came across today. The warmists are getting desperate.

    https://www.livescience.com/62750-climate-change-killed-aliens-easter-island.html

    • neal s says:

      Pretty lame article. As far as they are concerned, if they can’t imagine something, then it can’t possibly happen. Where do they discuss using nuclear energy? And their unspoken premise, that increasing CO2 will inevitably lead to ever increasing temperatures, has never been demonstrated or even adequately justified. But I am sure there are still way too many feeble minded who will read it and be even more certain that this nonsense should inform our public policies.

    • vballbob says:

      The article trumpet’s “renewable” energy sources like solar but you never notice that they never mention the scarcity of rare earth elements or the destructive mining needed for acquisition of them if you were to build enough solar panels to carpet the earth. They throw away traditional sources of energy like oil as unsustainable – but without them we may never reach the technological state where fusion, zero point energy, or some other esoteric energy source might be developed. I doubt the authors would throw away their communication devices to save the planet – but would want everyone else to do it.

  5. terak says:

    Land area of USA is tiny, only 1.7% of the whole area of the planet. Why do you constantly draw wild global conclusions based on such a small area? Smells like fraud.

    • neal s says:

      Can you explain why if it were true that the whole world was warming, that we would not see more high temperature days in the summer? It is not like there is a USA sized air-conditioner that is cooling that 1.7% of the planets area.

    • RAH says:

      Terak
      Tell us where, other than the relatively tiny UK, has as long an complete temperature record as the US? Oh and BTW even officially now the UK doesn’t have as long a record as the US since the UK MET apparently has “lost” it’s data base that went back to 1659 and now is only referencing temps back to 1929.
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5794261/Britons-battle-flash-floods-power-cuts-travel-chaos.html

    • Gator says:

      Me Terak thinks that observing the best land based temperature stations in the world is somehow fraud, but that constantly warming the past and cooling the present is sound science.

      Obviously she is the product of a public school system.

      • terak says:

        The world is warming including the oceans. Perhaps the US is not warming, I have not checked, but at least US glaciers are mostly receding. El Ninos are getting warmer as are the La Ninas and neutral periods. There’s a good chance that an El Nino develops later this year, which means that global temperatures will rise again. No hiatus even though the sun has been getting quieter for years…

        • arn says:

          The reason why he is using the USA is neither because this AGW bullshit started in the USA(as the ice age scare did) nor patriotism
          but the simple fact that this is the only country with a long enough and reliable track record over the last 100 years
          and not some BS which usually starts at the end of the unusually cold 70ies(which were considered proof for the promoted ice age scare)which were cherry picked as starting point + pretending that this unusual cold is some kind of reference climate.

          Most of the rest has only little data available.
          And this (satellite) data has proven a ‘hiatus’
          which was(of course) explained away afterwards(the exact thing one can expect from such people since climate gate 1&2)

        • Gator says:

          The world is warming including the oceans…

          All perfectly natural, and to be expected in an interglacial.

          What is aberrant is the behavior of those who excuse the torture and rape of data in the name of “climate science”.

          • terak says:

            Gator,

            This interglacial had been cooling for millennia before human influence changed the course. Study Milankovic cycles and the like.

            ps. there is no published evidence about “data-tampering”. Denialists have failed to deliver.

          • Gator says:

            Me Terak, I was a climatology student right after the global cooling scare, and right before the great global warming swindle. I have spent decades studying the climate of our planet, and the one thing that is abundantly clear is that man has zero influence on global temperatures.

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

        • neal s says:

          And yet http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/04/09/delingpole-48000-britons-died-of-cold-this-winter-uk-government-praises-climate-policy-which-helped-kill-them/

          So tell me why in recent years we have had snow in the Sahara when such has not happened before?

          Just because you claim the world is warming, does not mean it really is.

          • terak says:

            neal, oceans are both warming and rising and ice sheets, ice caps and mountain glaciers are losing mass, sea ice volume is declining and global atmospheric temperatures are rising fast. Therefore the planet is clearly warming up when the sun has been getting quiet – very bad news for denialists whose last hope was that “it was the Sun all along”. What is their next excuse I wonder?

          • AndyG55 says:

            Poor terak.. embarrassingly WRONG

            Just preach the brain-hosed mantra, little mind.

            You probably don’t even realise that the recent El Nino was a release of energy FROM THE OCEANS

            … and you are probably ignorant and gullible enough to think CO2 causes ocean warming

        • R. Shearer says:

          Have been in general for about 20,000 years.

        • Charlie Bates says:

          The sun only entered solar minimum this year. The effects probably won’t be felt until 2020, maybe later. If it becomes a Grand Minimum, you’ll be praying for fossil fuels.

    • kyle_fouro says:

      The “land area” of the USA also has the highest quality climate monitoring network on the entire planet. Why is it exempt from observed global warming? Are you saying we should only be looking for signs of global warming where thermometer coverage is highly sparse (like the oceans)?

      • terak says:

        Let’s use satellites and global sensor networks as it’s the only way.

        • RAH says:

          According to UAH we’re a whole 0.18 deg. C above the 1981-2010 mean and for the last few months on a down slope. And your telling us THAT is something to worry about? Take your meds terak.

          And no, satellites are not the best way. Honestly taken, compiled, and reported surface temperature data from a well distributed global surface temperature network would be the best way. There would always be blank spots because of war and conflict and such but still such a network would be a better one for surface temperatures than satellite. And combined with water temps, honestly taken, compiled, and reported from the ever growing ARGO system would be far better.

          The current surface temperature global data base is worse than worthless for anything but propaganda when over half of the earths terrestrial surface is infilled by “interpolation” even when in some cases there is a surface station within a grid that has been reporting but who’s data is deleted from the final product without explanation.

          Thus, we rely on the places that have a reliable surface station network and with a still uncorrupted history available for a significant period. Places like the US and UK and certain other W. European countries and coastal Australia. And reject those stupid global maps with their colored grids which purport to report global surface temperatures accurately.

          And BTW out of hand most of us reject anything written by anyone that claims that skeptics are “climate deniers”.

          • AndyG55 says:

            The REAL climate deniers are those that:

            DENY that the LIA was a period of anomalous cold.

            DENY that the slight warming since the LIA has been anything but totally beneficial, as would further warming

            DENY that the current temperatures are still WELL BELOW most of the rest of the current interglacial, and use the axial procession of the Milinkovic cycle as a crutch , even though the Holocene optimum was global.

            DENY that climate has change NATURALLY over the whole life of the plant by far greater amounts.

            DENY that there is ZERO empirical evidence that enhanced atmospheric CO2 causes anything except enhanced plant growth.

            DENY that they are totally unable to produce any place where there is a provable CO2 warming signature.

            There are a LOT of climate change deniers out there.

            Not many on this blog, though….. griff & terak are two of the most obvious climate change DENIERS.

    • R. Shearer says:

      First off, the surface area of the U.S. compared to that of earth is 1.9% not 1.7%.

      Second, CO2 concentration is less than 0.05% of the atmosphere, dry basis.

      • terak says:

        A little CO2 or methane goes a long way – simple physics.

        • RAH says:

          CO2 is virtually a nonfactor compared to water vapor. And neither CO2 or water vapor are the earths “climate control nob”. And CO2 has been at much higher concentrations in the atmosphere in the past and yet there was no runaway feedbacks causing an ever increasing warming as they claim will happened now. So never in the earths climatological record has “a little CO2” gone a long way.

        • Gator says:

          simple physics

          LOL!!!

          • AndyG55 says:

            simple physics

            The only sort terak is capable of.

            From his comments, I suspect he barely passed junior high… and brags about his achievement.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Please produce empirical science that shows that enhanced atmospheric CO2 does ANYTHING except enhance plant growth.

          I doubt you even know what “empirical” means !!!

          We will see if you do.

  6. terak says:

    Gator then you should know that research does not support the denialist conclusions. The number of scientific paper the global denialosphere produces in a year is less than the output than a prolific 5-10 person research group. Also, most of the published work is appalingly bad and full of holes. Don’t let your politics/religion affect your science ;)

    • Gator says:

      Ms Terak, your language reveals your ignorance. The only deniers are those that deny natural variability, and who claim to know everything.

      1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

      2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

      There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself

      • terak says:

        The recent warming speed is 15C per 1000 years and fully outside “natural” cycles. If you disagree, list the currently active natural causes with published references please.

        How come the global temperatures just keep going up? That’s a tough one for the denialists as we know it’s not clouds nor cosmic rays and it looks increasingly clear that it’s not the Sun either. Or do you want to predict when the temperatures will make a clear sustained drop – what do the “cycles” say? :D

        • Gator says:

          Complete and utter BS.

          Where is the answer to my queries Ms Terak?

          • terak says:

            Provide your evidence for natural variability and it’s causes and we can talk. Only published research so no blog-“science” please.

          • Gator says:

            It’s called the Null Hypothesis, Ms Terak, and it is up to you deniers to prove otherwise.

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

            I’m still waiting…

          • neal s says:

            Terak seems incapable of understanding. Perhaps it is a product of our modern mis-education and political indoctrination system.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Please produce empirical science that shows that enhanced atmospheric CO2 does ANYTHING except enhance plant growth.

            I doubt you even know what “empirical” means !!!

            We will see if you do.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “as we know it’s not clouds”

          WRONG!

          cloud cover has reduced, hence very slight , but highly beneficial warming

          “it looks increasingly clear that it’s not the Sun either”

          More BS..

          What a load of unsupportable anti-science balderdash you keep coming out with.

          • terak says:

            How come you ask for evidence but do not provide any yourself?

          • AndyG55 says:

            Run away and hide, little worm.

            Zero empirical evidence of enhanced atmospheric CO2 warming anything, anywhere, anytime

            Get over it.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “How come the global temperatures just keep going up?”

          They DON’T.

          Only warming in the last 40 years has come from ocean releases. ZERO warming between those El Nino events

          Ocean CANNOT be heated by CO2 anywhere, anytime.

          Only the SUN can heat the oceans.

          In fact, DWLWR causes evaporation, which has been shown, MEASURED, to COOL the surface layer.

          Remain ignorant, little mind.. Its your only redeeming quality.

          Now , where is that empirical evidence that enhanced atmospheric CO2 causes warming.

          We are all waiting. will you faceplant as always. !

          • terak says:

            Check ocean heat content + surface temperature series + satellite lower troposphere temperature series. All of these show fast warming – why?

          • AndyG55 says:

            “All of these show fast warming ”

            RUBBISH !!

            Only warming has come from El Ninos.

            zero warming from 1980-1997 and from 2001-2015.

            CO2 cannot and does not cause ocean warming.

            OCH is measure in joules to scare the moronic

            actually equivalent to second decimal place temperature changes.

            Immeasurable temperature-wise except by models and adjustments.

            You really are faceplanting big time

            showing up your brain-hosed IGNORANCE in every post you make.

            Here is the latest temperature compilation of places not affected by the solar heating of the oceans…

            Notice anything ???

            or are your too close-minded to see.

  7. terak says:

    Since CO2 absorbs infrared in the lab and in simulation, and since the change of Earth’s emission spectra has measurably changed due to extra CO2, we KNOW that it has contributed to the ongoing warming. Where is the evidence that the concurrent warming is caused by some “natural” effect? Which natural effect and how – show the evidence?

    • Gator says:

      You clearly do not understand CO2.

      1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

      2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

      There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

      I’m still waiting…

      • terak says:

        Gator uou did not provide any evidence for your claims. I can find references for mine. The change in the emission spectra of Earth is direct proof increased CO2 has a warming effect. Science bitches :)

        • RAH says:

          Here’s your analysis of the emission spectra of CO2 in earths atmosphere by Dr. Boris M. Smirnov, a prominent atomic physicist.
          Conclusion: “contemporary injection of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a result of combustion of fossil fuels is not important for the greenhouse effect.”
          http://notrickszone.com/2018/06/04/atomic-physicist-human-co2-emissions-have-an-equilibrium-climate-sensitivity-of-a-not-important-0-02-k/

          • terak says:

            Measurements from space directly show that increased CO2 has increased the greenhouse-effect too. So which feedback, if any, are counteracting this warming effect?

          • AndyG55 says:

            RUBBISH!

            They show that CO2 blocks a tiny amount of low energy radiation

            They also show that that radiation is thermalised to the other 99.96% of the atmosphere.

        • AndyG55 says:

          You wouldn’t know “science” if it bit you on the ass.

          “The change in the emission spectra of Earth is direct proof increased CO2 has a warming effect. “

          That is probably one of the most IDIOTIC anti-science statements ever made by anyone, anywhere, anytime.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “I can find references for mine”

          This will be funny

          models, models, models, all FAILED because they are driven by erroneous ASSumptions.

        • Gator says:

          Ms Terak, “my claims” as you are deluded into thinking them, are the Null Hypothesis. It is the default position and very ordinary.

          Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Your claim that, for the first time in 4.5 billion years, man is changing the global climate is an extraordinary claim.

          1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

          2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

          There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

          I’m still waiting…

    • sunsettommy says:

      Water Vapor has a partial overlap with CO2, which is especially important in the Tropic regions of the world.

    • AndyG55 says:

      roflmao

      You truly are an ignorant and VERY GULLIBLE little worm, aren’t you terak.

      Please produce empirical science that shows that enhanced atmospheric CO2 does ANYTHING except enhance plant growth.

      I doubt you even know what “empirical” means !!!

      We will see if you do.

    • AndyG55 says:

      CERES shows DWLWR is DECREASING

      • AndyG55 says:

        And NOAA shows OLR out INCREASING

      • neal s says:

        Goodness!

        CERES shows DWLWR is DECREASING and
        NOAA shows OLR out INCREASING

        Doesn’t that wind up running counter to the absurd claims of the CAGW nuts? Wouldn’t these two combined wind up causing global cooling rather than global warming? I wonder if sometime soon people are going to start wishing that CO2 actually contributed to warming.

        • AndyG55 says:

          el Sol is still providing shorter wave radiation.

          hopefully enough so it doesn’t get too cold.

          DWLWR is from clouds and available atmospheric moisture content, which have decreased slightly, but this lets more Sol in.

          Its an intricate balancing act, with the gravity/thermal gradient playing a large role.

          Sol is now having a bit of a siesta, expect cooling, hopefully only slight, starting soonish.

          There’s still a LOT of energy stored in the oceans from the Grand Solar Maximum of last half of last century.

          Will there be another El Nino burp to get rid of some of it or will the oceans balance out with the sleepy sun more gradually? Time will tell.

          • terak says:

            Ocean heat content is still going up with no hiatus or even a slowdown. Why is the solar cycle not visible in the graph? Looks like it was not the Sun, so another denialist meme is in trouble…

          • AndyG55 says:

            Adjustments, mainly

            You really think the ocean bulk will show up the solar cycles. ???

            You seriously are DUMBER than I figured you to be.

          • AndyG55 says:

            And to get some reference to the so called OHC gain here is the very tiny amount against the energy lost during the Neoglaciation.

            Its totally INSIGNIFICANT

  8. Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE says:

    Point One:
    The notion that the earth’s surface is 33 C warmer with a “greenhouse” atmosphere is rubbish.
    The 15 C aka 288 K is a wild ass guesstimate for only the land area’s surface temperature. (IPCC AR5 Glossary)
    The -18 C aka 255 K is an unrelated-to-the-surface & with-atmosphere theoretical “what if?” S-B BB equilibrium temperature calculated from the globally averaged 240 W/m^2 OLR at ToA (100 km).
    The lunar papers by Volokin and Kramm clearly confirm that the earth without an atmosphere and 30% albedo will be hotter not cooler.

    Point Two:
    A fanciful up/down/”back” GHG radiation energy loop attempts to explain a physical mechanism behind this erroneous 33 C warmer premise, an explanation involving copious amounts of QED handwavium.
    This loop violates thermodynamics by 1) creating energy out of nowhere, 2) moving energy from cold to hot without additional work, 3) moving energy in a perpetual 100% efficient loop.
    The upwelling radiation is not a physical fact, but a theoretical “what if?” S-B ideal BB calculation.
    The allegedly “measured” up/down welling radiation is an illusion due to IR instruments not properly corrected for the actual emissivity. (Think of VW et. al. “tweaking” emissions tests.)

    Point Three:
    No GHG energy loop = No RGHE = No human role in climate behavior.

    (1) https://principia-scientific.org/experiment-disproving-the-radiative-greenhouse-gas-effect/

    (2) http://www.writerbeat.com/articles/21036-S-B-amp-GHG-amp-LWIR-amp-RGHE-amp-CAGW

  9. Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE says:

    A second image.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.