In 1988, Hansen told Congress that Scenario A was “Business As Usual”
That was a disaster, so 20 years later Hansen claimed that he said something completely different..
Scenario A was described as “on the high side of reality”
Then he tried to claim that his forecasts were accurate, when in fact they were a complete disaster. This was the graph he published :
The next graph overlays RSS TLT satellite temperatures, which were created to verify the accuracy of surface data.
This is a classic study in how the team constantly tramples on the truth, in pursuit of their agenda.
Is “draconian” a positive epithet in Newspeak?
They lie. It is the outstanding characteristic. The ‘Cause’ is much more important than the truth.
See Alinsky’s rules for radicals. Telling the truth is not among them.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1420684/posts
The alarmist argue and predict with weather events as proof of AGW but when someone throws weather events back at them to prove their hypocrisy they respond with, “You don’t know the difference between weather and Climate”. Obviously they are not true scientists or engineers but criminal politicians.
The haven’t programmed the satellite to lie? How surprising!
Hansen smackdown.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc
The science settler.
Good video by Evans. Even the basic Arrhenius CO2 assumptions are proven wrong, of course, so the Alarmist case is even worse than he concedes.
That was a disaster, so 20 years later Hansen claimed that he said something completely different..
Scenario A was described as “on the high side of reality”
Which of course was what he did say: “Scenario A, since it is exponential, must eventually be on the high side of reality”.
J. Hansen et al., JGR, vol 93, pp 9341-9364, Aug 20 1988.
Right. As long as Hansen keeps making random predictions with no basis in reality he must eventually be right. Which is obviously exactly the same thing as saying, “Hansen is right.”
The generic form is, “If X must eventually be Y, then it is the same as saying that X is Y”. I’m sure any book on formal logic will have that right in the index.