Imagine that. The US Congress actually taking responsibility for their oversight role.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Ellen Flees To The UK
- HUD Climate Advisor
- Causes Of Increased Storminess
- Scientist Kamala Harris
- The End Of Polar Bears
- Cats And Hamsters Cause Hurricanes
- Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- New BBC Climate Expert
- 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- “the United States has suffered a “precipitous increase” in hurricane strikes”
- Thing Of The Past Returns
- “Impossible Heatwaves”
- Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- “Not A Mandate”
- Up Is Down
- The Clean Energy Boom
- Climate Change In Spain
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
Recent Comments
- Peter Carroll on Causes Of Increased Storminess
- arn on HUD Climate Advisor
- spren on HUD Climate Advisor
- conrad ziefle on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Tel on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Petit_Barde on Ellen Flees To The UK
- dm on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Gamecock on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on The End Of Polar Bears
- Richard E Fritz on Scientist Kamala Harris
deliver a ruined climate to future generations…
…they must think they can control the weather then
I hope someone in Congress confronts the warming alarmists with this.. It shows the history of warming/cooling going back 10,000 years.
2010—where does it fit in the warmest year list?
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/2010wheredoesitfitinwarmestyearlist.pdf
S they should have hearings and bring all this info in that proves ACC is a hoax, and restock all the major scientific organizations and peer review journals with honest scientists
that Icecap.us article proves conclusively ACC is a hoax, and any scientist who argues against it must be part of the conspiracy
How about just take Govt money and handouts out of science period.
Will they have enough guts to call James Hansen on the carpet for all the data adjustments?
As polemical as this confrontation is likely to be, a forum is what is needed.
Romm is likely afraid that scrutiny and the shedding of light on the reality of climate change will result in the conversion of alarmist rhetoric to mitigation. Not the kind of operation that pays for promotion as much as now, if at all.
There will be a lot of squirming and double talke if these hearings take place.
The way to do this is to quietly require Hansen to explain his work before a panel of scientists (not cultists, but real scientists) Conduct a thorough audit, and let them crawl thru his “work”. From this, it will be clear his results are garbage. Dismiss him and Gavin, and replace with legitimate scientists who then re-analyze and present the corrected information. Take Jim and Gavin before a Grand Jury for the fraud and watch them roll over. Expand the investigation to Mann and CRU. Each science cultist who faces charges of fraud will be able to negotiate a deal in trade for their cooperation. Some will find their way back to reality, and they will give additional credibility to the investigation.
If this is just an investigation before congress, the congressional cultists will try to obfuscate the evidence. The congressional committee won’t be able to peel the onion of Hansen’s conclusions. They don’t understand the science well enough.
Hey I get roundly attacked for writing this stuff. Come on Steve, Mike. Kick this guys butt for his crazy conspiracy ramblings!
TonyD:
I personally think they should cut all funding for scientific research until a new crop of scientists learn proper fundamentals of science. The only courses that need to be taught for the next 40 years are Science Philosophy and Ethical Science Practices. Let the competitive world of commerce take care of research funding for technical advancements. That is where most of the scientific advances have come from anyway and not academia funded by government monies.
“ruined climate”
Gimme a break. These kranks have the hyper delusions of grandeur. The climate is what it is. Like it or lump it.
I just hope they make some sort of decision, a strong contrarian view would enable the world to tax energy supplies to the US and apply appropriate tariffs for imports. That would solve the problem neatly.
What terrifies me is that every time scientists publish research that is politically unacceptable they will be hauled before the judiciary and bullied into recanting. If it is applied to climatology it can just as easily be applied to other areas of science like evolution, physics and medicine.
This happened in medieval times between science and religion and since this only applies to scientists working in the US it threatens to turn the US in to a laughing stock world wide.
LAZ:
They already are under the current political activist practices of the scientific bodies. If it does not fit the current agenda then it is discarded and the researcher is ostracized by the TEAM!
Climatology is the laughing stock of the world along with its faithful followers like you!
By the way Climatology is not the only field where this is evident.
How is the Sandwich Board holding up in this weather? The one that claims the sky is falling!
As a skeptic I don’t accept your scary conspiracy theories.
How many times has Hansen voluntarily appeared before Congressional fluff committees?
As opposed to being handcuffed and dragged screaming to them?
If it is voluntary then it isn’t a problem.
It is hard for me to understand why Romm and others here are peeing their pants in fear. It isn’t as if anyone is screaming that they’re deniers that should be tried for crimes against humanity, ripped away from their loved ones and put in jail the rest of their lives, right?
I think it will be a good thing to have comments and opinions on the record that are given under oath. For example, take the 1988 Hansen global warming testimony to congress. It sure is nice having Hansen’s 1988 sweat filled global warming theatrics on the record. That testimony was based on his hot off the press latest scientific paper offering global warming projections that would have caused congress to pee in their pants had they not already sweated all of their bodily fluids out of their pores. As it turns out, in hind sight, Hansen’s 1988 CO2 emissions as usual (no reduction of CO2) scenario model projections of global temperature only missed the mark by 100% in 2010. Where else but in a government bureaucracy can you be that wrong and still keep your job? Instead of being fired he is still at work making heat appear on the planet that satellites, thermometers and ocean buoys can’t seem to find yet. I for one would like to hear him explain how that is happening.
Sundance,
Hansen’s prediction “missed the mark by 100%.”
So that means that mean global temps have not increased at all since 1988.
So he and that other alarmist Spencer have obviously been inventing the temperature increases since then, and all these other scientists just winked and put their mouths to the funding trough.
Temperature increase =/= Global warming. Temperatures increase and decrease all the time, it’s completely normal.
AGW is based on computer models, not temperature readings, you know that. When evaluating AGW theory, the only question that matters is whether the computer models work properly.
Tony try this experiment. Going forward every time you perform, drop 50% of the objects you juggle 100% of the time and see how your career goes. Unfortunately you will not be able to get work as a government juggler where your career could remain intact regardless of your skill. :*)
Actually, he could only be a Government Juggler. And would probably be promoted to Chief Government Juggler based on his performance.
Sundance,
I love when people just totally ignore what I write.
in response to your scenario. after juggling for 30 years if I was funny dropping all that much I would get lots of work in the private sector and a lot of money!
Most scientific theories are imperfect when they are developed. I do not know if ACC is right or not, but the fact that the theory changes and incorporates new information does not mean it is invalid.
Every scientist could have insisted that England will get warmer and warmer every year, and they could all turn out to have been wrong. That does not by itself mean the theory is wrong.
However if the ideology is more important than the science , mistakes add up so quickly that it becomes impossible to maintain a consistent theory, and it falls apart. This is what happened with Lysenkoism. If that is the case with ACC then in a very short time the whole thing will come crashing down, and scientific organizations and the peer reviewed journals will have to completely repudiate it. it will be the biggest scientific fraud in history and the fallout will be tremendous.
No what it means to me (someone who only has a source of income when I am correct) is that Hansen’s 2010 temperature projection based on scenario A, which assumed a continued growth of worldwide CO2 of 1.5% per year, was inaccurate by 100%. What it means is that his projected 2010 temperature projection for scenario B, which assumed emissions controls that would keep CO2 levels at 350ppm, was the accurate projection.
Simply put the model exaggerated sensitivity to CO2 increases and the long term temperature rise continued on its post ice age linear progression in spite of an increase in CO2 which exceeds the logarithmic halfway point to a doubling of CO2 from 280ppm.
I tend to lose faith in scientists when examination of their work shows a tendency of exaggeration and tend to think independent examination of their work might be in order. But that’s just me expecting that other professionals should be held to the same level of accountability that I am held to.
Sundance,
there would be very little science done if the world followed you your approach that all initial estimates of a theory have to be right on the mark.
I still do not understand how he could be 100% wrong and there be warming over that period. I could see him being 30% wrong or 70% wrong, but not 100%. What are your figures? My understanding is that scenario B was closest to the emissions level and also nowhere near 100% wrong. There are margins of error, assumptions about many factors that are much better known now, and factors that couldn’t be known then.
What is the attribution of your post ice age linear progression in temperature after 1970?
the idea that scientists need to be held to the same standards as you in your line of work, is anywhere from reasonable to ludicrous. I am a juggler, in some instances a 95% accuracy rate is horrendous. Science is a field that is answering very complex questions that are not fully understood, in this case with potentially serious consequences.
and the peer review process is EXACTLY an independent review of work by people who understand the subject. Hansen’s paper by my reading and by the reading of many people that understand the science much better than I do has nothing fraudulent or frivolously exaggerated. All his assumptions are clearly delineated.
“My understanding is that scenario B was closest to the emissions level and also nowhere near 100% wrong.”
Tony I made a mistake as I was rattling off scenarios from memory so I went to the paper and reviewed the scenarios. So let me provide Hansen’s exact explanation of his model in his own words.
“Scenario A assumes continued growth rates of trace gas emissions typical of the last 20 years, i.e., about 1.5% per year emissions growth; scenario B has emissions rates approximately fixed at current rates; scenario C drastically reduces trace gas emissions between 1990 and 2000”
The graph of Hansen’s computed global temperature change 1960-2020 in his 1988 study shows the following projected temperature increases at the beginning of 2010:
Scenario A at the start of 2010 shows a 1.13C degree increase in temp.
Scenario B at the start of 2010 shows a 1.02C degree increase in temp.
Scenario C at the start of 2010 shows a .603C degree increase
Here is the actual HadCRUT 3v measured temperatures from 1960 to the beginning of 2010 with a trend line.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1960/to:2009/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1960/to:2009/trend
As you can see from the trend line there was .66C increase in warming which is most closely reflected by scenario C in Hansen’s model which assumed “scenario C drastically reduces trace gas emissions between 1990 and 2000”. I stand corrected that Hansen’s projected warming was not 100% in error but rather 1.13/.66 or 71.6% off the mark with his A scenario projection.
This analysis illustrates that Hansen exaggerated sensitivity and feedbacks in his 1988 study when a retrospective examination of 70 year of modeled climate temperatures are compared to the real climate temperatures.
Also of interest is that Hansen’s scenario C was his only scenario which showed temps declining from 2004 to the beginning of 2010 which again is what is actually happening.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2004/to:2009/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2004/to:2009/trend
It still ends up that the model used for congressional testimony in 1988 should have been questioned instead of being blindly accepted by a bunch of sweaty bureaucrats and I still have no reason to believe that his current model can project temperatures 70 years from now any better than his 1988 model was able to project warming over a 70 year period. I just hope that more will be done this time around to apply a more stringent examination of the models and projections than was done in 1988.
Sundance,
I don’t have time to check all of that, but what you write above sounds reasonable. I know I have read other sources that say that the observed is closer to Scenario B, but I don’t know exactly where. I do know that he projected sensitivity to be over 4°C/doubling, which could very well be a significant exaggeration.
thanks for posting the work for me!
Fossil fuel usage has been much higher than anyone forecast.
Steve,
I am sure it is higher recently, especially with china and the far east. Are the rates higher also 10-15 years ago?
And he still hasn’t posted on two very important findings by NASA recently, one was the UHI analysis and the other was the plant feedbacks. He conveniently decided to ignore them I guess. If they were that “dubious” he should be all over them.
http://climateprogress.org/2010/12/09/science-cloud-feedback-likely-positive/#comment-311825
MrC
MrCannucistan,
How DARE you bring up the plant feedback issue?!
I have been poking at Steve about it for weeks and he REFUSES to have anything to do with it. And everyone else on the site was tactful enough to ignore it. Then YOU come along and blatantly provide a link that leads to that study. This is very upsetting.
If Steve does not post something that adds doubt to ACC there HAS to be a very good reason, and now here you are just throwing it in our faces.
I demand an apology and hope that Steve deletes you post before too many people see it!