I keep hearing from Hansen apologists that he never said any of the things which newspapers have been reporting that he said over the last few decades. Yet I do not see any retractions or corrections from newspapers or NASA.
How does that work? Newspapers were making fantastic misquotes over periods of decades damaging Hansen’s reputation and the reputation of NASA – and neither cared enough to sort it out?
Does anyone really believe that?
Remember, Hansen is a leftist so he gets credit for trying and “good” intentions and being wrong is resume enhancer to his fellow leftists.
Man, you really are desperate as … some obscure item from 1988 and you want to flog that dead horse to death over and over.
Here’s a novel idea … ever tried posting something about “real science” to your Blog?
I mean as opposed to crying about NASA not bothering to pay any attention to the Miami News [ and others] typed up by some junior reporter feeding something out to the chickens he picked up on the “wire” in 1988 AS IF it actually meant something to ANYBODY …. besides yourself that is.
“Just having Fun” … yep that wonderful 3 letter F word …. and loving it!
excuse me, I have a call on my shoe phone …
an “obscure item?” You think?
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/03/15/the-most-misunderstood-and-censored-man-in-the-world/ http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/03/16/hansen-on-tv-1988-9f-warming-by-2040/ http://dir.salon.com/books/int/2001/10/23/weather/index.html
So, was the obscure item real or not? Here’s a novel idea, why don’t you try and understand the relevance of history. Quite frankly, I’m shocked you don’t see the potential for the underlying science behind such a venture. You being all about science and stuff.
I mean, isn’t this really all that “Death Train” engaged in? He looked at history and made some presumptions about what would occur in the future. This is nothing more and nothing less than that. Steve’s looking at past events and contextualizing them with present and perhaps future events. For instance, we can know, through this blog, as one of many places, that the earthquake in Japan was not unique. (With the exception of a nuclear plant being involved.) Now see toon character, that not all that hard to see the benefits of an historical perspective. We can further apply this type of perspective. For instance, flooding, Steven has offered ample evidence that recent flooding in different parts of the world was neither unprecedented nor related to atmospheric CO2 levels. I would think cartoons would welcome news such as that!
This site is a conflict to their Virtual SIM Planet Game Boy existence! And we are hurting UM”S POOR Little Feelings! 😉
Of course that makes me HAPPY! 🙂
Well, we are here to have fun! Sadly, toon boy seems to have left. Or maybe he’s writing another lengthy and incoherent rambling about matters, which he obviously knows nothing about. I find a couple of extra minutes to have fun with ‘toon boy and poof he’s gone.
It was so OBSCURE it was said before a Congressional hearing and defended in another hearing 20 years later By Big Jim!
There are NO retractions in Climate Science because they might find out they were wrong about being wrong so all possibilities have been covered. Any temperature experienced is consistent with some model projection and the average of 22 wrong predictions is about what can be expected unless some other event such as natural climate variability expresses itself. Somewhere there is a model that projecrted that and they will dig it out!
Jones was involved in two papers about UHI that arrived at conflicting conclusions depending on interpretation bt they went with the UHI has minimum effect of temperature records as that fit the desired agenda! The other is still laying about but not as well quoted!
It is quite signfiicant to review someone’s track record regarding their past forecasts. When someone’s record is anything but sterling, you don’t put much stock in their more recent blatherings.