Real Climate Science

http://news.google.com/newspapers

http://www.bloomberg.com/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/16/libya-benghazi-gaddafi-48-hours

He writes “We do have coverage of the poles through satellite data which encompasses 98% of the globe and that data is in full agreement with GISS.”

Good luck with that pinkman.

1. Satellite data has a 7.5 degree hole at both poles.

2. UAH reported a (negative) -0.17 anomaly for the Arctic in February, while GISS reported +4 :

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/

Enlightened people are happy to stumble in the dark long after it becomes obvious that they have no clue where they are, where they have been, or where they are headed.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v471/n7338/full/471265b.html

Assume conservatively that the temperature trend for the 21st century is flat, rather than the downwards trend shown by HadCrut. How long does it take to get to Hansen’s 9F rise by 2040 forecast?

9 degrees = N years * 0.0 degrees /year

9 / 0 = N

Page 2

http://news.google.com/newspapers

Cape Hooper is -17F with 41 MPH winds.

http://www.wunderground.com/

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/

h/t to Marc Morano

He forecast 5°C warming by 2040 in an interview he gave for the CBC’s “Survival” program, reported on page nine of Suzuki’s book.

http://books.google.co.nz/

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?