Indeed, Hansen has refused to debate out-of-touch contrarians. There is nothing to gain from it. The latter essentially wing it with far-out theories lacking any scientific bases. Reputable scientists, like Hansen, eschew such a waste of time.

NASA's Hansen is highly respected and....
He sounds like a whacko to me.
The problem with that theory, Thomas, is that Hansen's theories pretty well parallel the party line so far as the Bush Administration, John McCain, etc. are concerned.
The problem with that theory, Thomas, is that the party line so far as the Bush Administration, John McCain, etc. are concerned pretty well parallel hansen's theories .
okie wrote:He sounds like a whacko to me.
That's because cognitive dissonance prevents you from seriously considering the possibility that your party's party line willfully shuts out reality, personally demonizes scientists when they figure out realities that contradict the party line, and insists that everyone is a parisan whacko unless they say the Republican party line is right at least half of the time.
Like it or not -- among climatologists, meteorologists, and physicists, Hansen has a first class reputation. It's the people who slander him as a whacko are who are almost exclusively political operatives, and almost all of whom haven't researched, or have sloppily researched, what they're talking about.
foxfire wrote :
Quote:The problem with that theory, Thomas, is that Hansen's theories pretty well parallel the party line so far as the Bush Administration, John McCain, etc. are concerned.
does that automatically disqualifies a scientific study ?
let me adjust slightly ...
Quote:The problem with that theory, Thomas, is that the party line so far as the Bush Administration, John McCain, etc. are concerned pretty well parallel hansen's theories .
would that be equally unacceptable ?
hbg
And Hansen the same man that advocates chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, is not a whacko, Thomas? Common sense tells me otherwise. The man has made too many whacked out statements to convince me he is a scientist. He is a cheap political whacko, nothing more. And they are afraid to fire him because it would be "political." Sad.
He wants to put oil companies on trial? He is a nut, plain and simple. And if he had political authority, also very dangerous, possibly another Hitler, who knows?
okie wrote:He sounds like a whacko to me.
That's because cognitive dissonance prevents you from seriously considering the possibility that your party's party line willfully shuts out reality, personally demonizes scientists when they figure out realities that contradict the party line, and insists that everyone is a parisan whacko unless they say the Republican party line is right at least half of the time.
Like it or not -- among climatologists, meteorologists, and physicists, Hansen has a first class reputation. It's the people who slander him as a whacko are who are almost exclusively political operatives, and almost all of whom haven't researched, or have sloppily researched, what they're talking about.
In a Dec. 19 letter to Prime Minister Gordon Brown that he copied to Queen Elizabeth II, Hansen, the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration's top climate scientist, said using more coal without the emission-reducing technology may accelerate floods, droughts and heat waves.
"When you hear about predictions of future warming or changes in precipitation globally, ....... the predictions are based on computer model output that is ignoring brown carbon, ...."
And Hansen the same man that advocates chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, is not a whacko, Thomas?
He wants to put oil companies on trial? He is a nut, plain and simple.
Thomas's point, I think--he can speak for himself--was that some discredit Hansen's theories purely because 'he doesn't follow the party line'. My post was to discredit Thomas's theory because Hansen actually does pretty well parallel the party line at least as the Bush Administration and John McCain are concerned.
Thomas, I think you have gone over to the dark side.
Hansen makes a lot of sense about the enormity of the "crimes" committed by oil company execs. The crimes are similar to those of the cigarette execs, who lied about the detrimental effects of smoking, or the crimes of Bush, who lied us into a horrible war to steal a country's oil.
....
okie wrote:And Hansen the same man that advocates chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, is not a whacko, Thomas?
Yes, he is the same man. No, that does not make him a whack. ...
Thomas, I think you need to rethink your views on this, unless you are prepared to give up your way of life, which I predict is highly unlikely.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
194
Biochemistry researcher Dr. Thomas Lavin, who is a physician who holds patents regarding physical, chemical, and biological sciences and has conducted peer-reviewed research and experiments, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. "I first published a peer reviewed paper in 1981, and have been looking at data for 30 years," Lavin wrote to EPW on December 13, 2007. "I am somebody who has designed experiments and looked at data. And if you simply freeze Al Gore's movie when he introduces the CO2 and temperature relationship through geologic time, and look at the graph, the temperature goes up before the CO2 in every one of the six or seven elevations recorded geologically. And this time gap is on the order of a few hundred years," Lavin explained. "Add this to the NASA temperature revision [making 1934 the hottest year in the U.S.] and then add that many of the climate models which predict doom use the old, unrevised NASA data, and you have total garbage in/ garbage out," he wrote. "Before we start regulating who gets to build a factory, and who gets to fly on a private jet, or drive to work, I think the data has to be real and convincing," he added. "This episode in history I think will go down as marking the reverse of Galileo and Copernicus, the end of the Age of Reason, and it's frightening," Lavin concluded.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
195
Australian engineer Dr. Peter Harris authored an August 20, 2007 paper entitled "Probability of Sudden Global Cooling." The study Harris authored found that "the data...clearly shows the nominal 100KY cycle for glaciation and the interglacial phases and it shows that we have reached the end of the typical interglacial cycle and are due for a sudden cooling climate change. Based on this analysis we can say that there is a probability of 94% of imminent global cooling and the beginning of the coming ice age." He added, "By observation of a number of natural internal processes we can find further support for the coming change and I have referred before to the confirmed slowdown of the Gulf Stream, the effect of major endothermic polar ice melt and forecast reduction in solar activity after 70 years of extreme activity not seen for 8000 years before. The Stratosphere is cooling and ice is building on the South Pole. Climate is becoming unstable. Most of these major natural processes that we are witnessing now are interdependent and occur at the end of each interglacial period, ultimately causing sudden long term cooling."
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
197
Frederic Fluteau, a geomagnetism scientist with the Institute de Physique du Globe de Paris, co-authored a paper published on January 30, 2007 in the Earth and Planetary Science Letters. The paper, co-authored with geomagnetism scientist Yves Gallet and scientist Agnes Genevey of the Centre de Research at the Restauration des Musées, found, "Much of the observed increase in global surface temperature over the past 150 years occurred prior to the 1940s and after the 1980s. The main causes invoked are solar variability, changes in atmospheric greenhouse gas content or sulfur due to natural or anthropogenic action, or internal variability of the coupled ocean-atmosphere system." The paper also found that "a proposed mechanism involves variations in the geometry of the geomagnetic field (f.i. tilt of the dipole to lower latitudes), resulting in enhanced cosmic-ray induced nucleation of clouds. No forcing factor, be it changes in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere or changes in cosmic ray flux modulated by solar activity and geomagnetism, or possibly other factors, can at present be neglected or shown to be the overwhelming single driver of climate change in past centuries." Le Mouël also served as one of the co-authors.
198
Meteorologist Jesse Ferrell of AccuWeather praised the new skeptical UK documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle in an April 2, 2007 blog post. "I will say that this movie has blown the entire [climate] debate open again, or should," Ferrell wrote. "Many people have made up their minds without seeing or hearing all the evidence. If you've seen Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth then you should take the time to watch The Great Global Warming Swindle," he added.
199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204
The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition released seven "pillars of wisdom" to counter the UN IPCC climate report. As detailed in the Dominion Post on April 5, 2007, the coalition of prominent scientific skeptics includes: Dr. Vincent Gray, an expert reviewer for the IPCC and most recently a visiting scholar at the Beijing Climate Centre; Dr Gerrit van der Lingen, a geologist and paleoclimatologist and former director of Geoscience Research and Investigations New Zealand; Professor Augie Auer (deceased June 2007) of Auckland, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming, and previously MetService chief meteorologist; Professor Bob Carter, a New Zealand-trained geologist with extensive research experience in palaeoclimatology, now at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Warwick Hughes, a New Zealand earth scientist living in Pert; and Roger Dewhurst, of Katikati, a consulting environmental geologist and hydrogeologist.
The seven "pillars of wisdom" are:
1. Over the past few thousand years, the climate in many parts of the world has been warmer and cooler than it is now. Civilizations and cultures flourished in the warmer periods.
2. A major driver of climate change is variability in solar effects, such as sunspot cycles, the sun's magnetic field and solar particles.
These may account in great part for climate change during the past century. Evidence suggests warming involving increased carbon dioxide exerts only a minor influence.
3. Since 1998, global temperature has not increased. Projection of solar cycles suggests that cooling could set in and continue to about 2030.
4. Most recent climate and weather events are not unusual; they occur regularly.
For example, in the 1930s the Arctic experienced higher temperatures and had less ice than now.
5. Stories of impending climate disaster are based almost entirely on global climate models.
Not one of these models has shown that it can reliably predict future climate.
6. The Kyoto Protocol, if fully implemented, would make no measurable difference to world temperatures.
The trillions of dollars that it will cost would be far better spent on solving known problems such as the provision of clean water, reducing air pollution, and fighting malaria and Aids.
7. Climate is constantly changing and the future will include coolings, warmings, floods, droughts, and storms.
The best policy is to make sure we have in place disaster response plans that can deal with weather extremes and can react adaptively to longer-term climate cooling and warming trends.
