Since the article made note of Hansen retiring from NASA's Goodard Institute last April how can you logically conclude that it is "Government-run Climate Science arrogance"?
How can you logically conclude that Climate Science is arrogant when the observational data supports that the climate is changing? I would say that it is more than just being arrogant to say that the planet is not warming now when the observational evidence shows us that the planet is warming now. Please take note that the planet is not just its surface. Our planet consists of land, water and air and not just at the surface! Also take note that any one region is not a true representation of the rest of the planet. You must look at what is happening across the entire planet or you will become prone to making uneducated comments about the planet.
Yes, I agree with you Zippie62. He is obsessed with this. Just as all of us should be obsessed with bringing out the truth when it is being buried in lies, misdirections, misinformation and other means of trickery.
Who do we believe here, Zippie62? You ... or someone that has dedicated their life to the study, along with thousands of other climate scientists, that tells us the planet is warming and that humans are largely responsible for this warming. All you bring is your opinion. Your opinion, based on WHAT?????
Global Warming ended in 2012. Environment is safe. Mike
First, I need to clear up some confusion from those who don't read thoroughly. The study the article refers to and authored by Hansen (and the rest of climate alarmist community) was funded by NASA along with a host of left wing organizations and think tanks. You know, that's a whole other discussion.
So just to note, a person can retire from the government but still do scientific or other work with government funding. Of course, just bringing it up and making it a main issue is a form of misdirection in itself which is odd and ironic coming from those who accuse others of that very behavior.
As for the question, it's more of the same. There's nothing new, just old ideology worded differently. It's just more government wasted money saying something that's already been said.
Well all in all it is irrelevant, in that I cannot see the climate warming 2 degree C in the next hundred or so years, the way it is going, it's going to get cooler.
That isn't arrogance. they are right, 2° C is a significant amount of warming. I wont say catastrophic automatically but large changes will take place.
Skeptics are making no effort to make the planet any safer, would you rely on them?
Dr. Hansen does not work for Government, you missed word 'retired'.
I'd rather have his arrogance than your ignorance. He's right.
Hansen is only writing bad science fiction .
'Plan 9 from outer space " has more crediblity then Sachs or Hansen.
http://news.yahoo.com/climate-scientist-2-degrees-warming-too-much-222319195.html
"... Hansen, noted for his outspokenness on the topic of climate change and his willingness to venture into an advocacy role that many other climate scientists try to avoid, has previously voiced his concern about the 2-degree warming benchmark, saying in 2011 at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) that, "the target that has been talked about in international negotiations for 2 degrees of warming is actually a prescription for long-term disaster."
At the time, Hansen was still the director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. He retired from that position in April, in part, to pursue political and legal efforts on combating climate change. (Hansen had already used vacation time to attend climate protests and was arrested or cited several times, including in front of the White House.)
Hansen began the new study three years ago as a way "to provide a basis for legal actions for governments for not doing their jobs for protecting the rights of young people and future generations" after a conversation he had with a legal scholar. Hansen plans to discuss these legal actions in more detail at the 2013 meeting of the AGU, taking place next week in San Francisco. ..."
"... Hansen and his co-authors say Earth's climate history suggests the level of emissions cited to stay below the 2-degree threshold would result in "a significantly different planet" than the one humans know today and the one seen during the past 10,000 years of geologic history, called the Holocene, during which human civilizations evolved and flourished. The authors note that many impacts of climate change are already visible, from the shrinking ranges of some species to the frequency of extreme heat waves. [8 Ways Global Warming is Already Changing the World]
The study also reveals conditions during another period called the Eemian, about 120,000 years ago, when temperatures are thought to have been about 2 degrees Celsius higher than they were from 1880 to 1920 (the period the researchers used for preindustrial measurements). Some studies have suggested that sea levels during that time were several meters higher than they are today; such an increase in sea levels would threaten, and could even inundate, coastal cities. ..."
It seems to be an obsession with him.
