I think we all know that the alarmists who post here had nothing to do with the revisions of previous temperatures and that they simply accept them. They accept them because it fits their world view. Those of us who don't have our belief systems threatened can look at these revisions with the proper skepticism that they deserve.
To me, AGW alarmism isn't a religion. It is part of the the fastest growing religion in the world.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/2...
FSM, you are simply a left wing religious fanatic but you just won't let yourself admit it. Conservatives understand simple truths. Leftists can't see them and they can't see what's in the mirror staring at them for all the world to see.
I can't figure out which Ron Paul fiscal policy you might disagree with. Oh wait, I was thinking of Rand Paul. Ron Paul is a nut IMO except for his fiscal policy.
Full disclosure, I have modified my own belief about the Patriot Act. I previously disagreed with Pegminer when he found it problematic but I tend to think giving government any power is just begging them to abuse it. The abuse of power in the current administration should serve as a warning to all but unfortunately too many get their marching orders from the Media.
I think Hansen hasn't demonstrated that he is a scientist. He has only demonstrated that he is a political leftist willing to get arrested for his agenda.
@Hey Doofus... Years from now Hansen will be remembered as one of the early alarmists who started us off this idiotic path of trying to fight off something made up. Decades from now there will be books written on how devastating group think and confirmation bias can be and he will be a prominent figure in both (although in his case I would call his adjustments, readjustments, rereadjustment and rerereadjustmests of past temps down and present temps up more fraudulent than a case of confirmation bias).
I would love to see Hansen, Mann, and Jones charged with fraud but I realize it will never happen. One day this farce will end. It will probably die slowly year by year. Some years will be hot and some will be cold but people will come to realize that we are not heading towards this great apocalypse that alarmists have been trying to convince us about.
@Pegminer... In what way is he a great scientist? Temperatures are running below his scenario C prediction of no new GHG emission past 2000. I'm pretty sure I could have made a prediction closer to what really happened than he did. Would you consider Mann a great scientist for his fraudulent Hockey Stick? I guess it alarmed quite a few people and got people believing in the CAGW hoax. Is that what makes them great? Does the ends (getting people scared about AGW) justifies the means (alarmism and making completely inaccurate predictions)?
You might think it does but it doesn't make someone a great scientist.
Hansen is a very good scientist who had the prescience to warn the American public about an extremely serious problem, decades before most people were worrying about it.
Because of the courageous stand he took, he has been slandered repeatedly by people like you, who don't know a thing a climate (proven in one of your recent answers http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?... ) or about science in general.
Sagebrush, you're probably nice to your family, and maybe you don't go around kicking dogs, but it's time for you to realize that you're completely clueless about science and the things you say are either completely misinformed or lies.
By the way, if you had taken so much as an introductory course in physical geography in college you would have known what a BSk climate was--but you had absolutely no idea.
EDIT for Ian: You're such a dolt. Have you accomplished ANYTHING in your meager life? My guess is that you sit around stoned and drinking beer most of the time.
My guess is that in about 100 years, the temps may increase by as much as 1 more degree.
Then history will show that the people purely denying are silly and the people running around like Chicken Little will be viewed as silly and politcally motivated.
And people like Hey Dook, will insult someone, then block them for no reason. Political motivation.
FACT IS, that some warming is occurring, but those exponential models are just silly. They have failed time and time again.
And while I am happy that Hansen supprts nuclear power, I do have to say that if I created models in 1988 that were so off now, I would not be thought of as the best in my field.
>>Dork: Significant in what way? Lying to Congress in the late 80s while advocates had the AC turned off to convince our ignorant Congressmen? <<
What advocates? In 1988, most climate scientists were skeptical of AGW? In 1988, it was not clear that the LIA and MWP were even real events.
>>Corrupting data to fit the AGW agenda.<<
Name one entry from any climate recording station in the world that has been corrupted. Name one climate recording station in the world that is missing any of its original data.
====
edit ---
>>Gary F: Please read the links FIRST.<<
I have.
>>...constant revisionism of historical temperatures to produce faux "global warming."<<
All adjustments have been based on data bias that has been empirically and explicitly demonstrated, and the correction techniques used are widely accepted by scientists both in climate research and other fields of science.
If the bias is not real and/or the methods unsound - then show the evidence. All that the "link" is an unsubstantiated accusation. There is zero evidence of any wrong doing. Saying that something is wrong just because you do not like it is not evidence.
I give James Hansen credit for supporting nuclear power. Many of the greenies say that CO2 is going to destroy life as we know it, it is the biggest threat in the history of the planet, then insist that nuclear power should be avoided. Clearly for them global warming is not such a serious problem, but a means to an end.
This article goes badly wrong right at the beginning when it reveals its quite outrageous bias by describing him as "one of the founders of the religion called Anthropogenic Global Warming".
You see global warming, of any sort, is not a religion, but what they're trying to do here is to discredit global warming by trying to discredit just one of the many thousands of scientists who have done an enormous amount of work on it.
All the author has actually done is show just how out of touch with reality they are. It's like trying to discredit the theory of gravity by claiming issac newton was on the take.
Why would any sane person bother with "American Thinker"? They are a bunch of religious, right wing, extremist who on the one hand worry about Sharia law, while on the other hand promoting creationism...
You continue to uses association fallacies [1] (often by misquoting and even outright fabrications) that because those people said something that sounds suspicious, that the whole scientific community is "bad"
Let me show you again how it is done properly, first we post some lines made by you.
Quotes by Sagebrush who again quotes Nazi's to further his cause.
"Execute all those who voted for OBAMA",
"Sustainability is a codeword for communism",
"Hire the handicapped, they are fun to watch",
"Justice and equality are codewords for communism",
"God has his hand on the thermostat".
Now we have established what kind of person you are. If we were to apply your "logic" [1], it would make ALL deniers, genocidal, Nazi loving, justice, equality and sustainability hating, religious extremists. I seriously doubt that Kano or Jimz Z are. Although it would not be unreasonable to assume that your fans [2] are, since they probably made an active decision to become your fan.
Edit;
Jim Z, that link had nothing to do with the question "How great a scientist is James Hansen?" Your link only managed to show that Dennis Prager is just another religious right wing extremist. He has made many rediculous statements like "Ron Paul is a (sickening) radical lefty" [3]. Now in US politics, you'd be hard pressed to find any one running for office who is more right wing then Ron Paul. [4] If you use Dennis Prager as your source for information, I am not surprised why you think Fox News is left wing and why you have no idea what "left wing" or "right wing" is in politics.
Full disclosure, I agree with most, of Ron Paul's libertarian policies, I strongly disagree with his economic policies and did not vote for him (or any other politician)
Edit:
"FSM, you are simply a left wing religious fanatic but you just won't let yourself admit it." Yeah right, to you anything left of (right wing) Fox News is extreme left.
"Conservatives understand simple truths" I agree, I also recognize that some are more simple then others, [5] that does not make them less of a human being.
"Leftists can't see them and they can't see what's in the mirror staring at them for all the world to see." I agree again, some leftist are blind, again that does not make less of a human being.
"Ron Paul is a nut IMO except for his fiscal policy." Ron Paul and his son are libertarians, they dislike government intruding into our lives even more then I do. You might consider that nuts, I do agree with them (up to a point) The point where I disagree is that they are still under the illusion that self interest will guide the market. (it doesn't and this is where capitalism fails) For what it is worth Communism also fails, because there is no reward for initiative and a government telling the people what to do under communism is just as abhorrent as it is under capitalism.
There is nothing patriotic about the Patriot Act, it is dumb and expensive idea that intrudes unnecessarily into the lives of people. If some one does something suspicious, like advocating murder or genocide, I hope that people will report those individuals to law enforcement. I know I do and I do not care if they are left or right wingers. Law enforcement has people who are trained in judging how much of a threat those individuals are and if they feel it requires further investigation, they will have to get a warrant from a judge to make sure they do not abuse their investigative powers. And I will also accept that they are also human and are capable of making mistakes.
Your opinion on Hansen is noted, it carries as little weight for me as my opinion that you have no idea about left/right wing politics has for you.
My "world view" is that people will misbehave (even murder) and that we need a judicial system that deals with people who harm others or our shared environment. People will not be able to keep up in society and they should get all the help they deserve without intruding into their private lives. Other then that I find that a desire for power and greed a silly game, while that can get out of hand, it is not a crime in itself. I also of the opinion that government should pay it's bills, regardless if it is spend in order to wage war or to provide help for people in need.
At least he can admit the blatantly obvious fact that the rise in global temps has stopped.
http://www.thegwpf.org/james-hansen-admi...
Wow, is this a decidedly right wing internet farce, or what?? I would say he is much more of a positive influence on the overall understanding of climate science than the American Thinker gives him credit for, but I am not surprised yiou link to this type of skeptic site
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/06/james_hansen_government_employee_climate_scientist_on_the_take.html
He is among the most significant 10 or 20 scientists in climate science over the past 50 years.
His name is likely to be remembered long after those of the denier scientists (Seitz, Singer, Lindzen, etc who are way less than 3% of climate scientists, by the way) are forgotten and their denial denied by their great-grandchildren etc.
Look forward to your usual well informed, highly accurate and sophisticated characterization of the above answer to this "question" of yours.
A better scientist and better man than you could ever be
You mean this James Hansen?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-blog...
