"Dr. James E. Hansen of the Goddard Space Flight Center’s Institute for Space Studies said research by his institute showed that because of the ”greenhouse effect” that results when gases prevent heat from escaping the earth’s atmosphere, global temperatures would rise early in the next century to ”well above any level experienced in the past 100,000 years.” Steeper Rise in Next Century
Average global temperatures would rise by one-half a degree to one degree Fahrenheit from 1990 to 2000 if current trends are unchanged, according to Dr. Hansen’s findings. Dr. Hansen said the global temperature would rise by another 2 to 4 degrees in the following decade."
http://www.nytimes.com/1986/06/11/us/swi...
"Green activists, grant seeking researchers, and self-serving politicians continue to spread climate alarmist lies. Lies based on fiction, not fact. To believe in such unsubstantiated tripe substitutes wishful thinking for logic, and hubris for the humility that science demands of all who study nature. This forces even the worst scientist to the ultimate realization, that nature is always right and science is most often wrong."
~ Doug Hoffman
'The Global Warming War'
When somebody believes one thing and then the next day/month/year believe the exact opposite, there is a certain credibility aspect which is exposed. I believe that is why warmers so desperately need to downplay the global cooling scare of the 70s.
I understand paradigm shifts in science like when ulcers went from being believed to be stress related when in fact they are caused by bacteria. While I don't think the switch in climate science from cooling to warming was exactly a paradigm shift, it would certainly seem like it to the average person with only basic science (or no science). After reading Hansen's explanation from his web page, I would say he seems to doing some downplaying himself.
The 70s did not nearly have the digital age information explosion of today so it is difficult to get a clear picture of a story like this. I don't consider the climate science switch for predictions from a cooling to a warming future to be that significant. What I do find significant is the downplay of the 70s cooling scare. It reveals more about character than science.
_______________________________________...
Edit@pegminer: "By the way, if in May I say that it's going to get warmer over the next three months, and six months later I say the opposite, has some "credibility aspect" been exposed?"
Yes, some "credibility aspect" has been exposed. You predicted it was going to get warmer for J/J/A and it didn't which you found out six months after the fact when the data came in. Then claimed you actually said the opposite so you were right in the first place. Just like the cooling to warming switch.
The bad thing for climate scientists this time around is that they can't switch back to cooling. They really need another 1998 or 2005 or 2010 or whatever the "hottest year ever" is now and they need it soon. They really better hope that solar is not as large an influence as they think or that solar physicist predictions of a grand solar minimum are way off target.
It's going to be a rough ride otherwise. There are already over 30 excuses for the stalled warming and if continued model divergence occurs, their "credibility aspect" will even penetrate the most moderately educated person.
I think the answer is yes and no!
I believe someone was predicting an ice age and got Hansen to write a program for them as part of the project. I don't think the output of the program necessarily reflected Hansen's beliefs - at least that is the official view.
EDIT: Link now attached
Not quite the truth... A couple other researchers used a program which Hansen wrote to conclude we were heading into another ice age. Since the authors crdited Hansen in their paper, the implication was that he supported their conclusion, which was not true. Sorry no link, but google "James Hansen and global cooling" and you should be able to find it.
Sagebrush, does it make you feel superior to call people by diminutive names? Do you think your arguments are better if you call James Hansen "Jimmy", me "Peggy", Hey Dook "Dorkster" and so on?
Hansen wrote a program to calculate Mie scattering. That's concerned with the scattering of light by spheres or cylinders, and has many uses in atmospheric radiative transfer problems. Since it was a useful program that could be used for many things, the code was given to Rasool and his co-workers who used it in their research, from which they wrote a paper predicting global cooling due to increasing amounts of aerosols in the atmosphere.
Since you apparently don't understand computer programs, it's as if Hansen had a calculator and he loaned it to these other guys to use in their own research. You might as well hold Microsoft responsible for anything that is done with Word or Excel.
Do you care at all about whether the things you say are true or not? I mean, I understand disagreeing with something, but I don't understand the constant lies, character assassination, etc. that you deniers have to resort to. Come up with some real arguments, that don't rely on calling people names or repeating falsehoods that have been debunked years ago.
EDIT for Jello: Your answer is absolute rubbish. It's no wonder you won't let me answer your questions, you don't want to be exposed.
No I don't believe that, and even if it was true, changing one's mind is not a bad thing if the evidence changes. dogma is much worse.
No links. No credibility. No surprise.
Even Kano doesn't like the stench of this one.
Yes - He predicted that aerosols from hair sprays and under arm deodorants would reflect enough light back into space and the planet would dim and get colder. Guess there wasn't that much money to be made off of hair sprays.
Sounds like garbage to me; why would he do that?
I suspect he was working on the 1981 paper discussed here ...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...
... which predicted warming, but actually underestimated what has occurred.
Provide source for your claim. A real skeptic would.
If you say so then certainly not
I would not be--at all-surprised.
