.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Saturday, April 30, 2005

NASA global-warmist James Hansen is a LIAR

NASA's James Hansen is in the news as the spokesman for new research that suggests that the oceans are warming. The research provides absolutely no new information to distinguish whether the warming is due to human production of greenhouse gases or the very high level of solar-magnetic activity over the last sixty years. In theory, both should induce warming, but no one has been able to yet sort out the relative magnitudes of these effects. But what does Hansen say? According to the San Francisco Chronicle:
"This energy imbalance is the 'smoking gun' that we have been looking for, " Hansen said in a prepared summary of the study, which was published in the journal Science. "The magnitude of the imbalance agrees with what we calculated using known climate forcing agents, which are dominated by increasing human-made greenhouse gases. There can no longer be substantial doubt that human-made gases are the cause of most observed warming."
Liar liar pants on fire. Hansen is telling a flat-out god dam lie. NASA's climate models have never included solar-magnetic warming effects AT ALL. Whatever warming is due to high levels of solar flux gets misattributed to greenhouse gas warming in the NASA models and projected forward into unwarranted predictions that greenhouse gas warming is going to destroy the planet. The fact that Hansen and his NASA co-conspirator Gavin Schmidt can tweak their model to make it look like greenhouse gas warming accounts for the temperature record is not empirical evidence. We KNOW that solar warming effects exist. (My earlier posts on the subject here (without links) and here and here (with links).) Thus leaving solar-warming effects out makes the NASA model WRONG. The proper backtest is to look for sensitivities to both greenhouse warming and solar activity that create the best fit. NASA refuses to do that. They absolutely will not take into account the primary mechanism by which natural variation is theorized to occur. (This earlier post of mine Fisks Gavin Schmidt's proclaimed justification for this omission, along with a ludicrous attempt by Schmidt's Realclimate colleague Rasmus Benested to dismiss solar-magnetic warming effects.)

Why intentionally overstate greenhouse warming effects? So that Hansen et al. can justify drastic action to curtail greenhouse emissions:
He calculated the energy retention could be eliminated only by halting all human-caused emissions of methane or by somehow removing half of all the carbon dioxide now in the atmosphere.
Hansen is NOT A SCIENTIST. He is a religionist. He refuses to account scientific data that is not conducive to the conclusions he wants to arrive at--that human activity must be curtailed--and he has a lot of company. This is the fourth major study this year produced by the "global warming consensus" (the U.N. sponsored IPCC and its legions of consensoid climatologists). All of the other three did exactly what Hansen does. They all use the IPCC/NASA GCMs (General Circulation Models), NONE of which ever take into account solar-warming effects.

Until the consensoids start including solar-magnetic effects in their models, their every pronouncement should be met with a chorus of catcalls: "LIAR LIAR LIAR," because they ARE liars, every one of them. They are intentionally leaving known physical effects out of their models because including them would undermine the conclusion that human activity should be curtailed. Liars all.

Some comments of mine about the latest Hansen silliness are here.
Hello, I am interested in hearing from others
Global Warming? Ask A Canadian:

Why is Canada spending almost as much on new icebreaking ships for it’s "melting" arctic as it is on Kyoto?

Why did 7 individuals of the thousands of global warming protestors in Montreal Canada last December require treatment for frostbite injuries?

Why does Toronto Canada annually have twice as many cold weather alert days as smog advisory alert days?

Why do we selectively forget that Canada’s Polar Bears were indigenous to as far south as Minnesota USA 300 years ago? (called Yellow Bears due to the summer coats they retained longer, for obvious reasons but still the same bear)

Why do we conveniently ignore the fact that our American neighbors to the south saw snowmobile sales increase by 13% in 2003.

Are all glaciers really melting? All 167 thousand of them on this planet?

It can’t be too late to stop global warming because we should be able to stop something we started, correct?

Global warming is 20 years old. Introduced to the UN in 1988, it declared to the world that the earth had been warming for several years. Twenty years later we are still watching the Winter Olympics, paying the kid next door to shovel the snow, enjoying a crisp sunny winter day, flying south to get warm, driving in snow storms, enjoying the changing seasons and paying heating bills. Twenty years worth of global warming would have us all by now sitting around reminiscing about the old days when we used to have some cool weather. Our lives have not changed. The effects of twenty years of global warming should look far more dramatic than the normal unpredictable weather patterns that we see now. Perpetuating this mass insanity, is the media. The politicians (Kyoto), scientists, and religious-like environmentalists feed off this mutually beneficial source of empowerment while bewildered citizens are numbed with a now growing cynical fear. Only when our frustratingly misunderstood climate is perfect, like the inside of a shopping mall, will this cultural anomaly fade away and when Santa Clause does not drown after all. Hey, we eventually stopped burning witches and sacrificing virgins didn’t we?

1)Consensus is not conclusiveness.
2)Independent opinions are from those without a direct financial connection to the science and or media industries.
3)The Internet is not a laboratory.
4)Political boardrooms are commodity floors where votes are bought and sold.
5)Anyone can make credible data for public consumption and dogma fuel simply by pushing the enter key enough times.

Scientists Anyone can join the Union of Concerned Scientists and be a voting member and reflect the “majority of scientists endorse the global warming issue ” figures. They took me as a member without any questions, other than will that be cash or credit card and I’m only a laborer. And besides, politics permeates everything and years of university will teach even real scientists to play the game too. Education unfortunately does not translate always into sainthood. It is human nature to rationalize deception for personal gain. What makes it even easier for even the real scientists is that the public thinks all of their associates believe it as well but the media are not interested in their opinion at this point anyways. Think of it this way; the term “Global Temperature” didn’t exist until the theory of global warming necessitated it. Eventually it will all come out and that is when fun starts; watching the rats jump ship and supporters becoming deniers.

Politicians endorse it because it’s an easy way for them to go through the motions of it looking like they have your best interests in mind.

The media endorses it because they are in the business of selling, not telling. Have you ever known commercial or worse, alternative media to accentuate the negative? They make a living off it. They have crisised and sensitized us with fear to where we can’t even enjoy a pleasant summer day any more. While we still cannot understand climate, we now have more elaborate ways of monitoring it but still are no closer to comprehending weather. We are told of dangers from: UV rays, dry spells described as droughts, smog advisories based on unattainable goals according newly adjusted scales and tolerances. Remember Ozone and Acid Rain? Early explores described the “fog” of Los Angeles California but none of it will be tolerated now. Killer Bees, West Nile hysteria, save the native tree campaigns, predictions of frog extinctions, the list goes on. Fear the unknown.

Educators endorse it because it is safe and intellectually trendy, just plain fun and most of all, easier to teach than falling off a horse. The Sierra Club and the others, supply schools with so-called “educational packages” to “inform” the delicate minds of the young. Fortunately this will ultimately back fire on the global warmers as newer generations doubt, challenge and question as every generation does. We will be looked back upon with humor, like disco. What comes to mind are those old black and white pictures of the teacher in the puffed up dress and winged glasses putting the class through an atomic bomb safety drill. In the future they will look back upon our generation of pierced, tattooed, baggy panted carnival ride operator look-alikes see what sheep minded twerps we were. Count me out of this picture. Are you in or out?

Activists endorse it because it serves as an opportunity for promoting what they view as essential social issues. Smart move, so give them credit!

Religious Leaders endorse it because it too is a religion, with nature being heaven, corporations being sinners, predictions of doom being the judgment day, Rachel Carson and Canada’s David Suzuki as the holy prophets and earth day as the holy day. Just like religion, environmentalism has lots of gullible followers who will easily give up their money.

Joe Blow endorses it because everyone else is. He is bewildered and bombarded with Global Warming fears and most of us have surrendered to the dogma

CO2 and Methane are two natural chemicals that exit our bodies from one of two orifices.

Global warming may or not be caused by transfatty acids, weed killer, gingivitis, red wine, oatmeal and or vitamin E.

Global warming started with the first cave man passing wind.

Polar bears that are stressed and depressed from global warming are now called bi-polar bears.

Maybe America’s Al Gore and Canada’s Doctor David Suzuki should start a chain of tropical resorts in Canada’s melting arctic regions?

If global warming increases storms and therefore wind, couldn’t we tap that energy for wind power generation and live like perfect little green elves for ever and ever?

"And Here Is The Hourly News; “Global Warming is a growing concern say the majority of scientists poled in a special survey that was thoughtfully given to us at no charge but first, here is Suzy Cleavage with your local ski report.....”

Seven year old Kimberly-Catlind Ashleyford of Mother Of Sacred Heart Public School in Misterandmissessauga Ontario Canada pontificates: “I think we still have winters because, like, ah, the arctic is like melting eh and ah, like cold air like sinks eh so the cold air sinks, ya that’s it, it sinks down from the melting north, it falls south like in down south or down to the south eh and makes us cold down here while the rest of the planet is like, melting?”

A Response From The EPA:
Thank you for visiting EPA's Global Warming Site.

We appreciate your feedback and are committed to keeping an open-mind as
we can continue studying this issue.

There have never been predictions (from scientists) for the end of
winter. Predictions have called for a gradual
warming -- ranging from ~2 to 10 degrees F over the next 100 years. The
observed warming rate of the last 20 years has been about .3
degrees/decade or 3 degrees per century -- a bit above the low end of
that forecasted range (but well within it). The warming rate could
increase or decrease in the future, depending on a number of complex
factors (e.g. rate of future emissions growth, environmental policies,

The bottom line is that the effects of warming may not be that apparent
over the period of a decade or two, but should become increasingly
obvious over longer periods. The noticeable changes will likely be
observations that the REALLY cold winters don't occur as frequently not
that there won't, on occasion, be cold winters.

Jason Samenow

Jason Samenow
Climate Analyst
U.S. EPA Office of Atmospheric
Climate Change Division

So much for Marshal Macluen’s predictions
I find it exceptionally interesting when i go to various global warming sites and mention solar activity ( I'm an amature solar astrophysicist and computer programmer) as the dominant mover of global climate that they are quick to say "The sun has no meaningful effect on global warming" My response, oh really? well then, lets turn off the sun and see how cold it gets here in 3 days and then you tell me the sun has no effect on gloabl climate and globalw arming! I usually get called an exxon patsy about that time, which is even funnier to me because I persoanlly hate the oil industry.
Some of the references are to older info and there are no dates attached to the posts, only times, so this is a tune-in check. I'll be back looking for new posts in a couple of days.
An economist calling a NASA scientist a liar... that's humor.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?