Hansen predicted Manhattan flooded by 2000

[lazarus]

Sept 9, 2010 13:08:30 GMT 1 marchesarosa said:

Do we really want an eco-loony in a position like this?

You have yet to provide any credible evidence that he is an 'eco-loony', what ever that is supposed to mean.

Even if he expresses green views, that's just a person opinion which he is entitled to.

His position as a scientist remains if his conclusions are supported by the evidence.

[havelock]

Sept 9, 2010 13:15:00 GMT 1 lazarus said:

...conclusions are supported by the evidence.

Spot on - that is what we're supposed to be discussing here after all.

[marchesarosa]

"His position as a scientist remains if his conclusions are supported by the evidence."
------


But Hansen's predictions re sea-level rise of 80 ft by the year 2000 have NOT been supported by the evidence have they? Or did I miss something?

He stated that if we went on with "business as usual" re CO2 we could expect temp rise of several degrees F and sea level rise of 80 feet as existed 3 million years ago.

Well, mankind has continued with "business as usual" since 1988, haven't we - fossil fuel CO2 accumulating nicely in the atmosphere in a linear fashion - and NOTHING identifiable as an "anthropogenic warming signal" has been seen, has it?

Hansen is a scaremonger and a loony. He should resign. His GISS global dataset is a joke. He is unfit for purpose. This video clip proves it.

[havelock]

Sept 9, 2010 13:39:18 GMT 1 marchesarosa said:

But Hansen's conclusions re sea-level rise of 80 ft by the year 2000 have not been supported by the evidence have they? Or did I miss something?

He stated that if we went on with "business as usual" re CO2 we could expect temp rise of several degrees F and sea level rise of 80 feet.

The point being that he did not make these claims in any scientific paper. In science, the only information that should ever be considered as evidence of anything is that which has been published.

That is the difference.

[marchesarosa]

NOTHING identifiable as an "anthropogenic warming signal" has been seen, has it?

Even the hurricane experts are united in the view (WMO 2010) that no anthropogenic signal is identifiable in the hurricane record.

[marchesarosa]

Are you saying we must treat this man's predictions of climate catastrophe as separate from his science? Why?

What about the "confirmation bias" you are always wittering about? Is Hansen immune?

[havelock]

One of the reasons that peer-review is such a good system is that anyone attempting to produce a scientific paper with confirmation bias will have it pointed out and it will not be allowed to be published.

THAT is one of the reasons that ONLY published material should be taken as evidence of anything.

[marchesarosa]

One of the reasons that peer-review is such a good system is that anyone attempting to produce a scientific paper with confirmation bias will have it pointed out and it will not be allowed to be published.

Fred Pearce did not think so when he wrote this LONG article in the Guardian in February 2010. He identified pal review and attempted intimidation of editors.

"Climate change emails between scientists reveal flaws in peer review
A close reading of the hacked emails exposes the real process of science, its jealousies and tribalism"

www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/02/hacked-climate-emails-flaws-peer-review

By all means have the last word, Havelock, I'm not wasting my time on knocking you down. It's not amusing. It's boring.

[havelock]

I'm sorry - I thought I made it clear that I give no credence to opinion pieces in the media and/or blogs.

Guardian, Telegraph, Sun or Daily Mail - they're still just opinion pieces and this is a science board.

[rsmith7]

havelock,
Well have a look at the science corruption thread for a shining example of environmental "science"

Too many lies old boy.

[havelock]

What part of 'media reports are not science' do you find difficult to understand?

[rsmith7]

Please go to the correct thread after you've read this. Don't add diversionary tactics to evidence fabrication.
It does nothing for your cause.
"Another danger is that coastal systems are highly variable. Adding the problem of acidification on top of their natural variability might push them over tipping points from which they cannot recover, added Burke Hales, an oceanographer at Oregon State University in Corvallis."

A direct quote....
www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/3123/ocean-acidification-impacting-coastal-rivers

[marchesarosa]

So Louise can inform herself.

(What is her connection with Lazarus/Havelock, I wonder? Sounds just like a clone to me.)

[louise]

Hansen has recently clarified that

Reiss asked me to speculate on changes that might happen in New York City in 40 years assuming CO2 doubled in amount

and that Reiss has recently said to him in an e-mail:

“I went back to my book and re-read the interview I had with you. I am embarrassed to say that although the book text is correct, in remembering our original conversation, during a casual phone interview with a Salon magazine reporter in 2001 I was off in years. What I asked you originally at your office window was for a prediction of what Broadway would look like in 40 years, not 20. But when I spoke to the Salon reporter 10 years later ­probably because I’d been watching the predictions come true, I remembered it as a 20 year question.“

So, the context of Reiss' question is 'what will happen in 40 years if CO2 doubles?'

and Hansen's reply should be heard in that context.


climateclash.com/2011/01/27/james-hansen-singing-in-the-rain/

[carnyx]

.... talking about self-negating statements ...

I see that 'havelock' has disappeared after posting this gem!

.... I give no credence to opinion pieces in the media and/or blogs.

.. presumably up his fundamental orifice?