Prev: 9-11 Inside Job
Next: what exactly happens when sugar is added to gasoline? When salt is added?
From: Leon on 7 Jun 2010 10:06
The 1988 Senate testimony of James E. Hansen is recorded at:

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Environment/documents/2008/06/23/ClimateChangeHearing1988.pdf

A careful reading of these documents is neccessary to understand the
controversy of AGW. Some comments:

1) While Hansen lectured the learned senators on the "greenhouse
effect" and linked CO2 to global warming, he never mentioned that H2O
is the major infrared active component of the atmosphere.

2) Hansen's temperature projections are faulty.

================================

While Hansen attributed global warming on earth to the CO2 "greenhouse
effect", his Ph.D. research as reported in: "THE ATMOSPHERE AND
SURFACE TEMPERATURE OF VENUS, A DUST INSULATION MODEL":

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1967/1967_Hansen_Matsushima.pdf

used a dust insulation model to explain the temperature of Venus.
During the global cooling of the 1970's Hansen was able to align
himself with 'coolers' and offered an anthropogenic explanation of
cooling following his theory.

Hansen incorrectly concluded that the surface pressure of Venus is
less than 20 bar.

=================================

The global sea ice area 1979 to present is displayed here:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

The daily sea ice area anomaly is shown in red. Note that it is flat.
Warming may be a measured locally but the warming cannot be global
because it is not happening everywhere. Hansen specifically spoke of
"global warming" in his 1988 senate testimony. The only reason that
Hansen spoke of "global warming" and not local, was due to his CO2
greenhouse theory. Hansen now has his fingers on 6000 thermometers.
Only an act of faith would extrapolate local warming to global
warming.

=================================

A reasonable conclusion is that Hansen is not a self deluded, would-be
messiah. He is instead, a self contradictory advocate of a failed
theory and a fraudulent manipulator of numbers.

=================================

Is NASA a failed science organization? They put Hansen into a position
of conflict of interest. How stupid can NASA be? Not that stupid,
Hansen single handedly is responsible for $79 billion+ useless global
warming research.

A reasonable conclusion is that NASA is a social parasite and wastes
taxpayer money willfully.

=================================

From: Desertphile on 7 Jun 2010 13:27
On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 07:06:53 -0700 (PDT), Leon
<trotsky(a)hushmail.com> wrote:

> The 1988 Senate testimony of James E. Hansen is recorded at:
>
> http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Environment/documents/2008/06/23/ClimateChangeHearing1988.pdf
>
> A careful reading of these documents is neccessary to understand the
> controversy of AGW. Some comments:

It isn't a controversy among scientists.


--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
From: Nick on 7 Jun 2010 22:40
On Jun 7, 10:27 am, Desertphile <desertph...(a)invalid-address.net>
wrote

>
> It isn't a controversy among scientists.

Go away. You are not a scientist.
From: Desertphile on 8 Jun 2010 08:50
On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 19:40:44 -0700 (PDT), Nick
<prochemica(a)hushmail.com> wrote:

> On Jun 7, 10:27�am, Desertphile <desertph...(a)invalid-address.net>
> wrote

> > It isn't a controversy among scientists.

> Go away. You are not a scientist.

Go away. AGW is not a conspiracy among scientists.


--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
From: Desertphile on 8 Jun 2010 08:51
On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 19:40:44 -0700 (PDT), Nick
<prochemica(a)hushmail.com> wrote:

> On Jun 7, 10:27�am, Desertphile <desertph...(a)invalid-address.net>
> wrote

> > > It isn't a controversy among scientists.

>> Go away. You are not a scientist.

> Go away. AGW is not a conspiracy among scientists.

Er, nor a controversy among scientists. We won, FOX "News" lost:
get over it.


--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: 9-11 Inside Job
Next: what exactly happens when sugar is added to gasoline? When salt is added?