My Unhappy Life as a Climate Heretic

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Tom B, Dec 3, 2016.

  1. Ricter

    Ricter

    You continue to pound on the Hansen hypothesis, but how many climate scientists today accept that hypothesis "whole cloth" anyway?
     
    #11     Dec 3, 2016
  2. Much of Hansen's work was carried out under the Bush administration and under the auspices of NASA. The Bush cucks were too cowardly to shut him down, which they could have easily done. The other side have no such timidity when their agenda are threatened, as Dr. Pilkie's experiences demonstrate.

    The now accepted tale the Russians were responsible for the Wikileaks exposes of the DNC and Podesta emails rests on a similarly shaky footing, but if they did do it, we owe them a debt of gratitude for exposing these scoundrels.
     
    #12     Dec 3, 2016
  3. Tom B

    Tom B

    The subject of the article is obviously above your pay grade.
     
    #13     Dec 3, 2016
  4. piezoe

    piezoe

    It's is somewhere in the vacinity of 30:70 when only global warming researchers are considered. With ~30 % having bought into the Hypothesis 'whole cloth', and the other 70% having rejected the hypothesis or unsure, with the majority of the 70% in the unsure category. This is the HANSEN HYPOTHESIS: Anthropomorphic CO2 is going to cause catastrophic warming via its greenhouse effect combined with positive feedback. This is the hypothesis behind all of the initiatives to limit CO2 emissions. If the hypothesis is wrong, i.e. if the feedback is not positive, or CO2 rise is not primarily due to anthropomorphic contributions, than an alternative justification for the initiatives must be found, or else there is no justification for the initiatives. Let me add that if feedback is positive, than the origin of CO2 becomes a moot question. Without a tipping point mechanism, however, the assumption of positive feedback is absurd. Positive feedback systems are inherently unstable for obvious reason. Negative feedback is a requirement for stability.

    Everything so far is telling us the feedback is negative and CO2 is a minor player in moderating and stabilizing the Earth's surface temperature.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2016
    #14     Dec 3, 2016
  5. stu

    stu

    ... the rest being somewhat academic :rolleyes:
     
    #15     Dec 3, 2016
  6. java

    java

    Who paid him to say this? "I believe climate change is real and that human emissions of greenhouse gases risk justifying action, including a carbon tax"
     
    #16     Dec 3, 2016
  7. jem

    jem

    Does anyone care about what he believes? We should care about the science and the data.
    But... lets break that statement down...

    He believes in climate change. Yes we all know climate changes... the question is whether man made co2 causes warming or cooling, nothing, or we don't know.

    he believes human emissions risk justifying action?

    what the hell kind of specious sentence is that. it makes almost no sense but... sounds good.
    technically it looks like he is saying emissions risk sanctions not climate change.

    It takes devious skill to write a sentence like that. I would not trust him with anything...
     
    #17     Dec 3, 2016
  8. May be scientist should be left alone debating and researching the matter.
    Whenever, they come to a consensus backed by data, should politicians start to meddle in it.
     
    #18     Dec 5, 2016