FReepmail me to get on or off
Climategate rundown (extensive)Ping me if you find one I've missed.
Hansen needs to be dragged out in tar and feathers..
Hansen is calling Copenhagan a farce because they are not using his new scheme to extort money from us. He thinks cap and trade will reward Wall Street and not have enough incentives to reduce CO2. He favors a “fee and dividend” plan that charges CO2 emitters and gives that money back to the public depending on their ability to reduce their carbon footprint.
It is his ego and his dogma that is calling Copenhagan a farce
His job is to destroy NASA. Based on his rantings he is sure giving the Goddard Space Org a BAAAD name.
-
-
When was the last time you heard a scientist get hysterical when you asked him to explain Einstein's theory of relativity?
If you ask a scientist why nothing can move faster than the speed of light, he doesn't tell you a terrible story about how koala bears will die if you don't believe the theory is right, does he?
Scientists who are confident and in command of the facts don't need to distort data and duck basic questions about the assumptions that are behind scientific theories.
John Hawkins
bttt
Well, almost everyone.
I want a check for having a piddly carbon footprint. Fork it over!
Paul Pearson of Cardiff University and his international team achieved a breakthrough recently, published four weeks ago in arguably the world's top scientific journal, Nature. . . .
Pearson's work contains a couple of remarkable results.
First the greenhouse atmosphere pre-cooling contained a CO2 concentration of 900 parts per million by volume, or more than three times that of the Earth in pre-industrial days.
Am I reading this wrong, or did Nature actually print something that undercuts AGW? I thought Nature was well and truly in the satchel! The other "contrarian" paper appeared in Energy and Environment, which IIRC is not one of the favored few.
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
The result of their analysis is a CO2-induced amplification factor close to one, which has implications clearly at odds with the earlier IPCC position.... What this means is that the IPCC model for climate sensitivity is not supported by experimental observation on ancient ice ages and recent satellite data.
What a relief...conclusions supported by real data. In my gloomier moods, I wonder how long it'll be before real scientists are smeared out of the field entirely. It's not as hard as it looks if the genuine article is close to retirement age and the imposters are on the verge of taking over the temple...
The audacity and hypocrisy of these batchit crazy people is the stuff of gaping gazes. I just can’t believe the discourse has devolved to this. Science is now consensus. Facts shouted down. Serious questions ridiculed.
Unbelievable.
