Government

‘We Are Wasting Precious Time’: Influential NASA Scientist Urges Government Action on ‘Climate Change’

NASA Scientist James Hansen Releases New Climate Change Study, Says Government Should Take Action

James Hansen explains his research to the Associated Press in New York. (Photo: AP)

(The Blaze/AP) — The relentless heat that has blistered the United States and other parts of the world in recent years is so rare that it can’t be anything but man-made global warming, a top government scientist says.

The research by a man often called the “godfather of global warming” says that the likelihood of such temperatures occurring from the 1950s through the 1980s was rarer than 1 in 300. Now, the odds are closer to 1 in 10, NASA scientist James Hansen claims. He says that statistically, what’s happening is not random or normal, but pure and simple climate change.

“This is not some scientific theory. We are now experiencing scientific fact,” Hansen told The Associated Press in an interview.

(Related: John Kerry: Climate Change ‘as Dangerous’ as a Nuclear Iran)

Hansen is a scientist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and a professor at Columbia University. But he is also a strident activist who has called for government action to curb greenhouse gases for years. While his study was published online Saturday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, it is unlikely to sway opinion among the remaining climate change skeptics.

In a blunt departure from most climate research, Hansen’s study is reportedly based on statistics, rather than the “climate modeling” that is sometimes found to be manipulated.  In the report, the taxpayer-funded scientist blames these three heat waves purely on global warming:

-Last year’s devastating Texas-Oklahoma drought.

-The 2010 heat waves in Russia and the Middle East, which led to thousands of deaths.

-The 2003 European heat wave blamed for tens of thousands of deaths, especially among the elderly in France.

NASA Scientist James Hansen Releases New Climate Change Study, Says Government Should Take Action

James Hansen explains his findings to the Associated Press. (Photo: AP)

Also unique about Hansen‘s survey is that it doesn’t bother with the usual caveats about individual weather events having numerous causes.  In his opinion, something like the Texas-Oklahoma drought was caused by global warming, period.

Extreme weather, Hansen explains, “is happening often enough, over a big enough area that people can see it happening.”

Hansen hopes his new study will shift people’s thinking about climate change and goad governments into action. He wrote an op-ed piece that appeared online Friday in the Washington Post.

“There is still time to act and avoid a worsening climate, but we are wasting precious time,” he wrote.

The science in Hansen’s study is excellent “and reframes the question,” said Andrew Weaver, a climate scientist at the University of Victoria in British Columbia who was a member of the Nobel Prize-winning international panel of climate scientists that issued a series of reports on global warming.

“Rather than say, `Is this because of climate change?‘ That’s the wrong question. What you can say is, `How likely is this to have occurred with the absence of global warming?‘ It’s so extraordinarily unlikely that it has to be due to global warming,” Weaver said.

White House science adviser John Holdren, who co-authored a book that said the government might have to put sterilants in the drinking water to control the population,  praised the paper’s findings in a statement. But he also said it is true that scientists can’t blame single events on global warming: “This work, which finds that extremely hot summers are over 10 times more common than they used to be, reinforces many other lines of evidence showing that climate change is occurring and that it is harmful.”

NASA Scientist James Hansen Releases New Climate Change Study, Says Government Should Take Action

James Hansen takes a moment to think in New York. (Photo: AP)

Skeptical scientist John Christy of the University of Alabama at Huntsville said Hansen shouldn’t have compared recent years to the 1950s-1980s time period because he said that was a quiet time for extremes.

But Granger Morgan, head of engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University, called Hansen’s study “an important next step in what I expect will be a growing set of statistically-based arguments.”

In a 1988 study, Hansen predicted that if greenhouse gas emissions continue, which they have, Washington, D.C., would have about nine days each year of 95 degrees or warmer in the decade of the 2010s. So far this year, with about four more weeks of summer, the city has had 23 days with 95 degrees or hotter temperatures.

Hansen says now he underestimated how bad things would get.

And while he hopes this will spur action including a tax on the burning of fossil fuels, which emit carbon dioxide, a key greenhouse gas, others doubt it.

Science policy expert Roger Pielke Jr. of the University of Colorado said Hansen clearly doesn’t understand social science, thinking a study like his could spur action. Just because something ought to happen, doesn’t mean it will, he said.

In an email, he wrote: “Hansen is pursuing a deeply flawed model of policy change, one that will prove ineffectual and with its most lasting consequence a further politicization of climate science (if that is possible!).”

Comments (472)

1 2 3 ... 11
  • sawbuck
    Posted on August 4, 2012 at 8:34pm

    Ok I’ll play along…What do they want the U.S to do anyway ..? The factories here already have strict EPA guild lines and we don’t have near as many as we use to have at that.
    If anything shouldn’t they be looking at places like China if this is man-made ..yeah …I can just see China conforming to global EPA guild lines..

    Hey Mr. Voodoo scientist …The sun is on a eleven year solar cycle ..And on the eleventh year it peaks and has massive corona ejection…and guess what year it is.
    Yeah …You better hurry and take advantage of this heat wave before next summer, when we cant swim because the pool is so cold it turns our lips blue.. Scientist my butt… More like propaganda pushers.

    Report Post » sawbuck  
    • pissantno.10
      Posted on August 4, 2012 at 9:01pm

      Elisabeth Warren is not going to like this. we should be more like china. and we all no how clean the air is china

      Report Post »  
    • Fatheroftwo
      Posted on August 4, 2012 at 9:10pm

      Interview with a Climate Scientist

      Takes place in a specious office full of impressive Gizmos and Whatzits!!

      Reporter: Tell me Professor, How does the Climate Work??

      Scientist: (rubbing chin, Deeeep thoughtful expression on face); Well sir! It is very Complex!!….(which is the understatement of the Century)……

      After a lengthy discussion involving many references to Temperature, Wind direction, Topology and such things; interspersed with several “Don’t Knows“ and ”Not completely understoods” we get to our final Question…

      Reporter: So! Given all that you have just said, How can you say, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the possible Global Temperature increase is Man-Made??

      Scientist: (sitting back abruptly in his chair with a surprised expression on his face) Well sir, that’s easy!! Because my Computer Models tell me so!!!……cut to the part in that movie with all those Dodo Birds running off a cliff chasing a melon!!!

      Report Post »  
    • watersRpeople
      Posted on August 4, 2012 at 9:16pm

      I’ll play along too. Look my Lord America has begun spinning her wheels and is a desolate house where no man lives – and people neither have understanding. The earth is full and the fields are white for the harvest – thus take out you sickle and reap.

      Report Post »  
    • jzs
      Posted on August 4, 2012 at 9:32pm

      Quote from above: “White House science adviser John Holdren, who co-authored a book that said the government might have to put sterilants in the drinking water to control the population…”

      That‘s of Glenn’s lies: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/29/glenn-beck/glenn-beck-claims-science-czar-john-holdren-propos/

      Pants on fire! Pure BS, recycled here for the suckers who will believe anything.

      I love how the scientifically ignorant claim the record temperatures, record droughts, record incidents of violent, deadly weather events are due to the eleven year cycle of sunspots. If that were true, the Earth would experience record high temperature, record high melting of the poles, record high violent weather events every eleven years. Sorry to have to call you out on your BS, that isn’t true. That’s never been true. Record high temperatures don’t occur every eleven years.

      At this point global warming, something that has been obvious to people who study climate for years, is obvious even to people who watch FOX. What’s pathetic is the denial. The idea that the world is such an incomprehensibly large place, we could possibly dump enough chemicals in the ground to hurt people’s water supply, we couldn’t possibly blot out the sky with pollutants, we couldn’t possibly put so much mercury into to our lakes to make the fish toxic to eat. And we couldn’t possibly effect the climate not matter how much greenhouse gas we put in th

      Report Post » jzs  
    • Hammerdown
      Posted on August 4, 2012 at 9:39pm

      What does he think happened in the U.S. in the ‘30’s with the drought and “Dust Bowl”. Why only go back to the ‘50’s? Because it works in his formula.

      Report Post »  
    • Detroit paperboy
      Posted on August 4, 2012 at 9:41pm

      Amazing, a career government LEECH, urging government action to prevent the sky from falling, who’d a thunk it ??? Gotta keep those funds flowing…….

      Report Post »  
    • sWampy
      Posted on August 4, 2012 at 9:41pm

      Guess someone forgot about the leaked emails, showing where they faked the data, and worked together to lie about people who reported the real data.

      Report Post »  
    • christhefanatic
      Posted on August 4, 2012 at 9:47pm

      Maybe we could put some jet engines on one side of the earth and push into a larger orbit around the sun. That ought to cool things down a bit.

      Report Post »  
    • SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
      Posted on August 4, 2012 at 10:12pm

      @ JZS…while we can say there is a warming trend, we cannot say for sure what the cause is to this point. One of the greatest obstacles is the lack of the signature in the atmosphere known to scientists as the “hotspot” which should be present if anthropogenic warming is the driving force. Do you have an explanation as to why this “hotspot” is not present as all antropogenic warming models predict should be present? Also, while I think all reasonable folks are for taken good care of our planet and being good stewards the issue is to what degree our we altering the atmosphere? There are many complex feedback mechanisms that we do not fully understand. Is our atmorsphere able to cool itself with some of these mechanisms? It has happened before when CO2 levels increased.

      Report Post » SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING  
    • justangry
      Posted on August 4, 2012 at 10:14pm

      JZS, There are people here that believe Global Warming is real. Many aren‘t convinced that it’s man made. I personally don’t know, but wouldn’t be suprised if we did have an impact. The problem is there’s really nothing ethical that can be done to reverse it. All the solutions seem to be UN related, which presents a whole different set of problems. Governments are more responsive and accountable at the local levels and a global government would certianly be a magnet for corruption.

      Report Post » justangry  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on August 4, 2012 at 10:14pm

      Hey JZS,

      Why don’t you post the link again to that cute little 3rd grade science cartoon you bored us with last year.

      I like these better. (Not cartoons……but real science JZS)

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ&feature=youtu.be

      http://www.schnittshow.com/pages/globalwarming.html

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on August 4, 2012 at 10:16pm

      @CHRISTHEFANATIC

      Just feed Algore some beans……..that will do it.

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • hayesstephen
      Posted on August 4, 2012 at 10:16pm

      My goodness will these experts ever give up trying to convince us the weather is changing. Well Doc we know its changing, all we have to do is look out the window. Now you go to China and India and tell them all about it and see how far you get. Get off our backs already. Hey I know lets all just stop driving, turn off the power plants, shut down factories, kill all the cows, stop fishing everywhere ( except of course the Chinese, and India and every other fishing countries won’t of course, just the evil U.S.A.) And all of us commit suicide. There I just solved the global warming, well those other darn counties will still be polluting, but the wicked United States won’t!!

      Report Post »  
    • Stoic one
      Posted on August 4, 2012 at 10:22pm

      CO2 levels in 2011 were the lowest in DECADES! So how does that figure mr. scientist?
      Americans are driving less; obama’s policies have cut factory activity precipitously. So what is next? gulags for the population?.

      Report Post » Stoic one  
    • watersRpeople
      Posted on August 4, 2012 at 10:30pm

      They should definitely do something. I suggest getting rid of electricity and a fringe benefit will be no more brainwashing movies and no mindless sports that simple people can keep their simple minds occupied with.

      Report Post »  
    • watersRpeople
      Posted on August 4, 2012 at 10:35pm

      Kenahkihinen

      Report Post »  
    • sawbuck
      Posted on August 4, 2012 at 10:38pm

      JZS
      Yeah because everyone knows the sun has nothing to do with heating the earth.. Pfttt..

      And what do we have here….Oops…They missed one…
      They forgot to wipe this tidbit off the internet
      ________________________________
      NASA spokeswoman Beth Dickey confirmed with SPACE.com earlier today that the reason UARS is expected to fall early in its re-entry window is because of the sharp uptick in solar activity… “Solar effects from the sun can create an extra drag on satellites in space because they can heat the Earth’s atmosphere, causing it to expand, agency officials have said. “
      ______________________________________

      There you go .. out of their own mouth …
      [ Solar activity from the sun…say it with me…can HEAT the earths atmosphere..]
      Now be quite you might learn something.

      Report Post » sawbuck  
    • watersRpeople
      Posted on August 4, 2012 at 10:41pm

      I knew America was toast when the bear spirit sat on top of the Indian burial mounds.

      Report Post »  
    • SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
      Posted on August 4, 2012 at 10:49pm

      @ SAWBUCK….while you are absolutely right that solar cycles do heat the Earth, they alone are inadequate to explain the rise we have seen. However, this is not anymore proof of anthropogenic global warming than melting ice shelves. The site I am providing is a pro global warming site, however, the explanation about why solar activity alone can not account for the warming that has occurred in recent times is sound. Again, though I stress this is NOT evidence for AGW….thank you…

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-cycles-global-warming.htm

      Report Post » SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING  
    • RepubliCorp
      Posted on August 4, 2012 at 10:52pm

      If only you Tax the evil Rich, then and only then the earth will cool down!

      Report Post » RepubliCorp  
    • HappyStretchedThin
      Posted on August 4, 2012 at 10:54pm

      @JZS
      From your own debunking site quoting the Holdren textbook (he wrote it, he owns it): “The third approach to population limitation is that of involuntary fertility control. Several coercive proposals deserve discussion, mainly because some countries may ultimately have to resort to them unless current trends in birth rates are rapidly reversed by other means.”
      Presenting something as a viable approach has a synonym that you seem to want to play word games with: it’s called a PROPOSAL. You want to claim proposing it be done vs. proposing it be discussed as an option is different. Fine. But Beck’s not wrong to call it a proposal either way, despite your biased debunking site.
      Hansen’s stats do not account for the largest greenhouse gas on the planet by volume-one with one of the highest efficiency factors: water vapor. Simply treating it as a constant puts undue responsibility on CO2 as a greenhouse gas, therefore his proposed solutions are based on partial and distorted facts. Plus, Hammerdown and Christy have a fair point: if his case was really so strong, why stop at the 50s?
      p.s. When you stop distorting the GW skeptics’ point of view, you might be able to argue with it. Otherwise you dismiss, and fail to engage (as usual), and miss the point: people don‘t die because it’s hot, they die because they’re not prosperous enough for air conditioning. America’s clean because we can afford to clean up after our needs are met.

      Report Post » HappyStretchedThin  
    • sillyfreshness
      Posted on August 4, 2012 at 11:06pm

      Ah yes, global warming aka climate change. We haven’t had this much climate change since the 1930s dust bowls and the heat wave of 1936 that makes this year seem cool. Yes, in 1936 man made climate change created the coldest winter on record followed by the hottest summer ever recorded. We had man made climate change going on even back in 1936 when the population was less, there were less cars, there were less factories, there was less world industrialization. 1936 had less of everything, but had the coldest and hottest temps ever recorded.

      So don’t buy this crap about global warming/climate change. Temps bounce around all over the place. 1936 is a good example to examine:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_North_American_heat_wave

      Report Post » sillyfreshness  
    • SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
      Posted on August 4, 2012 at 11:09pm

      While water vapor is by sheer volume the most abundant greenhouse gas it is by no means the most efficient at storing IR (longwave). Methane and CO2 have significant effects on global temp. even though they occur in less abundance than water vapor. However, this still does not argue the point of AGW. It simply demonstrates that there are complex positive and negative feedback mechanisms that effect one another. Thank you…

      Report Post » SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on August 4, 2012 at 11:10pm

      Hey JZS,

      Here is a quote about your favorite source of information….Politifact.

      “PolitiFact, you are fired. You are a mess! You are fired! You are undermining the definition of the word fact in the English language by pretending to it in your name. The English language wants its word back. You are an embarrassment. You sully the reputation of anyone who cites you as an authority on fact-ishness, let alone fact. You are fired.”

      JZS, can you tell me who uttered that statement??????

      If I refrain from telling you, please promise me you won’t get MADNOW.

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • NOT A CRAZY
      Posted on August 4, 2012 at 11:21pm

      Defund NASA, the EPA, NOAA, TSA, NOAA, the IRS and a bunch of other federal agencies. That will get rid of tons of hot air.

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/ Common sense global warming

      Report Post » NOT A CRAZY  
    • stumpy68
      Posted on August 4, 2012 at 11:21pm

      jzs
      did you read the page you posted they call glen beck a liar then quoted this guy’s book
      here is one “”The third approach to population limitation is that of involuntary fertility control. Several coercive proposals deserve discussion, mainly because some countries may ultimately have to resort to them unless current trends in birth rates are rapidly reversed by other means. …
      ” he may not be actively advocating such measures but is considering them as viable options.

      Report Post » stumpy68  
    • Constantine Ivanov
      Posted on August 4, 2012 at 11:29pm

      “What do they want the U.S to do anyway ..?” you asked.
      Well, the answer crystal clear and simple:
      Kill all humans on the Earth (use nukes and leave one for the throwers), and it will be no man-made global warming anymore.
      The Earth will be saved…as long as the Sun doesn’t have another one nuclear outburst and the next Sun-made Global Warming begins… again.
      Oh God, how I love scientists!

      Report Post » Constantine Ivanov  
    • lowerclassrepublican
      Posted on August 4, 2012 at 11:31pm

      JZS You do understand they are talking about a suns year and not ours right!

      Report Post »  
    • SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
      Posted on August 4, 2012 at 11:31pm

      The mechanism in simple terms of CO2 and Methane increasing global temp. lie in their ability to retain greater amounts of IR at the surface thus increasing surface temps and CO2 and Methane are stored in ocean water so when temps rise evaporation increases (CO2 and Methane are stored in the ocean as well as the atmosphere) this then creates a positive forcing that can accelarate the warming trend by increasing exponentially CO2 and meethane levels if it were not for negative feedback mechanims like increased cloud cover and ocean heat transfer. Thank you…

      Report Post » SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING  
    • HappyStretchedThin
      Posted on August 4, 2012 at 11:58pm

      @Hippo,
      TOTALLY appreciate the facts and hard science. It challenged me to look it up. For anyone technically inclined, this site explains it nicely (but in complete jargon for the uninitiated):
      http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/radiativeff2.htm
      Two other gas related points:
      1. While CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising, the growth in its greenhouse effect in the long run isn’t alarming, since CO2 is also plant food and therefore encourages growth in the mechanism for its own scrubbing from the atmosphere. You gotta love God’s homeostatic design for the whole planet.
      2. Water vapor not only contributes more to the greenhouse effect than other gases in the aggregate, but it also has the wonderful property of being able to change color in concentration at certain temperatures under certain atmospheric conditions. These fantastic things called clouds are reflective enough for Hansen’s own team to measure their effect at reducing the amount of solar energy stored in the atmosphere at “wildcard” levels, which means they have no idea whether or not the reflectivity change from heating the oceans can offset the heat trapped, which is kind of a big deal for people claiming the debate’s over. Again, gotta love God’s planetary homeostasis designs.

      Report Post » HappyStretchedThin  
    • tvstaff
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 12:15am

      Communists they are!

      Report Post »  
    • jzs
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 12:39am

      HappyStretchedThin, why do you even bother defending a lie that has been completely debunked? No, when an author discusses ideas that are out there at the time (30 years ago) in order to shoot them down, that doesn’t mean that those ideas, that he presents in order to dispose of them, are ideas that he supports. Come on. Authors commonly present ideas to explain why they disagree with them. You get that don’t you? People present an opinion they disagree with so that they can explain why they disagree. You‘re not so stupid that can’t understand that. Or maybe your smart enough to take a statement, that an author presented only in order to show it false, and claim that was actually the authors opinion. If so, you might have a career at FOX.

      Report Post » jzs  
    • HappyStretchedThin
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 12:55am

      @JZS,
      Holdren wrote a textbook with Paul Ehrlich! The population bomb guy! They most certainly DO believe that extreme and coercive measures “may ultimately have to be taken”, as they CLEARLY stated in their TEXTBOOK.
      As usual, you’re the one twisting and misrepresenting…(And then getting all huffy when your own language backfires on you.)
      Of COURSE Holdren doesn’t ADVOCATE for those solutions NOW, but you’re just not convincing when you claim their own words “some countries may ultimately have to resort to them” somehow equal DISAGREEMENT. I refer you to your nearest dictionary and remedial reading course for a correction of your malliteracy.
      p.s. the Erhlichs STILL believe human population is a problem that REQUIRES govt force as a solution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._Ehrlich

      Report Post » HappyStretchedThin  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 1:46am

      JZS,

      Two posts from you, and two backhanded slams at a network and it’s viewers.

      Do you think that kind of Encinomish behavior lends to your credibility?

      Or is it a requirement?

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • jzs
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 2:11am

      HappyStretchedThin, you are still defending one of Beck’s lies:

      http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/29/glenn-beck/glenn-beck-claims-science-czar-john-holdren-propos/

      Someone described an idea in order to order to explain why they disagree with that idea. You’re saying, it seems that a when someone says they disagree with idea that they, therefore, support that idea.

      Happy, when you say you don’t support an idea, that doesn’t mean you support it. That means you don’t support it. If you are saying black is white, north is south, and up is down, I’m not sure how to respond to you.

      Report Post » jzs  
    • Crazy-Horse
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 2:40am

      @HappyStretchedThin

      I have been given special permission from JZS to share this information on this website.

      Enjoy! This is who you are dealing with.

      http://www.cdemuandes.cl/images/cv-jzs.pdf

      Report Post » Crazy-Horse  
    • Crazy-Horse
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 3:12am

      @jzs

      Thank you for participating in your first -spin out over the top- and I am not of American Indian heritage like you previously suggested.

      http://www.cdemuandes.cl/images/cv-jzs.pdf

      Report Post » Crazy-Horse  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 3:17am

      JZS,

      The fact that Politifact is not credible withstanding, Beck did not say Holdren “advocated” for it, he said “proposed” it.

      JZS, does the following excerpt bother you at all……..just the fact that they even thought to write it?

      “To date, there has been no serious attempt in Western countries to use laws to control excessive population growth, although there exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated. For example, under the United States Constitution, effective population-control programs could be enacted under the clauses that empower Congress to appropriate funds to provide for the general welfare and to regulate commerce, or under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Such laws constitutionally could be very broad. Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society. Few today consider the situation in the United States serious enough to justify compulsion, however.”

      Few TODAY consider it they said. And how long ago was that? Still no boom.
      The boom scare was faulty science JZS.
      What if it had been determined back then that the boom science debate was settled, and that immediate measures would have to have been taken?
      Wow, sounds familiar, huht?

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • ugottabekidding
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 3:27am

      They want to tax your air. The people behind all this BS (Al Gore, et al) want to get richer while they control you. Carbon exchanges. They should be jailed for conspiracy to commit fraud on the world. Of course that would include some of the people in the white house.

      Report Post » ugottabekidding  
    • Crazy-Horse
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 3:33am

      @Therightsofbilly

      It appears that James Hansen‘s blackboard is more scientific than JZS’s. But both are equally wrong. LMAO
      Have you seen this yet? http://www.cdemuandes.cl/images/cv-jzs.pdf

      Report Post » Crazy-Horse  
    • Crazy-Horse
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 3:40am

      @ugottabekidding

      Wanna see a picture of jzs? http://www.cdemuandes.cl/images/cv-jzs.pdf

      Report Post » Crazy-Horse  
    • BryanB
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 4:23am

      And from the year 1000 AD to Around 1300 AD, it was 20 degrees warmer then it is today.

      There where no Cars, Factories, Oil Refineries, Fossil Fuels and a lot less People.

      So how did that happen and last 300 years ?????

      Report Post » BryanB  
    • BehindBlueEyes
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 6:17am

      @FATHEROFTWO
      Thanks for the good laugh.
      Love those props he has, especially the burning cube (that’s scary).

      Report Post » BehindBlueEyes  
    • nzkiwi
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 7:08am

      JZS

      Is that really you?

      If so, I’m impressed with your scholastic credentials even if I frequently disagree with you.

      Report Post »  
    • BehindBlueEyes
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 7:25am

      @CRAZY-HORSE
      That’s an impressive picture of Professor JZS writing profound statements on a blackboard. I’m sure it was carefully selected to impress the audience.

      Hey JZS get lost we don’t outsiders telling us Americans how to run our country.

      Report Post » BehindBlueEyes  
    • historyguy48
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 7:26am

      Comrade JZS! How many times must I ask to to learn real, actual, history before you comment.
      Well, once again, what you don’t know is dangerous to American society because it is an outright lie and distortion of the truth.
      First, the Earth gets warmer, the Earth gets cooler. This cycle has repeated endlessly ever since the planet first gained it’s atmosphere.
      Second, the “global warming” threat was first exposed to all of mankind by two of your near, and dear, friends, although you have undoubtedly never read any of their books. Your friends? Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, as a good way to create fear and to promote certain social theories of theirs.
      Third, in a world just chock full of “socialists” dependent upon “socialists” for their funding why would you think that “scientific consensus” would be any different? Also, socialist, national socialist, progressive, liberal, are all terms related to the theories of the two men in section 2.
      Fourth, we have been actually keeping records since, roughly, 1855, in the northern hemisphere, which correlates nicely with the end of the Maunder Minimum, our last minor Ice Age. In 1815, there was worldwide famine in the northern hemisphere because of crop failure brought on by the “year without a summer”.
      Fifth, unlike good little mindless socialist robots who will believe whatever nonsense those in “authority” spout, some of us have, and use, their brains. Global warming isn’t about what you think it is, it is onl

      Report Post » historyguy48  
    • nzkiwi
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 7:55am

      @ JZS

      Don’t get lost.

      Many of us are quite happy to have you here. Even Billy, I suspect. What would Billy do if he didn’t have you to tangle with, allowing the rest of us to chomp our popcorn and enjoy the fireworks.

      Seriously, though, even though you are seldom agreed with, you sometimes make some thought-provoking points.

      Report Post »  
    • HappyStretchedThin
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 7:55am

      @JZS,
      “Someone described an idea in order to order to explain why they disagree with that idea.”

      No, they did not. That‘s YOU putting an idea they don’t support into their mouths. The textbook quotes, which I read (and apparently you haven’t) present problems with each idea, explain why they are politically unpalatable and difficult to implement, but STILL INSIST that we may have to resort to them “ultimately”.

      Doubling down on your own mischaracterization doesn’t convince anyone.

      p.s. Rational people don’t even ENTERTAIN the idea of coercive population control because they recognize the idea as EVIL (not just merely as being problematic to implement), therefore they never have to go back on what they wrote and claim they never supported the idea.

      Report Post » HappyStretchedThin  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 9:07am

      jzs

      People like Holdren are disturbing. They are the same type of people who from an Ivory Tower propose that people be forced to marry people of other races if they want to get a marriage license. I am married to a person of another race but that was by choice not be a government dictate.

      They couch their desires in a scholarly format for purposes of denial if their trial balloon gets shot down. But they mean to do one of the things they propose if they get sufficient power.

      http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/

      http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/29/glenn-beck/glenn-beck-claims-science-czar-john-holdren-propos/

      You are as odious as Holdren

      Report Post »  
    • poorrichard09
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 9:21am

      Must…implement….agenda21….or…we’ll…all….die!

      Report Post »  
    • SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 9:25am

      @ HAPPY….While I doubt anyone disagrees with your statement that water vapor is the most abundant and therefore the greatest effect on global warming CO2 and Methane, due to their ability to retain longwave IR at 6 to 10 times water vapor rate they are not negligble and can effect the overall temp globally with change sin their concentration, However, as you stated this does not AGW prove. There are many negative and positive feedback mechanisms. Otherwise I appreciate your link I have about 200 different ones I have added to it form research to explanation sites. Thank you….

      Report Post » SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING  
    • Conkuur
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 9:30am

      It’s easy what they want to to about it “Agenda 21” read up on it it is real and this is an avenue they are trying to use. Why is it when it is snowy and cold they say that that is not a argument against global warming and we are stupid. Yet when it is a hot Summer they use the same argument but its valid for global warming?

      Report Post » Conkuur  
    • mecanic
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 9:58am

      @jzs h!thead, your an IDIOT and LIAR just like hanson. just go away LIBRATARD, WE DON’T CARE ABOUT YOU OR YOUR LIES.

      Report Post » mecanic  
    • NancyBee
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 10:15am

      I think God has his own plans for the earth………..

      Report Post » NancyBee  
    • oyster0302
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 10:24am

      Just UN Agenda 21 BULLSHIP

      Report Post »  
    • Individualism
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 10:26am

      global warming is a possibility right now but its the private sector that needs to act and create non gas vehicles of all sizes and find sources of power that are clean and cheap.

      Report Post » Individualism  
    • The Gooch
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 11:37am

      JZS,
      Your defense (or rather, reinterpretation of your chosen tangent,,, nice, logic argument by the way, “Look over here and allow me to remind you all of how stupid and gullible you are.”) amounts to mental gymnastics and semantic shenanigans.

      http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/

      I see your interpretation and minimization and counter with the opposing interpretation that indicates Holdren and Co. voiced the requisite queasiness in their ilustratated proposals/suggestions/ponderings/meanderings (what term is most appropriate to avoid or deny ownership?), but established that, regardless of any feelings of uneasiness, the measures in the book SHOULD be considered as necessary steps to address a Malthusian doomsday clock. Hell, it seems one of the lamentations is that the technology/sciense of the day would not allow for indiscriminate sterilzation (which would be more fair as you don’t focus on minorities… which is one point made for moral consideration of this approach to pop. control).
      Your argument amounts to:
      1. Any claim against this ‘science’ is ludicrous based on an article defending one of its prophets w/which you agree.
      2. Since you’re stupid, your opinion doesn’t matter.
      3. If we can affect a single species or water source, surely we can kill the planet. Wow. That alone is a logic argument that amounts to ridiculous a “butterfly effect” approach to science. “If a cow farts in India, somewhere a polar bear is dying.” Funny.

      Report Post »  
    • The Gooch
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 12:00pm

      JZS,
      Let me preface this by saying I used to be one of those know-it-all progressives who knew who should be breeding and who should not… and I could put forth what may or may not have been considered a cogent argument as to why my “proposals/suggestions” were based on sound reasoning. Holdren & Co.’s text and others like it are what fueled my misanthropic BS.
      I‘m not sure what you’re trying to prove here other than you don’t agree with word choice and individual interpration some parties have regarding Holdren & Co.’s text. You usually only see this type of parsing with religious texts. Telling….
      Well, I suppose you deserve some respect for sticking to your guns. Hell, you even link to that same article again. Well, allow me to retort:

      http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/

      Here‘s my stance on this entire matter based on the earth’s history beyond the appearance or interference of man: The Earth will kill us before we ever destroy it. I agree we should be good stewards, but the man-caused climate change zealots are often as unreasonable and foolish as primitives who felt the need to throw virgins into volcanoes or rip the hearts from human beings to appease the sun gods. And many just see this ‘science’ as another tool to be used to control behavior. Yeah. That’s novel.
      Believe as you will; I believe there are climate change proponents who are driven by ideology and a desire to step on the undesirables. ‘Ware any man w/THE ANSWER…

      Report Post »  
    • HKS
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 12:18pm

      Climate change has always existed, Compared over thousands of years there is no change, it’s only the small window these fools are trying to use to make a case for you to give them your money to fix it, like you caused it. Idiots, for crying out loud Illinois was once in the tropics and there‘s’ a ton of archaeology proof to the facts, but these guys like most liberals don’t let facts get in the way of a good plan to steal your money.

      Report Post » HKS  
    • rwgkarma
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 12:20pm

      The great ice age, using his logic, was caused because the world had not industrialized.

      Report Post » rwgkarma  
    • The Gooch
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 12:56pm

      To stay on topic, it‘s important to always remember all of Hansen’s work comes down to him being able to use is it to assert this one statement:
      “There is still time to act and avoid a worsening climate, but we are wasting precious time.”
      Okay? What is it you “propose/suggest”? Therein lies the rub. What is it “we” should do, not do or be ready to subject ourselves to? It seems proposals and suggestions would follow. Okay. If Hansen is the herald, who is the arbiter? And what does he or she propose or suggest? And let’s be honest; the call is for mandates and legislation, not proposals and suggestions.

      Report Post »  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 1:03pm

      @NZKIWI

      True, I do enjoy my verbal fencing with JZS, but I would survive without him.

      I would temporarily table my “foil” (1. a blunt sword with a button at the end, used in the sport of fencing),…………

      And find another “foil” (2. a dull person or thing against which someone or something else seems brighter)

      Sorry……..couldn’t resist. :o)

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • lukerw
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 1:31pm

      OMG… NASA discovers that the Weather changes! We are Wasting Money paying these people!

      Report Post » lukerw  
    • jzs
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 1:40pm

      HappyStretchedThin says that when a person states outright that they don’t believe something, then they actually must believe it. When an author says he does not support forced birth control, the must really support it, otherwise they wouldn’t even talk about it. With logic like that you can believe anything.

      historyguy48 says Karl Marx first proposed global warming. Sure he did historyguy! I think maybe you should change your user name to hystericalguy48.

      The Gooch complains about “climate change zealots,” by which he must mean the 99% of all climate scientists. Sure, no way humans could pollute the environment or poison the water supply, and there’s no way, no matter how much CO2 we pump into the atmosphere, we’ll never become another Venus, with surface temperatures hot enough to melt lead.

      Walkabout says the liberals want to force people marry outside their race. Sure. That’s always been a platform of the Democratic party. There are treatments for paranoia ya know.

      Wow, Karl Marx invented climate change, clouds are keeping the Earth from warming (except, you know, lately), liberals are forcing intermarriage of races, saying you don’t support something means you support it. Nice crowd we have here! Yes, black is white and up means down. And all the studies linking extreme weather to climate change are all fabricated out of thin air to get grants from EXXON.

      Report Post » jzs  
    • SELECT
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 1:42pm

      I’m with sawbuck!

      Report Post »  
    • SELECT
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 1:49pm

      ATJXS – Record high temperatures don’t occur every eleven years.
      YOU ARE CORRECT. THEY OCCUR RANDOMLY. WHEN I WAS FIVE OR SIX YEARS OLD, THE TEMPERATURE IN TN WOULD BE OVER 100* IN THE SUMMER TIME. JUST WHAT IN YOUR BRILLIANCE CAUSED THAT? OH YEAH, THAT WAS IN 1945 OR 46.
      GO BACK TO SLEEP.

      Report Post »  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 1:56pm

      JZS says:
      “And all the studies linking extreme weather to climate change are all fabricated out of thin air to get grants from EXXON”

      Hey JZS,

      No, not “thin” air……they are fabricated out of “warm” air………..or out of “icy cold air” air……..but most certainly not out of thin air.

      It all depends on if you listen to what the brilliant scientists say today, or if you listen to what they said in 1973.

      Brrrrrrrrrr

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 2:01pm

      Ooooops,

      Looks like I made an Airor……..one extra air in there.

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 2:12pm

      @ JZS…I’m really interested to engage you on this topic. Not really interested in name calling or personal jabs. I know the science quite well in my opinion. While there are certainly scientists that know more than either of us combined on both sides of the fence I would take issue with you that 99% are on the positive AGW side or position. Nonetheless, arguing the validity based on majority opinons is in itself a fallacious foundation upon which to build any argument. I would like your opinion on why the “hotspot” is not present in the atmosphere like it should be according to all AGW models I am aware of? Since AGW does have a fingerprint in the atmosphere over regular mechanisms of warming and cooling it is measurable and directly testable, yet it is not there as it should be. I have yet to see any research that explains this observed phenomenon. Do you have any opinon or answer on this potentially important discrepency between predictive models of AGW and observed reality using satellite measurements? Thank you ahead….

      Report Post » SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING  
    • Linda75
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 2:13pm

      Right on !! And if there was global warming due to carbon dioxide because of all the fossil fuels how about the massive population on planet earth we all breath out carbon dioxide! What a bunch of befuddled buffoons these scientists are!!! And what about the green grass found under all the ice in Greenland before man was even using fossil fuel, hello it’s under ice now how could that be,

      Report Post »  
    • The Gooch
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 2:32pm

      JZS,
      Dude, again with the logic argument(s) & ad hominem attacks? I’ll readily admit I possess a contrarian streak, but you insinuate I don’t believe in sound environmental policy in my challenge to those I unapologetically term zealots.
      Let me put my experience with environmental bugaboos in perspective. When I was in elementary school, students received a periodical known as The Weekly Reader. I remember acid rain being sold as the environmental crisis of the day. We were literally melting our world and destroying our waters. Now, it was evident there was a problem, but there were solutions that mattered & rank oppertunism. It appears that some 30 years later, acid rain is passé. However, I recall NOAA taking a very grim if not fatalistic stance on this matter.
      I actually believe we, as individuals, are very lazy and egocentric in our approach to environmental issues. Between “the do as I say, not as I do crowd” (i.e., most elites and prophets… Al Gore for one) & the NIMBY crowd, it appears most folks believe it is others who must sacrifice & adapt… but never the ‘light bringers’, the govt. or those who are the ‘well-to-do’.
      I spend several hours out of my year picking up others’ garbage. I don’t need a medal & I don’t need govt. breathing down my back; it would seem the right thing to do. I note your passion, but challenge your dismissiveness and ideology. You’re “right” & all others must comply? Um… no, it’s not that simple.

      Report Post »  
    • mdleon
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 2:36pm

      Yep, I agree. Well that settles it. We can’t buy anything from China until they clean-up their wide of the planet. If they don’t like it, then Obama will have to stop borrowing trillions of more debt.

      Report Post »  
    • The Gooch
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 2:45pm

      JZS,
      For all of your indignation, you continue to avoid the very concern voiced by Hansen.
      “There is still time to act and avoid a worsening climate, but we are wasting precious time.”
      These forums are supposed to encourage opinion, and, at best, promote edification.
      You seem to be skirting the very man of the hour (Hansen) by focusing on a red herring (Holdren). If you agree with Hansen, then what next? Is that more difficult or unappealing to address than just calling folks names and questioning reading ability (i.e., intelligence)?
      Pray tell, what does this all mean other than an endless string of “Oh, yeah, well…” comments?

      Report Post »  
    • SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 2:48pm

      @ LINDA….the CO2 we breathe out is part of an ongoing cycle of O2 and CO2 and does not therefore give a net gain of CO2. Combustion on the other hand does add CO2 to the atmosphere for a net gain. I am NOT a proponent of AGW but if we are to argue against it we must be familiar with the science. If it was as easy as you just stated it would have been defeated a long time ago as junk science. For all those who don’t believe in AGW, like myself, please don’t make the mistake that there is no scientific evidence that could support the conclusion of AGW. There is, however, I do not believe it is the most likely conclusion because it does not factor in a number of other effects, nor does it demonstrate that the negative feedback mechanisms that control global temps could not make adjustments. Thank you….

      Report Post » SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING  
    • 1TrueOne55
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 2:51pm

      @JZS:
      STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES!!!

      And these same “Climatologists” were saying in the 20th Century that New York would be under a mile high Glacier because it was getting colder at an alarming rate. And we lived through that with no harm.

      And if you talk to a weather man on the west coast and ask him what is “El Nino” or “La Nina”, they are Ten to Eleven year cycles of Ocean warming that creates oddball weather patterns. And those who are denying the worst are those same scientists that claim that common sense is useless against a future prediction from the creators of “SKY NET”…

      Computers can only compute what information their HUMAN minders input into their tiny little brains/CPU. The Humans even tell them how to think so it is no great leap to believe that just because a computer spit out some result that it is even remotely true.

      YOU CAN NOT PREDICT THE FUTURE WITH COMPUTERS!!!

      Report Post » 1TrueOne55  
    • HappyStretchedThin
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 2:53pm

      @JZS,
      No silly, you’re apparently incapable of reading for understanding.
      My point is that when a politician claims he never supported something which his own published language shows he did, he’s lying. Which makes you the rube.
      It’s not about spin, either, because words mean things, and his words in the textbook do NOT add up to disagreement as your consistent malliteracy claims they do. The only possible conclusion a neutral observer can draw from the language in the textbook is that Holdren entertained the idea of coercive population control. You can’t respond–but not because I’m distorting that reality, rather because you are persistently refusing delivery on facts.
      p.s. About clouds. I’m not making this up. Hansen’s own team over at NASA put this together. The reflectivity explanation occurs around 2:30-3:30. This presentation is NOT friendly to AGW skeptics like me, and yet it STILL shows I’m right. As heat evaporates more water vapor, more clouds form reflecting more energy harmlessly back out into space. Hansen’s team is desperately working to show its impact is not enough, but the data don’t support that conclusion yet.
      http://www.hulu.com/watch/139248
      @Gooch
      You’re a solid rhetorician, my friend: impressive logic and word-smithing!
      @Hippo
      If CO2 is < 0.03% of atmosphere, and does 6-10x the index, its significance is still overrated, no? Besides that it's heavy and hugs the ground where greenhousing is less effective. Thanks for the discussion!

      Report Post » HappyStretchedThin  
    • SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 3:31pm

      @ HAPPY…the hard science as I understand it is this: Sunlight passes through the atmosphere as shortwave radiation as the earth absorbs the heat it reradiates it as longwave or infrared radiation (IR). The outgoing IR is absorbed by greenhouse gases (including water vapor, methane, CO2 and other more minor ones), this heats the atmosphere and is reradiated in ALL directions. Some of this heat reaches its way back to the surface of the earth thus increasing the positive feedback mechanism mentioned earlier, which both increases water vapor as well as CO2 and methane in a positive loop fashion. The other thing to keep in mind is that water vapor is a very short lived greenhouse gas and falls back to earth quickly, where as CO2 and methane are very long lived, which has a measuable effect of warming the atmosphere. Even though water vapor’s concentration is greater because CO2 and methane trap and hold much more IR relative to their concentrations for much longer periods of time than water vapor it does have an effect on atmospheric temp. While directly adding CO2 has a relatively weak effect to increase temp (doubling the CO2 of itself will on increase temp about 1 deg C), however it is the feedback mechanisms that are the amplifiers of the warming and the positive loop effect that it has that makes CO2 and methane significant greenhouse gases. Thanks HAPPY..let me know if my understanding is wrong…

      Report Post » SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING  
    • SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 3:45pm

      @ HAPPY…this was found in the link you provided earlier which would also agree with my assertion of CO2 adding to atmospheric warming…… Until the absorption spectra of the two gases were measured accurately it was believed that carbon dioxide did not absorb any radiation that was not absorbed by water vapor. If there were complete overlap of the spectra there would be no significant role for the miniscule amount of carbon dioxide in the air to have a role in atmospheric warming. The non-overlapping spectral band for carbon dioxide was not discovered until about the early 1950′s. Water vapor and carbon dioxide are both greenhouse gas but carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas with a difference…….Then it shows a graph showing the nonoverlap of water vapor and CO2….Thanks again….

      Report Post » SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING  
    • Ghostmaker
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 4:08pm

      All we need do is the following:

      First tax the heck out of fossil fuels this will cause a necessary raise in prices.
      Then with that money we redistribute the tax through the UN to third world countries.
      In the main time we live with power outages and 300% increases in electricity and other carbon based fuels.
      Then America becomes a great third world country. As we all know China will follow all the rules of the UN.
      Then we can eliminate all CO2 in the atmosphere. This will of course just kill all plant life.
      Mass starvation will hit the planet so we now get what they really want a massive decrease in the population.

      CO2 is plant food.

      Report Post » Ghostmaker  
    • 4truth2all
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 4:48pm

      Yo JZS:

      I think it’s partly your fault … you sure seem to heat up the “atmosphere” round here.

      Report Post »  
    • auhunter
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 6:11pm

      I agree with you. A couple of points: 1 There’s an old adage in the computer world “garbage in garbage out” or as Einstein once said “Insanity – Doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results”. As I recall many years ago there was what was called the “dust-bowl” affecting Oklahoma and the mid-west. Since there were way less people, factories, and cars, was that also man made or just a normal 50 or 100 year weather phenomenon?

      Report Post »  
    • t00nces2
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 6:34pm

      So, they were right! We ARE heading to another ice age??!!

      Report Post »  
    • Fenrirsulfr
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 7:01pm

      Exactly right!
      Do these people not realize that the earth is heated by the sun? And do they also not recall the recent massive solar flares?
      Perhaps the U.N. will intervene with a strongly worded memo to the sun.

      Report Post » Fenrirsulfr  
    • Amarath01
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 7:04pm

      Shhhh don’t tell them about the freezing winter most of Europe had. Pick and chose data points is what these people do.

      Report Post »  
    • SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 7:40pm

      The sun is not responsible for recent warming trends. This is not the right argument to make regarding the claim of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Please, please, please if you are going to disagree make sure you have an understanding of the science. I’m not trying to be arrogant or confrontational but when we make arguments that are not rooted in science or scientific principles we give ground to those who will then use our statements against us to discredit any objections. I am NOT someone who believs in the alarmism of AGW, I believe in feedback mechanisms that make adjustments to our global temperatures. However, there are several facts. CO2 does increase atmospheric temperatures, the earth has warmed in recent decades, humans increase overall CO2 in the environment/ocean cycle. However, there are many negative feedback mechnisms that decrease atmospheric sensitivity to CO2. I believe the collective data bears this out. Thank you and again please don’t take this as arrogance. Educate yourself with your position and the AGW positions. Below are 2 good sites, one for AGW and one against. Thank you…

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/ (for AGW)

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/01/rebuttal-to-the-skeptical-science-crux-of-a-core/
      (against AGW)

      another good site is called Real Science and argues against AGW…….Thank you…

      Report Post » SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING  
    • Liberals Are Pseudo Enlightened Social Intellectuals
      Posted on August 6, 2012 at 2:53am

      @SLEAZYHIPPOS ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
      I am confused over your citing that combustion is a contributor to CO2 levels. I always understood combustion to produce CO, not CO2. Also, the idea that CO2 is somehow dissolved in our oceans? CO2 must be either under pressure or at temperatures below 40deg F in order to stay dissolved in water. As a liquid, it has a very low boiling point; therefore, it is almost always in a gaseous state. How can it be trapped on H2O? Last question. Whatever happened to the battle cry of the environmental movement that CFC’s, HFC’s et. al. were the cause of ozone depletion thereby causing global warming. I am skeptical at the coincidence that once CFC’s were eradicated, a “new” more proliferating gas was considered to be the cause.

      @ JZS – you befuddle me. Intellectually you are learned and well versed. You remind me of many musicians I auditioned. Mechanically, they could read music with the best, but they had no flow and therefore no soul. It is not enough to read and regurgitate, to participate you must also analyze, dissect and reach a conclusion that is truly your own. Dig deeper. Be a philosopher – a great thinker. Black and white may win the argument in a courtroom or a debate; but in the “real” world such thought process is linear and transparent.

      Report Post » Liberals Are Pseudo Enlightened Social Intellectuals  
    • Amarath01
      Posted on August 6, 2012 at 8:17am

      @ liberal are psu..

      Generally:
      Some CO is often produced by combustion, but its main result is WATER (H2O) in the case of most carbon based materials CO2 (and h2o) is as common as water.

      Oceans absorb co2 its not in a liquid form its dissolved in liquid. It does this often by being in a state of bicarbonate ion form and some carbonate ion form. The absorption is argued by some to be largely of bicarb form and thus utilizing existing carbonate form from the oceans having a “CAP”, but is the ocean absorbs bicarb and there is a lack of carbonate to stabilize it will “pull” /push in carbonate also, as is the law of molecules diffusion.

      This is simplified and generalized so take it as such but does represent the current activities (and is not pro or anti Climate Change).

      Report Post »  
    • SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
      Posted on August 6, 2012 at 8:53am

      @ LIBERALS…..What I meant was burning of fossil fuels (typically in a combustion type engine mainly) does add CO2 to the environement. Forgive me if my shorthand was confusing.

      http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2012/03/06/csfe-co2-from-burning-fossil-fuels/

      As far as the CO2 in the oceans you are simply mistaken my friend.

      http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Bi-Ca/Carbon-Dioxide-in-the-Ocean-and-Atmosphere.html

      Thank you for your questions…..

      Report Post » SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING  
    • SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
      Posted on August 6, 2012 at 9:08am

      @ LIBERALS……my understanding is that CFCs contribute very little to the overall effect with little to no amplification effect. Since 1995 the ozone has not depleted yet global temps have risen some. Don’t get me wrong I am NOT a proponent of AGW and alarmism. I just want us who are not to make arguments rooted in accpeted science rather than spout opinion that discredits us from being able to argue real facts scientifically. Thank you….

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/CFCs-global-warming.htm

      Report Post » SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING  
    • teddie888
      Posted on August 6, 2012 at 9:11am

      Scientist aren’t all what people think they are. Most declare something , then try & prove it. Final word: Hockey Stick theory was false

      Report Post »  
    • SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
      Posted on August 6, 2012 at 9:23am

      @ TEDEDIE….spot on my friend. Many believe scientist to be objective when it comes to evaluating evidence. This is not the case in most instances and usually the more vocal a person is the less objective they are. They have a predetermined conclusion and then extrapolate and interpret data to fit their presupposition. Thank you ….

      Report Post » SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING  
    • mensa141
      Posted on August 6, 2012 at 10:06am

      I agree with Sawbuck on this one. Just what is it that they want to do about it besides tax the crap out of us? That is all I’ve read for correction. From the president on down it is “tax the crap out of carbon” and redistribute the money to third world countries. Even third world countries are complaining about not getting the promised money at the UN. So is taxing the crap out of us going to cure global warming? How? I and many others want to know the answer.

      Report Post »  
    • Thatsitivehadenough
      Posted on August 6, 2012 at 10:17am

      I’d bet $20.00 if you investigate his life and his past associates, etc, you’ll find a bunch of communists there. Why? Because communists are expected to go out and push the agenda, no matter what. When a NASA scientist gets arrested at radical environmentalist protests, it’s time to stop taking him seriously. He’s not the be all and the end all. I‘d bet he’s a fellow traveler or a sympathizer. Otherwise, he might even be KGB.

      Report Post » Thatsitivehadenough  
    • johnjamison
      Posted on August 6, 2012 at 10:53am

      So NASA scientist is trying to carve a new position for himself in the NWO because NASA government funding will soon be nada zero nothing. By backing useless unproven science based on provable flawwed models he thinks he’ll secure a position. More cronism from the left. Why did he stop is data comparison in the 50‘s HINT THE GREAT DUST BOWL AND HEAT WAVE OF THE 1930’S RING A BELL. Fact is even with less heat islands citys collecting data the 1930′s had record heat. To today the asphalt and concrete jungle cause higher reads as they trap more heat in around the weather stations. Also the NASA”SCIENTIST) NEGATED TO EVEN MENTION THE PACIFIC COOLING TREND CURRENTLY HAPPENING IF WARMING IS GLOBAL THAT WHY IS THE LARGEST OCEAN COOLING

      Report Post »  
    • jhaydeng
      Posted on August 6, 2012 at 11:23am

      When did man find a way to move the Sun?

      Report Post »  
    • SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
      Posted on August 6, 2012 at 12:12pm

      Oceans cooling is not really a good foundation upon which to make an argument against AGW….here is why.

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/Does-ocean-cooling-disprove-global-warming.html

      Also, the “concrete jungle” is not a good foundation either scientifically….here is why.

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm

      Again, I am NOT for AGW alarmism, however, we must argue our points on scientific data that is current. Thank you…

      Report Post » SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING  
    • Not-so-crazy-Cannuck
      Posted on August 6, 2012 at 6:00pm

      How extraordinary stupid and silly is a man who leaves HARRP activities and other geo-engineering practices out of his equations and models,

      Yet, he is right, much of global warming is man made …. but by WHICH men?

      Report Post »  
  • ReddirtOkie
    Posted on August 4, 2012 at 8:33pm

    WOW statistics prove your point. Mr. Hansen there you go again. We all know that figures don’t lie BUT liars can figure. You are using a statistical model of your construction to prove a predetermined conclusion of your chosing. Like Herman Cain said -”We are not dumb.”

    Report Post »  
    • sawbuck
      Posted on August 4, 2012 at 8:55pm

      ReddirtOkie
      You just used my all time favorite saying my dad used to say…
      ‘figures don’t lie but liars figure’ ..He was part of the greatest generation..
      May he rest in peace ..Thanks for bringing back some fond memories.

      Report Post » sawbuck  
    • M13
      Posted on August 4, 2012 at 8:56pm

      Sounds like someone needs more government funding for his “ research” .

      Report Post »  
    • nzkiwi
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 5:12am

      No, Red, we aren’t dumb. But some people are, it seems.

      In 2007, this authoritative statement was printed:

      “Runaway Global Warming promises to literally burn-up agricultural areas into dust worldwide by 2012, causing global famine, anarchy, diseases, and war on a global scale as military powers including the U.S., Russia, and China, fight for control of the Earth’s remaining resources.

      Over 4.5 billion people could die from Global Warming related causes by 2012, as planet Earth accelarates into a greed-driven horrific catastrophe.”

      http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/01/08/01291.html

      Well, it’s 2012. The ever alert media seems to have missed the 4.5 billion dead people.

      Environmental organizations and scientists are continually formenting these false fears in order to promote their socialist agendas, grab taxpayer money for themselves, and herd the gullible into the welcoming clutches of the United Nations.

      The United Nations, of course, created this whole global warming myth to destroy the west’s free enterprise system, our economic stability, and to forcibly redistribute our funds amongst our enemies.

      Report Post »  
    • starman70
      Posted on August 6, 2012 at 3:04pm

      Apparently this overeducated nitwit forgot to look at climate records of the past. Today in 1851, a record high temperature was recorded in Chicago of 108 degrees and another record in the midwest was 116 degrees. That was long before anyone concocted the “Global Warming Fable”.

      Report Post »  
  • alumin
    Posted on August 4, 2012 at 8:31pm

    One word..“HARP”!

    Report Post » alumin  
    • riseandshine
      Posted on August 4, 2012 at 9:10pm

      Another word….Rainforests.

      Report Post » riseandshine  
    • flipper1073
      Posted on August 4, 2012 at 9:48pm

      Another Word
      BullCrap

      Report Post » flipper1073  
    • teebubba
      Posted on August 4, 2012 at 10:48pm

      How convenient…We had extreme weather in the 20‘s and 30’s also. He ignores that because he believes no one remembers it. Any serious meteorologist will tell you that the worldwide weather is really affected by the size of el nino and nina. the lattitude of the trade winds and westerlies and the positioning and curving of the jet stream as it crosses the continents.

      Report Post » teebubba  
    • Incredulous321
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 4:18am

      Hello. I can’t stay out of this anymore. I’m not a scientist, but I have a brain. I’ve lived a lot of my life in Alaska, and can tell you the weather is warming. I can never get answers to some basic questions. For instance, how much methane and CO2 are released by a volcanic eruption? How does it compare to annual human produced levels? How much extra GHG is left in the atmosphere by deforestation? Why are third world countries exempted from doing their part to clean up the air? Yes, first world countries deforested their land. We didn’t know any better. Now we do, and we plant huge forests every year to remediate the problem. If the U.S. cut emmissions by say 90%, and destroyed our economy in the process, would it make a difference? China will soon be the world’s #1 polluter, and they must maintain significant growth or face civil upheaval. They are moving full speed ahead with no thought of slowing down. The Russians are sitting on vast oil wealth. They aren’t going to give that up and make oil worthless by pursuing self-destructive green policies. Spain tried the green economy. They’re nearly bankrupt, and I‘d like to see statistics on how much effect that had on both Spain’s and the world’s GHG emmissions. I‘m sure it’s a pea in the ocean. So, if our economy is in ruins, who else is going to pick up the ball and develop the hugely expensive technologies we will need to make even a slight difference? Hope God is real, and pray extra hard.

      Report Post » Incredulous321  
    • Incredulous321
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 4:35am

      Sorry, just a little more. Have you ever seen how much rare earth minerals it takes to make a car battery? China is the number one producer of rare earth minerals, and they ain’t cheap. There’s more than one proposition for the end of the world. Global warming may be one, but so is economic diaster leading to civil and potentially world war. If GW is caused by man, even slightly, it still can’t be dealt with unilaterally. How many countries that signed Kyoto actually met their agreed upon goals? I’m not sure of the top of my head, but I know it ain’t many.
      As far as Beck being a liar I‘m in the I don’t see it camp. He made an arguably correct one liner about a government CZAR! When did we start being ruled by CZARs? Who cares about one sentence. Even if you chalk this up to a lie GB is still one of the most honest men in America. So get over it! I’m sure this social engineering textbook was full of them.

      Report Post » Incredulous321  
    • nzkiwi
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 7:44am

      @ Incredulous

      I can answer a few of your many questions:

      Volcanic eruptions produce far more “greenhouse gases” than humans except for CO2, but some CO2 is produced from the subsequent burning. Chlorine, which depletes the ozone layer, comes almost entirely from the sea surface. I hope you liked your new CFC-free fridge, but it didn’t make any difference.

      Third world countries (which oddly include China and India) are exempted because the UN needs their votes.

      The forestation in first world countries has never been significantly depleted, in fact there is at least as much forestation in the west today as there was 100 years ago. New Zealand grows pine trees and we export the timber. For us, it is a farmed crop.

      The number of countries who have met their emissions targets (including Spain) is exactly zero. If all countries were to meet their targets, the effect on climate change would also be zero. If humans were to cease all emissions, the effect on climate change would be so small as to also amount to zero (confirmed by climatologists).

      Rare earth from China is used in rechargeable lithium batteries (computers, cameras, etc). The USA has lithium but the government won’t let you mine it.

      Global warming alarmism is designed to boost a political objective.

      Hope that helps.

      Report Post »  
    • Incredulous321
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 8:00am

      Thanks. I suspected most of those answers. I just get tired of people saying we need to do something about it which isn’t even possible at this point. Destroying our economy and our country for the sake of many people that hate us and to no effect is really stupid. Bush was 100% correct not signing the Kyoto Protocol. I’d say Obama is a fool but that goes without saying. Although the old adage “who’s the bigger fool the fool or the fool that follows him is apropos. I can’t get over how many people still believe in this incompetent boob!

      Report Post » Incredulous321  
    • nzkiwi
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 8:44am

      Sorry, I got a bit tangled up. I meant to say that “the USA has RARE EARTH but the government…”

      Interestingly, “rare earth” isn’t actually rare, though it was once thought to be. China exports about 40,000 tons anually, I think.

      I understand that known deposits in the USA are somewhere in the region of 15 million tonnes (Discovery channel, so it might not be exact). And that’s without even looking for more.

      Report Post »  
  • marcus_arealius
    Posted on August 4, 2012 at 8:31pm

    Lunatic moron masquerading as a scientist. The only thing running out is his guvmint grant money.

    Report Post »  
    • SCREW-WINDOWS
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 1:37am

      We have all now seen what professors and Nobel Peace prize winners can do they are simply not credibal sources. As for me when people start to spontaneously combust when going outside then I will start to be concerned. Maybe they can get Igloo to construct a very large cooler or GE build a giant airconditioner I don’t see any other recourse.

      Report Post » SCREW-WINDOWS  
    • VanceUppercut
      Posted on August 6, 2012 at 10:56am

      @marcus_arealius

      Well here’s the thing: the Pentagon agrees with him. Google “Pentagon to rank global warming as destabilizing force” or “Pentagon, CIA Eye New Threat: Climate Change”. The DoD has pretty much acknowledged what you and you oil-company backed “scientists” deny:that not only is warming happening, but that it is a major threat tot he future safety and stability of the US. Seems like a true “patriot” would be more concernec with heading off this future danger than sticking their fingers in their ears and screaming”Na, na, na, na, I can’t hear you!”.

      Report Post »  
    • capecoralM
      Posted on August 6, 2012 at 2:05pm

      Vanc – There is no credible proof that AGW exists. There is Credible evidence that at times in the history of earth it was cooler. For example 12000 years ago when Glaciers created the great lakes. And was warmer than today. For example tropical plant fossils found in the arctic. Not sure what the proposal you have for stopping the earths climate or reversing the Average Global Temperature. There to is ice core evidence that shows higher levels of CO2 than are measured today.

      In terms of environmentalism that is a whole other area and Global Warming being lumped in with pollution is a complete Non sequitur.

      Report Post » capecoralM  
  • Magyar
    Posted on August 4, 2012 at 8:29pm

    They should have left this idiot with the Russians on the space station!

    Report Post »  
    • pissantno.10
      Posted on August 4, 2012 at 9:08pm

      you would not get this guy out of his office let alone on atrip to the space station. but the russians would make him a towel boy at a sauna . he would look beating people with tree limbs

      Report Post »  
  • Dan
    Posted on August 4, 2012 at 8:28pm

    I was unhappy when obama pulled the plug on the space program, but with NASA “Scientists” like this, maybe that’s a good thing.

    Report Post »  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on August 4, 2012 at 8:43pm

      For a world renowned scientist………he sure has a lot of toys on his desk.

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • sWampy
      Posted on August 4, 2012 at 9:36pm

      NASA hasn’t been worth a **** since the moon missions, the space shuttle was the worst possible design for the time, yet was picked because it cost the most. It’s past time, they be dismantled and rebuilt from the ground up.

      Report Post »  
    • SCREW-WINDOWS
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 3:20am

      Question since NASA is no longer where is that taxpayer money now going ?

      Report Post » SCREW-WINDOWS  
    • piper60
      Posted on August 6, 2012 at 2:23pm

      The global warming frauds coming 8unravelled-so its proponets asre becoming more vitriolic. A lie based on an estimate developed from a computer program that has never predicted anything concludes that power must be transferred to the people who tweaked the program to get the ‘correct” result even if their previous power grab panic was utterly wrongs now to be supported regardless of the evidence as compulsory test of belief in the great God science. And heretics will be punished!

      Report Post » piper60  
  • OneTermPresident
    Posted on August 4, 2012 at 8:26pm

    “In his opinion, something like the Texas-Oklahoma drought was caused by global warming, period.”

    They used to always claim a local weather event couldn‘t be considered because it’s global not local… looks like local weather occurrences fall under global now when it’s convenient for the warm-ongers.

    Report Post » OneTermPresident  
    • oicu814me2
      Posted on August 4, 2012 at 8:39pm

      Government scientist…..well there you go..

      Report Post »  
    • randy
      Posted on August 4, 2012 at 8:46pm

      Has anyone told this moron that Mars is heating up also?
      Last time I checked we don’t have factories on Mars pumping out green house gases?

      It’s Sun cycles you moron!

      Report Post » randy  
    • Redwood Elf
      Posted on August 6, 2012 at 12:13pm

      Here‘s Todd Schnitt’s list of anti-Anthroprogenic Global Warming links, many of which go to peer-reviewed scientific articles :

      http://www.schnittshow.com/pages/globalwarming.html

      Just send the AGW morons over there.

      Report Post » Redwood Elf  
  • pissantno.10
    Posted on August 4, 2012 at 8:25pm

    due you think he has one clue whats on the black board behind him. hes think about steak and lobster dinner , some one elses manison and living like a king. after all AL promised him. and since all americans are dumb and gay this should be a push over.

    Report Post »  
    • Rick in Greene
      Posted on August 4, 2012 at 9:24pm

      The blackboard behind him is the set to “Big Bang Theory”. they needed an impressive place to do the interview.

      Report Post »  
  • Free2speakRN
    Posted on August 4, 2012 at 8:24pm

    Tell China, India, S. America, Russia, Iran Blah, Blah, Blah………

    Moreso, Nuclear Holocaust is the biggest and fastest Climate Changer…….We better get this country together…and secure first!

    Report Post »  
  • Fonz777
    Posted on August 4, 2012 at 8:24pm

    “I’m Mr Hansen and I live in a van down by the river”

    Report Post » Fonz777  
  • bmb776
    Posted on August 4, 2012 at 8:23pm

    The worst drought in 80 years and the right just aSsumes keep pumping more **** into the atmosphere

    Report Post »  
    • OneTermPresident
      Posted on August 4, 2012 at 8:31pm

      So you admit it’s happen before…. and before that and before that…. get it!

      Report Post » OneTermPresident  
    • pissantno.10
      Posted on August 4, 2012 at 8:35pm

      well your and idoit but you just believe what your told . by people like this guy with his magjic cube

      Report Post »  
    • FREEDOMoverFEAR
      Posted on August 4, 2012 at 8:56pm

      They say a new v-8 pickup truck puts off about as much CO2 as a human breathing. So to make sure my truck isn’t destroying earth im going to find you and ……..then that will offset my carbon foot print. Ahhh it feels good to go green!

      Report Post » FREEDOMoverFEAR  
    • oldduffer
      Posted on August 4, 2012 at 9:59pm

      Why don’t you tell that to China? Or the Arab states that constantly drill oil and burn off nat. gas?
      We have 385 million people and an area larger than most of Europe including Great Britain. Combine their area and population then their carbon footprint. Bush did it! The U.S.A. is the great Satan.
      P.S. Go get the Almanac and research. Then get a job and start paying your way.

      Report Post »  
  • lessoneleg
    Posted on August 4, 2012 at 8:22pm

    In another great story, the Alabama climate scientist was speaking before Barbara Boxer and the EPA people. He basically said, that the government has followed a path of over reaction. There was no evidence that climate is changing due to man made influences. In fact, he left them speechless when he said that our current contributions are in fact beneficial to the quality of growth for plants. He even shot down their claims concerning carbon dioxide.
    Barbara Boxer was left with perspiration stains on her BVD’s because, witnesses are to talk about destruction, and armagedden not good stuff, and flowers, and everything liberal Democrats have put in place were just plain DUMB…

    Report Post » lessoneleg  
  • garylee123
    Posted on August 4, 2012 at 8:21pm

    Guess the funding for your rockets ran out and you need more money.

    Report Post »  
  • hi
    Posted on August 4, 2012 at 8:21pm

    Taking money from Americans and redistributing to dictators in other countries will make the earth cooler.

    Report Post » hi  
    • justangry
      Posted on August 4, 2012 at 8:43pm

      Bingo… That’s the problem with these scientists. They can’t find an ETHICAL solution.

      Report Post » justangry  
  • Dauh
    Posted on August 4, 2012 at 8:21pm

    This guy is the epitome of the corrupted communist mouthpiece for the UN Agenda 21. The fact that he’s associated with NASA and Columbia says it all.

    Report Post »  
  • longun45
    Posted on August 4, 2012 at 8:21pm

    He is a true charlatan.

    Report Post »  
  • OneTermPresident
    Posted on August 4, 2012 at 8:20pm

    Hansen has been proven wrong more times than Pelosi. Those astronaut/scientists that all signed the letter they sent to NASA about your claims… were right.

    Report Post » OneTermPresident  
  • Pat_in_NC
    Posted on August 4, 2012 at 8:18pm

    James Hansen is one reason why no one cares that NASA is going away.
    NASA has gone from having a scientific mission to being a left-wing scaremonger.

    Report Post »  
  • cassandra
    Posted on August 4, 2012 at 8:17pm

    scientific sure it is, is that why in the 1930′s temps were hotter than they are right now, are you waiting for your obama check

    Report Post »  
  • Smokey_Bojangles
    Posted on August 4, 2012 at 8:16pm

    To Paraphrase,”I want more money and now,so I can continue my Government funded religion.”

    Report Post » Smokey_Bojangles  
  • Caballosinnombre
    Posted on August 4, 2012 at 8:13pm

    Man-made global warming is another scare tactic of the left. An excuse to raise taxes.

    Report Post »  
  • Walkabout
    Posted on August 4, 2012 at 8:13pm

    This is not an some influential scientist, who we haven;t heard of before. It is James Hansen singing the same song.

    If BHO is defeated then James Hansen will be put out to pasture.

    What does he has to say about the cloud ionization effect that CERN found?

    Report Post »  
  • Psychosis
    Posted on August 4, 2012 at 8:11pm

    they know their funding is going to be diminished soon

    and none of them can explain why temperatures globally have actually decreased over the last decade

    Report Post » Psychosis  
  • MrButcher
    Posted on August 4, 2012 at 8:09pm

    What’s wrong with a little (climate) change?

    Report Post » MrButcher  
    • Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
      Posted on August 4, 2012 at 8:24pm

      Climate change in and of itself, nothing, as that has happened repeatedly in earths past, and on a time scale incomprehensible when compared to the lifetime of a human.

      The UN Climate Change Fraud Creation Theory that this scientist is refering to is wrong across the board and is only being parroted for the sake of political expediency of the UN mandate to redistribute the wealth of the Western nations to the rest of the world under their guidance.

      Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
    • oicu814me2
      Posted on August 4, 2012 at 8:55pm

      The climate changes this time every year. we like to call it summer. I live in the south east and we have not had one record high temp this year or last year in my local area. i wonder if they through those stats out the window.

      Report Post »  
    • SCREW-WINDOWS
      Posted on August 5, 2012 at 3:32am

      If it was man made wouldn’t the big cities be the hottest points ?

      Report Post » SCREW-WINDOWS  
    • 4xeverything
      Posted on August 6, 2012 at 1:53am

      Snow,

      I both agree and disagree with you on this point. I agree with your point that the ‘global climate change’ is nothing more than a ruse to get the world to back Agenda 21 but, I sort of disagree with on your first statement about ‘climate change’ being something significant in a historical view. The only reason that I disagree is because the Earth’s climate changes constantly (as I’m quite sure that you already understand). In my hometown of Cincinnati, there are very few weather forecasters who have been able to stick around for an extended period of time. Those who have, understand that weather can turn on a dime (especially here in the Queen City). No one day is the same as the last or the last 363 and 1/4. In fact, we have a widely known saying about Cincinnati: “If you don‘t like the weather in ’Cincy’, stick around for five minutes…it’ll change”. All I’m saying is that the climate is by definition “the composite or general prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, or humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds throughout the year, averaged over a series of years”. I guess I’m not disagreeing… only reasserting your original thought.

      Report Post » 4xeverything  
  • Computernerd
    Posted on August 4, 2012 at 8:08pm

    Mr Hansen, please do us all a favor and just shut up.

    Report Post »  
1 2 3 ... 11

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love