James Hansen

Who do you believe on sea level rise?

“The herd instinct among forecasters makes sheep look like independent thinkers. ”

–Edgar R. Fiedler

“Those who have knowledge don’t predict. Those who predict, don’t have knowledge. ”

–Lao Tzu, 6th Century BC Chinese Poet

In science, a prediction is a rigorous, often quantitative, statement, forecasting what would happen under specific conditions. The scientific method is built on testing statements that are logical consequences of scientific theories. This is done through repeatable experiments or observational studies.  A scientific theory which is contradicted by observations and evidence will be rejected.

That’s true except in climate science.  Predictions of sea level rise caused by sea water expansion and ice melt have been made for over 40 years.  The first IPCC report in 1990 predicted that sea levels would rise by between 80 and 290 mm by 2030.  That’s 4.5 mm per year average (range 2.0 to 7.25mm)

In that time frame scientists in NZ say our sea level has risen 1.7 mm per year on average up till now and it took some never revealed massaging of the numbers to get it to that number.  It is a very imprecise calculation and given known biases toward exaggeration it may be lower.  In any event it’s a small fraction of what the IPCC said would happen.  It’s out by a factor of 2.5.

If you apply the rules of science you would ignore any further predictions from those sources as being contradicted by observation.    Read more »

The science is settled?

We are told constantly that, with respect to Climate Change, the science is settled.

Yet, every time someone looks at that settled science we find lies, mistakes and obfuscation. The science is far from settled, especially when that science uses manipulated data.

A German professor has confirmed what skeptics from Britain to the US have long suspected: that NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies has largely invented “global warming” by tampering with the raw temperature data records.

Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert is a retired geologist and data computation expert. He has painstakingly examined and tabulated all NASA GISS’s temperature data series, taken from 1153 stations and going back to 1881. His conclusion: that if you look at the raw data, as opposed to NASA’s revisions, you’ll find that since 1940 the planet has been cooling, not warming.

According to Günter Ederer, the German journalist who has reported on Ewert’s findings:

From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.   Read more »

We’re warming because NASA and David Farrar say so?

Two days ago David Farrar posted a dishonest chart (wonky axis, wonky data) to claim that the planet is warming alarmingly because in 100 years we have warmed a whole one degree.

He got pissy too when challenged on it.  Basically NASA and he were right…because NASA data.

Unfortunately David is a bit out of the loop on developments in the climate change debate, because NASA has been busted by a whistle blower for manipulating the same data that Farrar claimed was good…because NASA.

A German professor has confirmed what skeptics from Britain to the US have long suspected: that NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies has largely invented “global warming” by tampering with the raw temperature data records.

Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert is a retired geologist and data computation expert. He has painstakingly examined and tabulated all NASA GISS’s temperature data series, taken from 1153 stations and going back to 1881. His conclusion: that if you look at the raw data, as opposed to NASA’s revisions, you’ll find that since 1940 the planet has been cooling, not warming.

According to Günter Ederer, the German journalist who has reported on Ewert’s findings:

From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.    Read more »

How a liberal vegan hippie environmentalist switched from climate proponent to climate skeptic

David Siegel writes in a guest essay at WUWT.

Given he asks to highlight his essay and spread it as afar as possible I have copied his introduction and posted it here in the hope that some people in the Media Party and in the government might actually read a well researched dissenting voice in the climate debate and stop taking what the warmists say as gospel.

My name is David Siegel. I’m not a climate expert; I’m a writer. Early in 2015, I became interested in climate science and decided to spend the better part of this year trying to learn what I could. It didn’t take long before it was clear that there isn’t likely going to be any catastrophic warming this century. What was clear is that skeptics are losing this battle, and I want to tell you why.

For thirty years, James Hansen and Al Gore have been building their PR machine along with David Fenton, the wizard of nonprofit PR. They understand that the messenger is more important than the message. People don’t easily change their minds. People get their opinions from “experts” and brand names like NASA, MIT, Harvard, TIME, The Daily Show, etc. Fenton knows the game is about credibility and repetition, not science. As long as we are trying to convince people with the facts, we will lose.

So I did my homework and wrote a 9,000-word essay aimed at liberals who have a voice, who have access to media, and who might take 30 minutes to educate themselves.

I submitted my piece to every liberal publication, from the LA Times to the Atlantic Monthly to National Geographic to Huffington Post and many more. They all turned it down. Now I’m launching it myself and hope you will read it and help spread the word.

I ask you to help get the word out through social media, links, and the press, to the liberal audience I’m going after. Links really help. If you can help reach Bill Gates, Jeff Skoll, Jon Stewart, George Clooney, and other influential liberals, I hope to help them understand that the science is not settled. I think this is the best way to tip the scales back to reasonable, impactful environmentalism. If you can help move it on Reddit, Voat, Quora, NewsVine, etc., I would appreciate that.

I’m going to ask people to leave comments here, rather than on my page, because I can’t manage the comment spam there. I will, however, read the comments here and will respond if I can.

My work is aimed at your liberal friends; please send them to read it.   Read more »

Guest Post: Global warming gets a hot flush

Embed from Getty Images

James Hansen is generally considered the godfather of global warming alarmists. He recently retired from NASA’s Goddard Institute. What he says is swallowed by his followers and a naïve press without a dissenting murmur or a moment’s checking.

He, and his fellow warmists, are working in overdrive to produce as much shocking material as possible in the run up to the all important Paris conference when the world’s leaders are supposed to dip into our pockets like never before to stop the rise of CO2. According to Hansen this is the planet’s last chance to save us from a scary scenario of rising sea levels, record droughts, catastrophic storms, horrendous loss of life – in fact every conceivable negative effect you can imagine.

Hansen has been leading from the front. His latest paper is a monument to idiocy and gratuitous, publicity-seeking, humbug. He and a bunch of no-name sycophants have predicted a warming of “at least 2 degrees” (would have been nice this morning!!) and “sea level rise of 3 metres by 2100” with another 2 metres within a “couple of decades”. The paper contains unscientific language describing “super storms” wreaking havoc around the world. (Can feel a movie in the making? Where are you Sir Peter??)

Several telling events accompany this madness.    Read more »

After years of opposing nuclear power the Green taliban Australia are coming around to it

After decades of telling us nuclear power is evil, despite more people dying in Ted Kennedy’s car than in US nuclear accidents, the green taliban have now worked out that nuclear power is the only truly green power solution.

Now in Australia the green taliban are realising that they really need to embrace nuclear power if they are to come even close to maintaining our lifestyle and reduce emissions.

ALARMISTS like Jay Weatherill now finally admit nuclear power isn’t actually a terrifying mass-killing menace.

Now they say we need nuclear to stop their latest terrifying mass-killing menace — global warming.

Can you believe these guys? Nuclear power has switched from our greatest threat to greatest saviour. Yet none of these hypesters has said sorry for having peddled such baseless scares.

Take Weatherill, South Australia’s Labor Premier. As a budding politician he was “­opposed to nuclear power, all elements of it”, but this week said he’d changed his mind.

Now he was calling a royal commission to “consider what role our state can potentially play in the fuel cycle for the peaceful use of nuclear energy”. See, Weatherill reckons a nuclear industry might help save his struggling state.

The most obvious money-spinner would be a nuclear waste facility, like one Pangea tried to sell in 1999 that would have earned us $2 billion a year.

It makes sense. We have the stable geology and stable government to store the world’s nuclear waste, safe from earthquakes and terrorists.

But such facts never used to count with the likes of the unapologetic Weatherill. Such alarmists instead mounted the usual scare against Pangea and ran it out of town. Pangea couldn’t even get interviews with the young Howard government.   Read more »

Quote for the Day

James Delingpole on the blatant manipulation of the temperature records:

If the temperature records on which the entire edifice of the international global warming industry is based are a busted flush then we have all been victims of a scam so vast and all-encompassing it makes Enron look like a model of modesty and integrity. It also raises the question – and I speak here, of course, metaphorically rather than literally: when are heads going to roll?

When indeed?

Delingpole’s entire article outlines the extent of the data fraud that is going on inside the global warming industry.

“Fiddling temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever,” says Christopher Booker, not pulling his punches. And I think he’s right not to do so. If – as Booker, myself, and few others suspect – the guardians of the world’s land-based temperature records have been adjusting the raw data in order to exaggerate “global warming” then this is indeed a crime against the scientific method unparalleled in history.

Sure you could make a case that Lysenkoism or  Hitler’s war to discredit “Jewish science” were more evil but these were confined to discrete geographical regions under specific totalitarian regimes. What’s so extraordinary about the manipulations to the global land-based temperature sets is that they affect every one of us, wherever we live.   Read more »

The dishonesty of our manipulated temperature records

James Delingpole explains the inherent dishonesty of climate change proponents and their manipulated temperature records.

How can we believe in ‘global warming’ when the temperature records providing the ‘evidence’ for that warming cannot be trusted?

It’s a big question – and one which many people, even on the sceptical side of the argument, are reluctant to ask.

[…]

[B]efore I go into technical detail about why the temperature records are suspect, let me provide an analogy which ought to make it perfectly clear to any neutral parties reading this why the problem I’m about to describe ought not to be consigned to the realms of crackpottery.

Suppose say, that for the last 100 years my family have been maintaining a weather station at the bottom of our garden, diligently recording the temperatures day by day, and that what these records show is this: that in the 1930s it was jolly hot – even hotter than in the 1980s; that since the 1940s it has been cooling.

What conclusions would you draw from this hard evidence?

Well the obvious one, I imagine, is that the dramatic Twentieth Century warming that people like Al Gore have been banging on about is a crock. At least according to this particular weather station it is.

Now how would you feel if you went and took these temperature records along to one of the world’s leading global warming experts – say Gavin Schmidt at NASA or Phil Jones at CRU or Michael Mann at Penn State – and they studied your records for a moment and said: “This isn’t right.” What if they then crossed out all your temperature measurements, did a few calculations on the back of an envelope, and scribbled in their amendments? And you studied those adjustments and you realised, to your astonishment, that the new, pretend temperature measurements told an entirely different story from the original, real temperature measurements: that where before your records showed a cooling since the 1940s they now showed a warming trend.

You’d be gobsmacked, would you not?

Read more »

Taking aim at Google’s CEO over Climate Change

Google’s CEO, Eric Schmidt has drunk the climate change Kool Aid. In a recent interview he took issue with climate sceptics and called them liars.

Google Chairman Eric Schmidt said his company “has a very strong view that we should make decisions in politics based on facts. And the facts of climate change are not in question anymore. Everyone understands climate change is occurring, and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. We should not be aligned with such people. They’re just literally lying.”

That is annoyed more than a few scientists, and two of them, Paul Driessen and Chris Skates, have decided to take him on.

While he didn’t vilify us by name, Mr. Schmidt was certainly targeting us, the climate scientists who collect and summarize thousands of articles for the NIPCC’s Climate Change Reconsidered reports, the hundreds who participate in Heartland Institute climate conferences, and the 31,487 US scientists who have signed the Oregon Petition, attesting that there is no convincing scientific evidence that humans are causing catastrophic warming or climate disruption.

All of us are firm skeptics of claims that humans are causing catastrophic global warming and climate change. We are not climate change “deniers.” We know Earth’s climate and weather are constantly in flux, undergoing recurrent fluctuations that range from flood and drought cycles to periods of low or intense hurricane and tornado activity, to the Medieval Warm Period (950-1250 AD) and Little Ice Age (1350-1850) – and even to Pleistocene glaciers that repeatedly buried continents under a mile of ice.

What we deny is the notion that humans can prevent these fluctuations, by ending fossil fuel use and emissions of plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide, which plays only an insignificant role in climate change.

The real deniers are people who think our climate was and should remain static and unchanging, such as 1900-1970, supposedly – during which time Earth actually warmed and then cooled, endured the Dust Bowl, and experienced periods of devastating hurricanes and tornadoes.

The real deniers refuse to recognize that natural forces dictate weather and climate events. They deny that computer model predictions are completely at odds with real world events, that there has been no warming since 1995, and that several recent winters have been among the coldest in centuries in the United Kingdom and continental Europe, despite steadily rising CO2 levels. They refuse to acknowledge that, as of December 25, it’s been 3,347 days since a Category 3-5 hurricane hit the US mainland; this is by far the longest such stretch since record-keeping began in 1900, if not since the American Civil War.

Worst of all, they deny that their “solutions” hurt our children and grandchildren, by driving up energy prices, threatening electricity reliability, thwarting job creation, and limiting economic growth in poor nations to what can be sustained via expensive wind, solar, biofuel and geothermal energy. Google’s corporate motto is “Don’t be evil.” From our perspective, perpetuating poverty, misery, disease and premature death in poor African and Asian countries – in the name or preventing climate change – is evil.

Read more »

Looks like the bears will be ok…and us too

The-Hard-Proof-That-Global-Warming-Is-A-Scam-4

James Delingpole, who is now the face of Breitbart London writes about a new study about global warming by 40 ex-NASA scientists that shows that even if we burn all the world’s recoverable fossil fuels it will still only result in a temperature rise of less than 1.2 per cent.

In contrast to the alarmist claims, the planet is not in danger of catastrophic man made global warming.

So say The Right Climate Stuff Research Team, a group of retired NASA Apollo scientists and engineers – the men who put Neil Armstrong on the moon – in a new report.

“It’s an embarrassment to those of us who put NASA’s name on the map to have people like James Hansen popping off about global warming,” says the project’s leader Hal Doiron.

Doiron was one of 40 ex NASA employees – including seven astronauts – who wrote in April 2012 to NASA administrator Charles Bolden protesting about the organization’s promotion of climate change alarmism, notably via its resident environmental activist James Hansen.  Read more »