Inventor of Global Warming Caught in Lies

[Queso]

Inventor of Global Warming Caught in Lies

By Mitch Battros - Earth Changes Media

Sep 23, 2007 - 11:02:03 PM

 

Did NASA scientist James Hansen, the person who made up the name "global warming", once believe we were headed for an ice age? An old Washington Post story indicates he did. On July 9, 1971, the Post published a story headlined "U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming." It told of a prediction by scientist James Hansen and S.I. Rasool of Columbia University stating the coming ice age is caused by human pollutants.

 

Not so surprising to those of us who have researched the origin of this 1988 fabricated event known as 'global warming'. As to the "why" of this politicalization of true science, one conclusion is of course MONEY. There is a fortune to be made in environmentalism, and at your expense. This in-itself could be argued as a righteous act, but there is a sinister twist.

 

The cruel, harmful, and some would say "evil" trick to this sherad stating pollution is the cause of the current warming trend, tells you we can prevent this trend by halting fossil fuels and other pollutants. This is a LIE. There is no "prevention". Why? Because it is the Sun which is the cause of our warming and cooling trends. And what is even more ironic is---Hansen and Rasool say so.

 

The Post reported that Rasool, writing in Science magazine, argued that in "the next 50 years" fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the Sun's rays that the Earth's average temperature could fall by six degrees.

 

Sustained emissions over five to 10 years, Rasool claimed, "could be sufficient to trigger an ice age."

 

Aiding Rasool's research, the Post reported, was a "computer program developed by Dr. James Hansen," who was, according to his resume, a Columbia University research associate at the time.

 

So what about those greenhouse gases that man pumps into the skies? Weren't they worried about them causing a greenhouse effect that would heat the planet, as Hansen, Al Gore and a host of others so fervently believe today?

 

"They found no need to worry about the carbon dioxide fuel-burning puts in the atmosphere," the Post said in the story, which was spotted last week by Washington resident John Lockwood, who was doing research at the Library of Congress and alerted the Washington Times to his finding.

 

Hansen has some explaining to do. The public deserves to know how he was converted from an apparent believer in a coming ice age who had no worries about greenhouse gas emissions to a global warming fear monger.

 

This is a man, as Lockwood noted in his message to the Times' John McCaslin, who has called those skeptical of his global warming theory "court jesters." We wonder: What choice words did he have for those who were skeptical of the ice age theory in 1971?

 

People can change their positions based on new information or by taking a closer or more open-minded look at what is already known. There's nothing wrong with a reversal or modification of views as long as it is arrived at honestly.

 

But what about political hypocrisy? It's clear that Hansen is as much a political animal as he is a scientist. Did he switch from one approaching cataclysm to another because he thought it would be easier to sell to the public? Was it a career advancement move or an honest change of heart on science, based on empirical evidence?

 

If Hansen wants to change positions again, the time is now. With NASA having recently revised historical temperature data that Hansen himself compiled, the door has been opened for him to embrace the ice age projections of the early 1970s.

 

Could be he's feeling a little chill in the air again.

 

Source: Investor's Business Daily

 

What does Hypography think? I have no idea what to believe (like always)

[InfiniteNow]

<from the article in the quote> The cruel, harmful, and some would say "evil" trick to this sherad stating pollution is the cause of the current warming trend, tells you we can prevent this trend by halting fossil fuels and other pollutants. This is a LIE. There is no "prevention". Why? Because it is the Sun which is the cause of our warming and cooling trends. And what is even more ironic is---Hansen and Rasool say so.

There was a study, just this July, showing that this "Sun causes warming and cooling trends" claim is false.

 

http://hypography.com/forums/environmental-studies/11028-great-global-warming-swindle.html#post182617

 

 

The Royal Society - Article

There are many interesting palaeoclimate studies that suggest that solar variability had an influence on pre-industrial climate. There are also some detection-attribution studies using global climate models that suggest there was a detectable influence of solar variability in the first half of the twentieth century and that the solar radiative forcing variations were amplified by some mechanism that is, as yet, unknown. However, these findings are not relevant to any debates about modern climate change. Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified.

 

 

Also, Orb, try to remember that one scientist being caught in a lie does nothing to refute the mountains of evidence confirming the anthropogenic (human) origin of global climate change. Stay well, mate.

[Queso]

I don't know anything about global warming except what everyone talks about.

people were talking about this,

i brought it over here to see what you people would talk about it.

[freeztar]

I'll echo Infinite's sentiments and call bluff.

 

It takes a humble person, scientists included, to change their theories in light of opposing evidence. This does not make a scientist a hypocrite, it makes him/her a good/better scientist. It happens all the time in scientific research.

 

The article you posted, Orb, looks more like an editorial rant based on no scientific data, rather than an objective observation of changing theories. The money conspiracy is a nice touch...:)

 

It's too bad some people prefer to sling mud rather than deal with the scientific evidence.

[Queso]

moderators: go ahead and delete this thread, as it bears nothing valuable.

(i love walking into other forums with hypography wisdom :) )

there's so much crazy stuff being written and posted and shared out there.

[Queso]

Where would be a good place to look for real global warming facts?

I've seen random ones scattered about, and seen al gores film.

What is true?

[InfiniteNow]

Where would be a good place to look for real global warming facts?

I've seen random ones scattered about, and seen al gores film.

What is true?

 

You might try here. They sample from multiple studies from multiple sources. Also, as a general rule, let the news fan the flames of your motivation, but let the science root your understanding.

 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

 

 

“All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.” ~Galileo

[freeztar]

As far as the science goes, this is a good place to start.

climate change - Google Scholar

 

I'd also recommend a primer in atmospheric chemistry.

Atmospheric chemistry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Especially concerning greenhouse gases

Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

If you've never taken chemistry or atmospheric science courses, then it can be a bit daunting to dive into. Once a basic understanding of the mechanisms of the atmosphere are realized, a much better understanding of the processes at work will lead to more REAL discussion. The science is well documented.

 

The problem occurs when the masses do not understand the data and misinterpret the data. Heck, it's difficult for scientists to wrap their head around (no-one will admit that a "perfect" model is possible, or even somewhat easy to approximate). We only have the data that is available/discovered, and innovation to lead the way.

 

----

 

P.S. I don't think this thread should be deleted. :naughty:;)

[silverslith]

No Question humanity has been caught in an unfortuitous timespace at present. The earths climate systems were at their most stressed at the end of an interglacial when the temp and co2 was maxing. We've pushed things over the edge with our "anthropogenic" contributions. The North polar icecap has disintegrated this year into a swirling mess of bergs and open water with less than half the sea ice mass of last year. The ability of the ecosphere to absorb co2 and produce 02 has reduced over 10% the last decade alone. Equivalent to over half the co2 produced by humans. This an exciting time. more change in the earths ecosphere than any time in millions of years. Why no mass media coverage? are they afraid of harming profits?:naughty:

[Tormod]

Why no mass media coverage?

 

Say again? :naughty:

[CraigD]

Info on Health, Medical News, Healthy Living, Healthy Eating, Health News, Diet, Cancer, Cholesterol, Depression, Kidney, Migraine, Smoking

 

Inventor of Global Warming Caught in Lies

By Mitch Battros - Earth Changes Media

…

What does Hypography think? I have no idea what to believe (like always)

 

James Hansen appears to be a legitimate scientist, albeit one who’s career appears to have involved more administration that basic research. As such, I suspect that many of his opinions are based more on his perceived consensus of the conclusions of other researchers.

 

Hansen is well known for his emphasis on the role of airborne particles – “aerosols” – in climate. As early as the 1960s, while still a student, he expressed suspicion that such particles might produce a “global cooling”, and proposed models in which climate depended critically on a balance of aerosols, which produced cooling, and greenhouse gases, which produced warming.

 

In the 1960s, 70s, and 80s, emphasis on particle cooling was popular both with atmospheric scientists and the public, especially considering the “nuclear winter” scenario of the large dust and smoke clouds that would be produced by a large-scale nuclear war. Since then, increased research has not supported the more alarming predictions of nuclear winter models, of which Hansen’s aerosol global cooling models can be considered a variant.

 

An especially valuable source of data in refining – and in many cases, rejecting these models – was a detailed study of the massive 1991 Kuwaiti oil fires. A famous scientific debate between Carl Sagan and Fred Singer centered around this event, Sagan predicted that it would result in massive high-altitude smoke clouds that would disrupt global weather, Singer that the particles would rapidly be washed out of the atmosphere by rain. In a rare case of climatologically debate being settled quickly, Singer’s prediction proved the correct one.

 

Mitch Battros is not a scientist. IMHO, he is a sensationalist. His writing is, IMHO, an example of the ad hominem fallacy, in that he proposes that because Hansen has changed his overall views on climate as the result of many decades of research and study, Hansen should be considered a “liar”, and his present position, which concludes that human influences on climate are promoting a warming trend, rejected.

 

For an example of Battros’s writing in which he makes no attempt to appear scientifically legitimate, see Earth Changes Endtimes Chronicle with Mitch Battros by Billii Roberti, in which he proposes that an “end of the world” global catastrophe allegedly predicted by pre-Columbian Mayan “elders” to occur from 8/16/2003 to 12/15/2003 was averted by “the huge energy of the Harmonic Concordance and the "scientific prayer" of spiritual people worldwide”.

 

I don't have much faith in the models of people like Battros who use no arithmetic in them, and include alongside aerosols and greenhouse gasses the prayers of spiritual people as a major factor affecting the Earth.

[Hill]

There is another good link at Climate Change: Discovery of Global Warming

 

Concerning the beginning of a new Ice Age, look particularly at The Public and Climate Change (1)

 

An example of recent governmental activity on climate change. Note the employment history of the person who edited the report: Edited Cooney memo

 

More about Philip Cooney

 

During a March 2007 congressional hearing, Cooney conceded his role in altering reports to downplay the adverse effects of man-made emissions on the planet's climate. "My sole loyalty was to the President and advancing the policies of his administration," he told the United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

(Emphasis mine)

[Turtle]

Well...the topic is not settled on the Sun's role. This is not to say the human CO2 output is not contributing, only that the result of that contribution is uncertain without understanding the Sun's role.

 

And' date=' more commonly, according to some scientists, slight changes in Earth's orientation toward the sun can cause it to cool or warm in so-called Milankovitch cycles (named after the Serbian engineer who first described them). Now, new evidence from a marine sediment core from the deep Pacific points to warmer ocean waters around Antarctica (in sync with the Milankovitch cycle)—not greenhouse gases—as the culprit behind the thawing of the last ice age.

[/quote']

In Hot Water: Ice Age Defrosted by Warming Ocean, Not Rise in CO₂: Scientific American

[InfiniteNow]

Well...the topic is not settled on the Sun's role. This is not to say the human CO2 output is not contributing, only that the result of that contribution is uncertain without understanding the Sun's role.

 

And from your own link, the following:

 

This year, the sea ice around Antarctica grew to its largest extent since satellite observation began in 1979—whereas the Arctic arrived at record minimum—meaning present climate change is a far different scenario. In fact, the Milankovitch cycles would predict gradual global cooling. Man-made greenhouse gases, primarily CO2, are unequivocally driving present-day warming, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "This kind of study discusses the natural cycle and could help define the likely positive feedbacks we can expect in the long-term future, [for example] as temperatures warm, the ocean will want to give up more CO2, or rather absorb less," says climatologist Gavin Schmidt of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies. "But it has no direct impact on attribution of 20th century warming."

 

Emphasis mine.

[silverslith]

Cryosphere Today - Northern Hemisphere Cryosphere Animation

 

is a good animation of the last month. the refreeze is beginning to happen, about a month latter than normal. The Arctic Icecap has for the last 2 months been a swirling mess of broken ice and open water. The northwestern passage above Canada has spent a month completely clear of ice, and the north eastern above russia has only had a few bergs around severnaya zemlya. When it broke up it was quite spectacular, a huge spiral visibly circling the pole from norway to baffin is in less than a week

 

 

sept 12, Polar Sea Ice Cap and Snow - Cryosphere Today

 

The NH sea ice area is currently at its historic minimum (2.92 million sq. km) representing a 27% drop in sea ice coverage compared to the previous (2005) record NH ice minimum.

 

Of course this is square area of Ice. Its bottomed around 31% less area than last year and if you estimate a simular reduction in thickness then you have less than half the volume of polar sea ice of last year.

 

Why is this 30 years ahead of predictions made 6 months ago? Probably because Algae grow in the underside of thin sea ice that sun can penetrate, absorbing energy. Open water has been seen in -15degC due to this phenomina. They have now been mixed through all the Artic sea ice and will hasten a melt and breakup next summer.

 

Hopefully the gulfstream will accelerate in a spiral driven by the circumpolar winds and subduct at the pole. It would bake siberia, greenland, and north canada, but this may reverse the plummet of oceanic phytoplankton C02 absorbsion / 02 production that in 10 years has dropped over 10%. Said to be likely due to reduced upwelling of nutrient due to gulfstream slowing. The 10% fall is equivalent to half humanities CO2 output so halving our output (not likely any time soon) would have little effect at present. If the phytoplankton continues to decline at that rate or more the oceanfoodchain they sustain will collapse.

 

Its certainly looking like we couldn't slow things down now even by stopping ALL our CO2 emissions. Too many +ve feedback systems at work.

 

Planktos - Home

Seem to be on the right track. Is it possible to fertilise enough of the Oceans to stop our runaway greenhouse? Certainly not if everyone just ignores whats going on for fear of causing stockmarket crashes. Reminds me of Ben Eltons "Stark". "no-one should be expected to damage their profits"

[Queso]

so in other words...it's getting really bad?

[Turtle]

so in other words...it's getting really bad?

 

something is always getting really bad. we know this by stark contrasts to all the good somethings. rome may fall nine times an hour, but there is only one question for us every breath. who ya gonna call? :)