10year window to act on climate change

World has 10-year window to act on climate -expert
Reuters Thursday September 14, 02:41 AM


SACRAMENTO, California (Reuters) - A leading U.S. climate researcher
said on Wednesday the world has a 10-year window of opportunity to take
decisive action on global warming and avert a weather catastrophe.

NASA scientist James Hansen, widely considered the doyen of American
climate researchers, said governments must adopt an alternative
scenario to keep carbon dioxide emission growth in check

and limit the increase in global temperatures to 1 degree Celsius (1.8
degrees Fahrenheit).

"I think we have a very brief window of opportunity to deal with
climate change ... no longer than a decade, at the most," Hansen said
at the Climate Change Research Conference in California's state
capital.

If the world continues with a "business as usual" scenario, Hansen said
temperatures will rise by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius (3.6 to 7.2 degrees F)
and "we will be producing a different planet".

On that warmer planet, ice sheets would melt quickly, causing a rise in
sea levels that would put most of Manhattan under water. The world
would see more prolonged droughts and heat waves, powerful hurricanes
in new areas and the likely extinction of 50 percent of species.

Hansen, who heads NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has made
waves before by saying that U.S. President George W. Bush's
administration tried to silence him and heavily edited his and other
scientists' findings on a warmer world.

He reiterated that the United States "has passed up the opportunity" to
influence the world on global warming.

The United States is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, most
notably carbon dioxide. But Bush pulled the country out of the
160-nation Kyoto Protocol in 2001, arguing that the treaty's mandatory
curbs on emissions would harm the economy.

Hansen praised California for taking the "courageous" step of passing
legislation on global warming last month that will make it the first
U.S. state to place caps on greenhouse gas emissions.

He said the alternative scenario he advocates involves promoting energy
efficiency and reducing dependence on carbon burning fuels.

"We cannot burn off all the fossil fuels that are readily available
without causing dramatic climate change," Hansen said. "This is not
something that is a theory. We understand the carbon cycle well enough
to say that."

On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 08:57:46 -0700, izzix wrote:

World has 10-year window to act on climate -expert Reuters Thursday
September 14, 02:41 AM


SACRAMENTO, California (Reuters) - A leading U.S. climate researcher said
on Wednesday the world has a 10-year window of opportunity to take
decisive action on global warming and avert a weather catastrophe.

NASA scientist James Hansen, widely considered the doyen of American
climate researchers, said governments must adopt an alternative scenario
to keep carbon dioxide emission growth in check

and limit the increase in global temperatures to 1 degree Celsius (1.8
degrees Fahrenheit).

"I think we have a very brief window of opportunity to deal with climate
change ... no longer than a decade, at the most," Hansen said at the
Climate Change Research Conference in California's state capital.

If the world continues with a "business as usual" scenario, Hansen said
temperatures will rise by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius (3.6 to 7.2 degrees F)
and "we will be producing a different planet".

On that warmer planet, ice sheets would melt quickly, causing a rise in
sea levels that would put most of Manhattan under water. The world would
see more prolonged droughts and heat waves, powerful hurricanes in new
areas and the likely extinction of 50 percent of species.

Hansen, who heads NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has made
waves before by saying that U.S. President George W. Bush's administration
tried to silence him and heavily edited his and other scientists' findings
on a warmer world.

He reiterated that the United States "has passed up the opportunity" to
influence the world on global warming.

The United States is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, most notably
carbon dioxide. But Bush pulled the country out of the 160-nation Kyoto
Protocol in 2001, arguing that the treaty's mandatory curbs on emissions
would harm the economy.

Hansen praised California for taking the "courageous" step of passing
legislation on global warming last month that will make it the first U.S.
state to place caps on greenhouse gas emissions.

He said the alternative scenario he advocates involves promoting energy
efficiency and reducing dependence on carbon burning fuels.

"We cannot burn off all the fossil fuels that are readily available
without causing dramatic climate change," Hansen said. "This is not
something that is a theory. We understand the carbon cycle well enough to
say that."



another global warming wacko!


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Lex Luthor" opined ...
izzix wrote:
World has 10-year window to act on climate -expert Reuters Thursday
September 14, 02:41 AM
SACRAMENTO, California (Reuters) - A leading U.S. climate researcher
said on Wednesday the world has a 10-year window of opportunity to take
decisive action on global warming and avert a weather catastrophe.

NASA scientist James Hansen, widely considered the doyen of American
climate researchers, said governments must adopt an alternative scenario to
keep carbon dioxide emission growth in check and limit the increase in
global temperatures to 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit).

"I think we have a very brief window of opportunity to deal with climate
change ... no longer than a decade, at the most," Hansen said at the Climate
Change Research Conference in California's state capital.

If the world continues with a "business as usual" scenario, Hansen said
temperatures will rise by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius (3.6 to 7.2 degrees F) and
"we will be producing a different planet".

The figures are a fair summation of the findings of dozens of independent
and rigorous studies.

On that warmer planet, ice sheets would melt quickly, causing a rise in
sea levels that would put most of Manhattan under water. The world would see
more prolonged droughts and heat waves, powerful hurricanes in new areas and
the likely extinction of 50 percent of species.

Hansen, who heads NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has made
waves before by saying that U.S. President George W. Bush's administration
tried to silence him and heavily edited his and other scientists' findings
on a warmer world.

The editing is a substantiated fact.

He reiterated that the United States "has passed up the opportunity" to
influence the world on global warming.

Well, yes.

The United States is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, most
notably carbon dioxide.

Indisputably true.

But Bush pulled the country out of the 160-nation Kyoto Protocol in 2001,
arguing that the treaty's mandatory curbs on emissions
would harm the economy.

Meanwhile, growth in European economies who've endorsed and implemented
Kyoto protocols has not tanked, while the U.S. economy suffers under an
ever-increasing debt--but of course it would be so much worse if emissions
were reduced?
Article of faith, plain and simple, while Bush administration's outright
suppression of climate study finding by government agencies continues.

Hansen praised California for taking the "courageous" step of passing
legislation on global warming last month that will make it the first U.S.
state to place caps on greenhouse gas emissions.

He said the alternative scenario he advocates involves promoting energy
efficiency and reducing dependence on carbon burning fuels.

"We cannot burn off all the fossil fuels that are readily available
without causing dramatic climate change," Hansen said. "This is not
something that is a theory. We understand the carbon cycle well enough to
say that."

Hansen is not saying anything different than hundreds of other
climatologists world-wide.

James Hansen studied at the University of Iowa under James Van Allen.
On June 23, 1988, as director of the NASA Institute for Space Studies,
Hansen testified before the House of Representatives that there was a strong
"cause and effect relationship" between observed temperatures and human
emissions into the atmosphere. This bold statement garnered him a
front-page story on the New York Times and national attention.

Scientific American, long a respected voice of conservative scientific
reportage, published this article of Hansen's in March of 2004--well worth
reading:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2004/2004_Hansen1.pdf

another global warming wacko!

Yes, we know what you are--or at least, we know what this particular sock
is.
(old news that needed no reminder, but you just couldn't restrain yourself,
right? ;~)

Do you have any other tricks you'd like to show off?
(besides pasting in any one of a number of articles that highlight the
complexity of global climate studies, or, as here, pasting four words from
your bozo's vocabulary?)
-maxwell

"maxwell" wrote in message
news:wSpPg.3506$832.2248@trnddc04...
"Lex Luthor" opined ...
izzix wrote:
World has 10-year window to act on climate -expert Reuters Thursday
September 14, 02:41 AM
SACRAMENTO, California (Reuters) - A leading U.S. climate researcher
said on Wednesday the world has a 10-year window of opportunity to take
decisive action on global warming and avert a weather catastrophe.

NASA scientist James Hansen, widely considered the doyen of American
climate researchers, said governments must adopt an alternative scenario
to
keep carbon dioxide emission growth in check and limit the increase in
global temperatures to 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit).

"I think we have a very brief window of opportunity to deal with
climate
change ... no longer than a decade, at the most," Hansen said at the
Climate
Change Research Conference in California's state capital.

If the world continues with a "business as usual" scenario, Hansen said
temperatures will rise by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius (3.6 to 7.2 degrees F)
and
"we will be producing a different planet".

The figures are a fair summation of the findings of dozens of independent
and rigorous studies.

On that warmer planet, ice sheets would melt quickly, causing a rise in
sea levels that would put most of Manhattan under water. The world would
see
more prolonged droughts and heat waves, powerful hurricanes in new areas
and
the likely extinction of 50 percent of species.

Hansen, who heads NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has made
waves before by saying that U.S. President George W. Bush's administration
tried to silence him and heavily edited his and other scientists' findings
on a warmer world.

The editing is a substantiated fact.

He reiterated that the United States "has passed up the opportunity" to
influence the world on global warming.

Well, yes.

The United States is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, most
notably carbon dioxide.

Indisputably true.

But Bush pulled the country out of the 160-nation Kyoto Protocol in
2001,
arguing that the treaty's mandatory curbs on emissions
would harm the economy.

Meanwhile, growth in European economies who've endorsed and implemented
Kyoto protocols has not tanked, while the U.S. economy suffers under an
ever-increasing debt--but of course it would be so much worse if emissions
were reduced?
Article of faith, plain and simple, while Bush administration's outright
suppression of climate study finding by government agencies continues.

Hansen praised California for taking the "courageous" step of passing
legislation on global warming last month that will make it the first U.S.
state to place caps on greenhouse gas emissions.

He said the alternative scenario he advocates involves promoting energy
efficiency and reducing dependence on carbon burning fuels.

"We cannot burn off all the fossil fuels that are readily available
without causing dramatic climate change," Hansen said. "This is not
something that is a theory. We understand the carbon cycle well enough to
say that."

Hansen is not saying anything different than hundreds of other
climatologists world-wide.

James Hansen studied at the University of Iowa under James Van Allen.
On June 23, 1988, as director of the NASA Institute for Space Studies,
Hansen testified before the House of Representatives that there was a
strong
"cause and effect relationship" between observed temperatures and human
emissions into the atmosphere. This bold statement garnered him a
front-page story on the New York Times and national attention.

Scientific American, long a respected voice of conservative scientific
reportage, published this article of Hansen's in March of 2004--well worth
reading:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2004/2004_Hansen1.pdf

another global warming wacko!

Yes, we know what you are--or at least, we know what this particular sock
is.
(old news that needed no reminder, but you just couldn't restrain
yourself,
right? ;~)

Do you have any other tricks you'd like to show off?
(besides pasting in any one of a number of articles that highlight the
complexity of global climate studies, or, as here, pasting four words from
your bozo's vocabulary?)
-maxwell



You want the US to sign up under Kyoto to reduce greenhouse gasses?

Easy. Just move your electricity generation, fertliser manufacture, and
smelting industries to (in the case of the US) Mexico, which has no
greenhouse gas emision limits under Kyoto. Of course, this will increase the
world's production of CO2, because Mexican factories are less efficient than
US factories, and there are transportation costs, but almost instant Kyoto
compliance.

The nett effect of Kyoto is moving heavy industry from low emission plants
in the first world to high emission plants in the third world. The only
reason to sign it is for a quick domestic PR victory - as a means of
reducing world-wide CO2 emissions, its borderline
useless/counter-productive.

"Peter Webb" argued ...
"maxwell" wrote ...
"Lex Luthor" opined ...
izzix wrote:
World has 10-year window to act on climate -expert Reuters Thursday
September 14, 02:41 AM
SACRAMENTO, California (Reuters) - A leading U.S. climate researcher
said on Wednesday the world has a 10-year window of opportunity to take
decisive action on global warming and avert a weather catastrophe.

NASA scientist James Hansen, widely considered the doyen of American
climate researchers, said governments must adopt an alternative scenario
to keep carbon dioxide emission growth in check and limit the increase
in global temperatures to 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit).

"I think we have a very brief window of opportunity to deal with
climate change ... no longer than a decade, at the most," Hansen said at the
Climate
Change Research Conference in California's state capital.

If the world continues with a "business as usual" scenario, Hansen
said temperatures will rise by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius (3.6 to 7.2 degrees F)
and "we will be producing a different planet".

The figures are a fair summation of the findings of dozens of
independent and rigorous studies.

On that warmer planet, ice sheets would melt quickly, causing a rise
in sea levels that would put most of Manhattan under water. The world would
see more prolonged droughts and heat waves, powerful hurricanes in new
areas and the likely extinction of 50 percent of species.

Hansen, who heads NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has
made waves before by saying that U.S. President George W. Bush's
administration
tried to silence him and heavily edited his and other scientists'
findings on a warmer world.

The editing is a substantiated fact.

He reiterated that the United States "has passed up the opportunity"
to influence the world on global warming.

Well, yes.

The United States is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, most
notably carbon dioxide.

Indisputably true.

But Bush pulled the country out of the 160-nation Kyoto Protocol in
2001, arguing that the treaty's mandatory curbs on emissions would harm the
economy.

Meanwhile, growth in European economies who've endorsed and implemented
Kyoto protocols has not tanked, while the U.S. economy suffers under an
ever-increasing debt--but of course it would be so much worse if
emissions were reduced?
Article of faith, plain and simple, while Bush administration's outright
suppression of climate study finding by government agencies continues.

large snip

You want the US to sign up under Kyoto to reduce greenhouse gasses?

Was that specifically what was implied?
If the problem addressed by Kyoto assuredly includes that of the world's
single largest emitter's contribution to greenhouse gases, and that single
largest source does dick-all toward developing a compehensive emissions
reduction policy, Kyoto or no Kyoto, then what?

Easy. Just move your electricity generation, fertliser manufacture, and
smelting industries to (in the case of the US) Mexico, which has no
greenhouse gas emision limits under Kyoto. Of course, this will increase the
world's production of CO2, because Mexican factories are less efficient than
US factories, and there are transportation costs, but almost instant Kyoto
compliance.

Then the *particular* 'easy' you offered was not the prudent course, while
US's guvmint rejecting Kyoto outright and doing little beyond denialism
(rather bloody obvious, at that) and propagandistic presumption (of an
economic catastrophe that Europe somehow is not besmitten with, despite
attempts toward Kyoto compliance), then this is even less prudent.

The nett effect of Kyoto is moving heavy industry from low emission plants
in the first world to high emission plants in the third world.

Umm, moving heavy industrial processes from 'first world' to 'third world'
loci was underway long before Kyoto, and _not_ slowing down, while
*developing nations* is a better term than 'third world' because it simply
states what these nations are in the process of, i.e., developing their
economies, inclusive of such 'developed nations' typicalities as power
grids, industrial plants, vehicular transport, et al.
If you'd care to parcel out Kyoto-related relocations (of emissions) you're
claiming from the TOTAL {in-country 'organic growth'/market-driven
movements+Kyoto-related(claimed)}, I'd be interested in seeing some
substantiation, rather than the 'fait accompli' (or even straw man) you've
presented.

The only reason to sign it is for a quick domestic PR victory - as a means
of reducing world-wide CO2 emissions, its borderline
useless/counter-productive.

So you say, and with such a convincing presentation ;~)

BTW, if you'd care to offer reasons why Hansen's (and so many related)
arguments are wrong, rather than tilting at but one part of the whole with a
rather wobbly lance, that could be of real argumentative merit.

Lex Luthor wrote:
On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 08:57:46 -0700, izzix wrote:

World has 10-year window to act on climate -expert Reuters Thursday
September 14, 02:41 AM


SACRAMENTO, California (Reuters) - A leading U.S. climate researcher said
on Wednesday the world has a 10-year window of opportunity to take
decisive action on global warming and avert a weather catastrophe.

NASA scientist James Hansen, widely considered the doyen of American
climate researchers, said governments must adopt an alternative scenario
to keep carbon dioxide emission growth in check

and limit the increase in global temperatures to 1 degree Celsius (1.8
degrees Fahrenheit).

"I think we have a very brief window of opportunity to deal with climate
change ... no longer than a decade, at the most," Hansen said at the
Climate Change Research Conference in California's state capital.

If the world continues with a "business as usual" scenario, Hansen said
temperatures will rise by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius (3.6 to 7.2 degrees F)
and "we will be producing a different planet".

On that warmer planet, ice sheets would melt quickly, causing a rise in
sea levels that would put most of Manhattan under water. The world would
see more prolonged droughts and heat waves, powerful hurricanes in new
areas and the likely extinction of 50 percent of species.

Hansen, who heads NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has made
waves before by saying that U.S. President George W. Bush's administration
tried to silence him and heavily edited his and other scientists' findings
on a warmer world.

He reiterated that the United States "has passed up the opportunity" to
influence the world on global warming.

The United States is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, most notably
carbon dioxide. But Bush pulled the country out of the 160-nation Kyoto
Protocol in 2001, arguing that the treaty's mandatory curbs on emissions
would harm the economy.

Hansen praised California for taking the "courageous" step of passing
legislation on global warming last month that will make it the first U.S.
state to place caps on greenhouse gas emissions.

He said the alternative scenario he advocates involves promoting energy
efficiency and reducing dependence on carbon burning fuels.

"We cannot burn off all the fossil fuels that are readily available
without causing dramatic climate change," Hansen said. "This is not
something that is a theory. We understand the carbon cycle well enough to
say that."

another global warming wacko!

Particularly when noting that he is claiming that *now* is the only
chance we'll have. Just like 10 years ago the wackos were claiming that
*then* was the only chance we would have. Just like in the 70s and 80s
they were saying the same thing. Only then they were saying that if we
didn't stop carbon emissions we would be creating a new Ice Age.

And if you want to decide if Hansen is honest you only need to look at
the statement "Bush pulled the country out of the 160-nation Kyoto
Protocol in 2001". That is simple nonsense. The US was never *in* the
Kyoto Protocol. Clinton refused to sign it and refused to send it for
ratification. But he kept up a pretext that someday we might so that
people who weren't paying attention could blame Bush.

I guess he caught a few, didn't he?

"maxwell" wrote in message
news:3muPg.3247$W13.1037@trnddc05...
"Peter Webb" argued ...
"maxwell" wrote ...
"Lex Luthor" opined ...
izzix wrote:
World has 10-year window to act on climate -expert Reuters Thursday
September 14, 02:41 AM
SACRAMENTO, California (Reuters) - A leading U.S. climate researcher
said on Wednesday the world has a 10-year window of opportunity to take
decisive action on global warming and avert a weather catastrophe.

NASA scientist James Hansen, widely considered the doyen of American
climate researchers, said governments must adopt an alternative scenario
to keep carbon dioxide emission growth in check and limit the increase
in global temperatures to 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit).

"I think we have a very brief window of opportunity to deal with
climate change ... no longer than a decade, at the most," Hansen said at
the
Climate
Change Research Conference in California's state capital.

If the world continues with a "business as usual" scenario, Hansen
said temperatures will rise by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius (3.6 to 7.2 degrees
F)
and "we will be producing a different planet".

The figures are a fair summation of the findings of dozens of
independent and rigorous studies.

On that warmer planet, ice sheets would melt quickly, causing a rise
in sea levels that would put most of Manhattan under water. The world
would
see more prolonged droughts and heat waves, powerful hurricanes in new
areas and the likely extinction of 50 percent of species.

Hansen, who heads NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has
made waves before by saying that U.S. President George W. Bush's
administration
tried to silence him and heavily edited his and other scientists'
findings on a warmer world.

The editing is a substantiated fact.

He reiterated that the United States "has passed up the opportunity"
to influence the world on global warming.

Well, yes.

The United States is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, most
notably carbon dioxide.

Indisputably true.

But Bush pulled the country out of the 160-nation Kyoto Protocol in
2001, arguing that the treaty's mandatory curbs on emissions would harm
the
economy.

Meanwhile, growth in European economies who've endorsed and implemented
Kyoto protocols has not tanked, while the U.S. economy suffers under an
ever-increasing debt--but of course it would be so much worse if
emissions were reduced?
Article of faith, plain and simple, while Bush administration's
outright
suppression of climate study finding by government agencies continues.

large snip

You want the US to sign up under Kyoto to reduce greenhouse gasses?

Was that specifically what was implied?
If the problem addressed by Kyoto assuredly includes that of the world's
single largest emitter's contribution to greenhouse gases, and that single
largest source does dick-all toward developing a compehensive emissions
reduction policy, Kyoto or no Kyoto, then what?

Easy. Just move your electricity generation, fertliser manufacture, and
smelting industries to (in the case of the US) Mexico, which has no
greenhouse gas emision limits under Kyoto. Of course, this will increase
the
world's production of CO2, because Mexican factories are less efficient
than
US factories, and there are transportation costs, but almost instant Kyoto
compliance.

Then the *particular* 'easy' you offered was not the prudent course, while
US's guvmint rejecting Kyoto outright and doing little beyond denialism
(rather bloody obvious, at that) and propagandistic presumption (of an
economic catastrophe that Europe somehow is not besmitten with, despite
attempts toward Kyoto compliance), then this is even less prudent.

The nett effect of Kyoto is moving heavy industry from low emission
plants
in the first world to high emission plants in the third world.

Umm, moving heavy industrial processes from 'first world' to 'third world'
loci was underway long before Kyoto, and _not_ slowing down, while
*developing nations* is a better term than 'third world' because it simply
states what these nations are in the process of, i.e., developing their
economies, inclusive of such 'developed nations' typicalities as power
grids, industrial plants, vehicular transport, et al.
If you'd care to parcel out Kyoto-related relocations (of emissions)
you're
claiming from the TOTAL {in-country 'organic growth'/market-driven
movements+Kyoto-related(claimed)}, I'd be interested in seeing some
substantiation, rather than the 'fait accompli' (or even straw man) you've
presented.

The only reason to sign it is for a quick domestic PR victory - as a
means
of reducing world-wide CO2 emissions, its borderline
useless/counter-productive.

So you say, and with such a convincing presentation ;~)

BTW, if you'd care to offer reasons why Hansen's (and so many related)
arguments are wrong, rather than tilting at but one part of the whole with
a
rather wobbly lance, that could be of real argumentative merit.


Global warming is junk science, just as global cooling (the vogue in the
1970s) was junk science.

The science has been prostituted and popularised until there is nothing
left. It is a millenium doomsday cult; these existed in 1000 AD and
certainly in 2000 AD (with the Y2K bug).

The whole thing is based upon elaborate mathematical models with thousands
of unknown variables, and these variables are selected to make the equations
work out how the modeller wants them. Different assumptions lead to
completely different outcomes.

Its predictive power - the acid test of a scientific theory - is close to
zero.

For example, the global warming people maintain that one of the main effects
will be more "extreme" weather events. I have yet to even see a definition
of what this means, let alone evidence that it has occurred.

Like astrologists, they make sweeping generalisations then after the event
find specific events that prove them right. The earth will have "more
extreme weather events". Some places have; some haven't. There will
statistically always be some places with runs of extreme weather events. Is
this caused by global warming? I don't know; they provide no measures of
what "the earth having more extreme weather events" actually means. They
make dozens of predictions; some become fact; the ones that don't are
dropped.

People are pre-disposed to believe this stuff; like the Y2K bug, it has
clear villians, a simple story, and a dramatic end-of-the-world scenario. So
the media has jumped on it as a good end of the world story.

The "scientists" have pumped this for all they are worth. One day,
climatologists are sitting in University geography faculties earning $50k a
year. The next day, with the assistance of the press, they are flying to
conferences in Rio and advising Governments. They are no longer
disinterested; they have prostituted themselves.

If the climatologists could get together and make some specific testable
predictions, I would have a liitle more confidence that they were
undertaking science. And I don't mean thousands of predictions, some of
which (like with astrology) will turn out true; a consensus of some specific
testable predictions.

Funny how they often end interviews with words like "we just don't know what
the real impact will be - more study is needed". About as obviously self
serving as "pay me another $100 and I will work out a full star sign chart
and tarot reading of your future".

Its not science.

it's okay to snip, especially if you're going to ignore everything I wrote
and add some more preacherly prattle . .
"Peter Webb" wrote ...
"maxwell" wrote in ...
"Peter Webb" argued ...
"maxwell" wrote ...
"Lex Luthor" opined ...
izzix wrote:
World has 10-year window to act on climate -expert Reuters Thursday
September 14, 02:41 AM
big snip
BTW, if you'd care to offer reasons why Hansen's (and so many related)
arguments are wrong, rather than tilting at but one part of the whole with
a rather wobbly lance, that could be of real argumentative merit.

Global warming is junk science, just as global cooling (the vogue in the
1970s) was junk science.

So you say.
Thanks for such substantial evidence, and your discussion of Hansen's
arguments was so intelligently reasoned.

The science has been prostituted and popularised until there is nothing
left. It is a millenium doomsday cult; these existed in 1000 AD and
certainly in 2000 AD (with the Y2K bug).

Thanks again for your well-reckoned attention to the points.

The whole thing is based upon elaborate mathematical models with thousands
of unknown variables,

All those variables that you apparently know not to mention with any
specificity--they're unknown, correct? ;~)

and these variables are selected to make the equations work out how the
modeller wants them. Different assumptions lead to completely different
outcomes.

Uh huh. I'm really impressed that you've taken the time to examine what goes
into modelling, so as to offer up the glibly dismissive critique.

Its predictive power - the acid test of a scientific theory - is close to
zero.

Thank you for knowing to use intelligent sounding words in making a false
statement.

For example, the global warming people maintain that one of the main
effects will be more "extreme" weather events. I have yet to even see a
definition of what this means, let alone evidence that it has occurred.

Ahh yes, such as earlier circumpolar summers with accelerating glacial
retreats. I guess you don't read much beyond opinions that support your *a
priori* conclusions.

Like astrologists, they make sweeping generalisations then after the event
find specific events that prove them right. The earth will have "more
extreme weather events". Some places have; some haven't.

That's correct, and when observed as changes over extended time in numerous
locations, are supportive of models you glibly disdain.

There will statistically always be some places with runs of extreme
weather events.

Uh huh.
Don't bother quantifying or examining anything in depth--hey, you've got a
dismissive rationale that needs no evidence. That it's but one variation of
'unless known with utter certainty, discard the theory' is good enough for
you, apparently.

Is this caused by global warming? I don't know; they provide no measures
of what "the earth having more extreme weather events" actually means.

There's this clever thing called google.
Entering " extreme weather global warming " gave as the first hit a summary
of findings by the World Meteorological Organization
(you, informed as you so apparently are, know they are the parent body of
IPCC)

q In southern France, record temperatures were recorded in June, rising
above 40C in places - temperatures of 5C to 7C above the average.

In Switzerland, it was the hottest June in at least 250 years, environmental
historians said. In Geneva, since 29 May, daytime temperatures have not
fallen below 25C, making it the hottest June recorded.

In the United States, there were 562 May tornadoes, which caused 41 deaths.
This set a record for any month. The previous record was 399 in June 1992.

In India, this year's pre-monsoon heatwave brought peak temperatures of
45C - 2C to 5C above the norm. At least 1,400 people died in India due to
the hot weather. In Sri Lanka, heavy rainfall from Tropical Cyclone 01B
exacerbated wet conditions, resulting in flooding and landslides and killing
at least 300 people. The infrastructure and economy of south-west Sri Lanka
was heavily damaged. A reduction of 20-30 per cent is expected in the output
of low-grown tea in the next three months.

Last month was also the hottest in England and Wales since 1976, with
average temperatures of 16C. The WMO said: "These record extreme events
(high temperatures, low temperatures and high rainfall amounts and droughts)
all go into calculating the monthly and annual averages, which, for
temperatures, have been gradually increasing over the past 100 years.

"New record extreme events occur every year somewhere in the globe, but in
recent years the number of such extremes have been increasing. /q

Nothing extreme about those events--just random local pheonomena, so you
say.

further fluff snipped

so, here's another one who's not interested in substantive evidence--or is
he?
. . well, I can only hope ;~)
"Bob" wrote ...
"Peter Webb"
wrote:
"maxwell" wrote ...
"Peter Webb" argued ...
"maxwell" wrote ...
"Lex Luthor" opined ...
izzix wrote:
World has 10-year window to act on climate -expert Reuters
Thursday
September 14, 02:41 AM
SACRAMENTO, California (Reuters) - A leading U.S. climate
researchersaid on Wednesday the world has a 10-year window of
opportunity to take decisive action on global warming and avert a
weather catastrophe.
NASA scientist James Hansen, widely considered the doyen of
American climate researchers, said governments must adopt an
alternative scenario to keep carbon dioxide emission growth in
check and limit the increase in global temperatures to 1 degree
Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit).

great big snip

Scientist Alleging Bush Censorship Helped Gore, Kerry March 23, 2006
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics....20060323a.html
"...Three years earlier, Hansen had accepted the $250,000 Heinz Award
granted by the foundation run by Kerry's wife Teresa. But the same day
Hansen publicly endorsed Sen. John Kerry's presidential candidacy in 2004,
the New York Times quoted Hansen as saying that the grant from the Heinz
Foundation had had "no impact on my evaluation of the climate problem or
on my political leanings...""

So, in 1988 it was already clear that Hansen's evaluation of earth's climate
strongly suggested a need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and in 2004,
Heinz foundation gave a quarter million to Hansen.
As prior to that time, the incumbent Bush administration had been working
overtime to deny that there was any worry about global warming, even going
so far as to have a petrol company attorney with no scientific expertise
re-write reports government scientists had prepared, Hansen would have had
to be an utter idiot to support Bush, while Kerry and Heinz not only opposed
Bushian spinmongering of climate science, but also, quite unlike Bush,
thought that engendering international cooperation on global issues (like,
d'oh, emissions reductions) , is a prudent and pragmatic way to proceed.
Gosh, Hansen supported Kerry?
What an amazement!
Sure he needed the money, or he wouldn't have endorsed Kerry.
Uh huh.

Heh. You're not very good at this, are you? ;~)

. . naah, the next cite is much better--good work, fwiw !

Climate Scientist Quits IPCC, Blasts Politicized 'Preconceived
Agendas' Date: April 1, 2005
"IPCC announced warming-hurricane link despite 'no global warming
signal'"
"Citing a politicized agenda and misrepresentations of climate
science, prominent climate scientist Chris Landsea on January 17
resigned his post as a participant in the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC)."

So, Hansen went before the House of Representatives in June of 1988, and in
November of that year, IPCC was formed in Geneva.
Common interests, yes.

Landsea was quite upset that James McCarthy, a biological oceanographer (and
IPCC worthy) though NOT a hurricane scientist, was leading a conference at
Harvard that concerned hurricanes.

Landsea may well be correct in claiming political intrusion into IPCC led to
insufficiently supported reports that global warming causes Atlantic
hurricane increases in intensity, while Landsea also notes that sea level
rises resultant from global warming *do* contribute to increased impact from
storm surges, and cites IPCC's report "Climate Change 2001: The Scientific
Basis"

You might fairly derive from this that Landsea does not consider IPCC a
promulgator of 'junk science,' but *does* object to politicization and any
decrements of rigor or reportage.

Regarding Landsea on global warming and hurricanes, a brief overview can be
seen at:
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/reply_globwarm.pdf
(the above is a criticism (of others' reports) by Landsea that argues
against global warming as having been _established_ as a cause of increased
hurricane intensity, published by the American Meteorological Society)
(see page 630 [pdf page 3] for Landsea's comments on storm surges)

In applied terms, global warming, in Landsea's view, would not have made
Hurricane Katrina more powerful, but would have contributed to more
extensive flooding.
Some might take more extensive flooding to be a significant event ;~)

Now, what any of this does to invalidate Hansen I'd like to know.

Feel free to go to primary sources (PLEASE!)--I'll try to help find
peer-reviewed articles that support _your_ position (and if need be, will
tap my uni's subscribed-to journals database [though no full text
off-license requests, please], but will in return demand a rigor of
reasoning not yet apparent in this or the previous articles of this thread.

Cheers,
-maxwell

"maxwell" wrote in message
news:BeCPg.1175$HZ5.1172@trndny08...
it's okay to snip, especially if you're going to ignore everything I wrote
and add some more preacherly prattle . .
"Peter Webb" wrote ...
"maxwell" wrote in ...
"Peter Webb" argued ...
"maxwell" wrote ...
"Lex Luthor" opined ...
izzix wrote:
World has 10-year window to act on climate -expert Reuters
Thursday
September 14, 02:41 AM
big snip
BTW, if you'd care to offer reasons why Hansen's (and so many related)
arguments are wrong, rather than tilting at but one part of the whole
with a rather wobbly lance, that could be of real argumentative merit.

Global warming is junk science, just as global cooling (the vogue in the
1970s) was junk science.

So you say.
Thanks for such substantial evidence, and your discussion of Hansen's
arguments was so intelligently reasoned.

The science has been prostituted and popularised until there is nothing
left. It is a millenium doomsday cult; these existed in 1000 AD and
certainly in 2000 AD (with the Y2K bug).

Thanks again for your well-reckoned attention to the points.

The whole thing is based upon elaborate mathematical models with
thousands of unknown variables,

All those variables that you apparently know not to mention with any
specificity--they're unknown, correct? ;~)

and these variables are selected to make the equations work out how the
modeller wants them. Different assumptions lead to completely different
outcomes.

Uh huh. I'm really impressed that you've taken the time to examine what
goes into modelling, so as to offer up the glibly dismissive critique.

Its predictive power - the acid test of a scientific theory - is close to
zero.

Thank you for knowing to use intelligent sounding words in making a false
statement.

For example, the global warming people maintain that one of the main
effects will be more "extreme" weather events. I have yet to even see a
definition of what this means, let alone evidence that it has occurred.

Ahh yes, such as earlier circumpolar summers with accelerating glacial
retreats. I guess you don't read much beyond opinions that support your *a
priori* conclusions.

Like astrologists, they make sweeping generalisations then after the
event find specific events that prove them right. The earth will have
"more extreme weather events". Some places have; some haven't.

That's correct, and when observed as changes over extended time in
numerous locations, are supportive of models you glibly disdain.

There will statistically always be some places with runs of extreme
weather events.

Uh huh.
Don't bother quantifying or examining anything in depth--hey, you've got a
dismissive rationale that needs no evidence. That it's but one variation
of 'unless known with utter certainty, discard the theory' is good enough
for you, apparently.


I have examined the information in depth; and I have read Hansen's piece.

It is full of vague assertions, but contains NO testable predictions
whatsoever.

The test of science is its falsifiability. Hansen makes no falsifiable
predictions. Therefore it is not science.

Is this caused by global warming? I don't know; they provide no measures
of what "the earth having more extreme weather events" actually means.

There's this clever thing called google.
Entering " extreme weather global warming " gave as the first hit a
summary of findings by the World Meteorological Organization
(you, informed as you so apparently are, know they are the parent body of
IPCC)


Where does this contain a definition of "extreme weather events", exactly?

The US had its worst tornado month ever. Evidence of more extreme weather?
Australia, Asia, Africa didn't have bad cyclones; this must be evidence that
there are less extreme weather events.

Sydney had its wettest September day since 1890. Evidence that there are
less extreme weather events now than in 1890? In Easter Island, nothing
special weather-wise has happened all year - no lowest, highest, wettest,
driest, windiest days/weeks/months/years ...evidence that the earth is
undergoing less extreme weather events.

So many predictions of global warming have turned to **** (like the east
coast of Australia receiving 20% more rain) that they are now predicting
"more extreme events" - and then notably not defining what an "extreme
event" actually is. At the end of this year they will doubtless look back on
the list of wettest, driest, coldest, hottest, sunniest, cloudiest windiest
days for every location earth, pick out the ones where records were broken
(which with a whole world to choose from and a dozen parameters to measure,
there will statistically always be dozens of records broken) and say - look,
THAT's what we meant by "extreme weather events".

This prediction that the earth will have more "extreme weather events" is
completely untestable, because (having learnt their lesson with specific
predictions), they make no definition of "extreme weather events", and hence
provide no way of disproving their theories. This is not science; it is
astrology. When an astrologist says "you will bump into somebody you haven't
seen for years", and you do, its not evidence that astrology is true. I
bumped into somebody I hadn't seen for years this morning; its not an
uncommon event (like somewhere in the world having a hottest/driest/coldest
etc etc day/wekk/month/year etc etc); its a prediction so vague as to be
very likley to be true.

How about some of these from me. In the next 12 months:

* There will be a major earthquake in Asia killing thousands.
* A dormant volcano will erupt somewhere.
* Major flooding will occur in Europe
* An Australian sporting team will be involved in a major upset
* NSW Parliament will be rocked with allegations of corruption.

These are a LOT more specific and testable than the predictions of
climatologists and astrolgers; wann make a bet that some of them come true?
(I retain the right to ignore predictions that don't come true, and state
they will come true in the year after). The twaddle produced by
climatologists is a lot less testable than these predictions.



q In southern France, record temperatures were recorded in June, rising
above 40C in places - temperatures of 5C to 7C above the average.


And northern France, southern Spain, northern Spain, southern Portugal,
northern Portugal, and in the whole of Zanzibar no records were broken in
June. For that matter, no records were broken in southern France in January,
February, March ... evidence that there are less extreme weather events?

In Switzerland, it was the hottest June in at least 250 years,
environmental historians said. In Geneva, since 29 May, daytime
temperatures have not fallen below 25C, making it the hottest June
recorded.

In Austria however?



In the United States, there were 562 May tornadoes, which caused 41
deaths. This set a record for any month. The previous record was 399 in
June 1992.


Why tornados? I assume they didn't break records for heat, cold, rainfall,
....

In India, this year's pre-monsoon heatwave brought peak temperatures of
45C - 2C to 5C above the norm. At least 1,400 people died in India due to
the hot weather.

Is this actually a record? How many people normally die from hot weather?
When was the hottest summer? How often are temperatures 2C to 5C above
average?

In Sri Lanka, heavy rainfall from Tropical Cyclone 01B exacerbated wet
conditions, resulting in flooding and landslides and killing at least 300
people.

Is this extreme? How intense was Cyclone 01B? Was it out of the ordinary?

The infrastructure and economy of south-west Sri Lanka was heavily
damaged. A reduction of 20-30 per cent is expected in the output of
low-grown tea in the next three months.


Is this unusual? How unusual?

Last month was also the hottest in England and Wales since 1976, with
average temperatures of 16C.

So there are less extreme weather events now than there were 30 years ago?


The WMO said: "These record extreme events (high temperatures, low
temperatures and high rainfall amounts and droughts) all go into
calculating the monthly and annual averages, which, for temperatures, have
been gradually increasing over the past 100 years.

So wind speeds, tornados and hurricanes are not "extreme weather events"?
This would exclude many of the items given as examples. This would be so
much easier if they defined what "extreme weather events" were, and provided
an index to measure it. I wonder why they don't?


"New record extreme events occur every year somewhere in the globe, but in
recent years the number of such extremes have been increasing. /q


Now that's a sweeping statement, missing only a definition of what "extreme
weather events" are, how you measure their frequency, and evidence that it
is actually occuring.

Nothing extreme about those events--just random local pheonomena, so you
say.


Random local events cause occasional extreme events. You go into a casino,
about one time in very 512 runs of 10 there is 10 reds or 10 blacks in a
row. You check every casino in the world, and every day there will be
somewhere a run of 20 blacks or 20 reds. Extreme? Yes. Evidence that the
games are rigged? No. You have a whole world's weather to check for a year,
somewhere there will be a run of 20 blacks in a row, and some casino in this
year will statistically have the longest run of reds or blacks it has ever
experienced. The "most tornados in a single month in the US" is about as
unremarkable as "a run of 18 heads in a row in the Lucky Nugget casino in
Vegas in May 2006, a record run of heads for that casino".

Without a definition of extreme weather and an index for its measurement,
then the climatologists are not making falsifiable predictions. Astrolgers
use crystal balls; climatologists use computer models of their own devising;
in the absence of falsifiable predictions, I treat their predictions with
equal disdain.