Deadlines are designed to force you into a sale before you’ve had time to think,” the Better Business Bureau warns. Hansen’s tactics are somewhere between an over-eager salesman and a scammer, to which the BBB recommends:
Pay attention to your emotions. This may sound touchy-feely, but high pressure sales are all about manipulation. If you start to feel overwhelmed, anxious, rushed or like you just can’t think clearly, come to your own rescue. Walk out of the room. Hang up. Tell the salesperson to leave.
Starting in 2006, Hansen issued a number of ultimatums. In all cases if we didn't do as he wanted by this or that date then we were all doomed. Those dates have come and gone. We are not doomed, we are not about to be doomed.
We should tell Hansen to go away.
James Hansen’s Failed Ultimatums: A Free Market, Anyone? - IER
.....
Oh look the 1970s global cooling myth again. Second time this week.
It was Hansen himself's myth but, yes, it was just natural climate fluctuations just like the warming is.
But as alarmist propaganda they both can work well provided they can get kindred souls to ring the bell in support.
Some things don't change easily when there's big free bucks involved.
You know why everyone totally remembers the ice age predictions of the 1970s? Time Magazine and Newsweek. Journalists doing what journalists always do when it comes to reporting on science: blowing it way out of proportion because that sells copies.
And the AWG threat today, like all journalistic/pundit ventures, is blown out of proportion too.
Except if you listen to the scientists, they are quite clear.
IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
The facts in the IPCC vs. what they claim do not line up. You should stop your trust in political bodies.
Every scientific organization in the world supports them.
I guess I could believe random internet posters who have no expertise in the field but study it really intently at their kitchen table, but that would be...idiotic.
Only because they are reliant on the same cash cows.
Yes, we know.
ITS A GIANT GLOBAL LIBRUL CONSPIRACY!
Why cant you learn? It is not a conspiracy for individuals to do what is in their best interest, independently?
You have been told this several times, but you keep throwing out the same strawman.
Can you say IDIOT?
And the AWG threat today, like all journalistic/pundit ventures, is blown out of proportion too.
If the empirical data does not support the IPCC's position, (and it only supports the extreme low end),Every scientific organization in the world supports them.
I guess I could believe random internet posters who have no expertise in the field but study it really intently at their kitchen table, but that would be...idiotic.
No, James Hansen helped develop some software that someone else used to predict an ice age. Suggesting he predicted an ice age is kinda like suggesting Dell or Microsoft wrote the Harry Potter series because the author used Microsoft Word on a laptop to write it.
And that paper in question predicted an ice age if global aerosols were increased by a factor of 4. "If X, then Y" is not the same thing as "predicting Y will happen."
Furthermore, in the 1970s climate research was in its infancy. There were some differing ideas on what to expect, but predictions of cooling were always the minority. (and thats predictions of cooling, not ice ages)
You know why everyone totally remembers the ice age predictions of the 1970s? Time Magazine and Newsweek. Journalists doing what journalists always do when it comes to reporting on science: blowing it way out of proportion because that sells copies.
Yeah. The computer models are how all the other predictions were made and then failed. That was the point. When you can feed in random numbers and still get the same stunning results it would normally be a sign that maybe the software is hinky.
And you shouldn't complain about the media. They're the ones who've been keeping the dream alive for decades.
You think random numbers get the same results, and the same models can predict both ice ages and a warming planet.
Interesting.
Still have never figured out how these idiots thing plotting temperatures on a curve can somehow produce the same curve with random numbers.
Either they've never graphed data, or think that anyone who does it is as stupid as they are.
They think the software calculating the curve is cheating to always form a hockey stick.
But also forms ice ages sometimes?
(these people think past and present temperatures are plotted in the same software that projects future temperatures, maybe?)
You think random numbers get the same results, and the same models can predict both ice ages and a warming planet.
Interesting.
[h=2]McShane and Wyner 2010[/h]A reader (h/t ACT) draws attention to an important study on proxy reconstructions (McShane and Wyner 2010) in the Annals of Applied Statistics (one of the top statistical journals)
A Statistical Analysis of Multiple Temperature Proxies: Are Reconstructions of Surface Temperatures Over the Last 1000 Years Reliable?
It states in its abstract:
We find that the proxies do not predict temperature significantly better than random series generated independently of temperature. Furthermore, various model specifications that perform similarly at predicting temperature produce extremely different historical backcasts. Finally, the proxies seem unable to forecast the high levels of and sharp run-up in temperature in the 1990s either in-sample or from contiguous holdout blocks, thus casting doubt on their ability to predict such phenomena if in fact they occurred several hundred years ago.They cite the various MM articles.
The funniest thing about McShane and Wyner is that they put the data through their own program...and came out with this:
* Discussion of McShane and Wyner (2010) | Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick |
* Rejoinder: A Statistical Analysis of Multiple Temperature Proxies: Are Reconstructions of Surface Temperatures over the Last 1000 Years Reliable? | Blakeley B. McShane and Abraham J. Wyner |
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?