Your link: Posted on 15 April 2011 by dana1981... dana1981
Regarding climate sensitivity, all dana1981 did was point out the numerous studies by other authors, summarised by the IPCC, that show that Evans is lying. (Try reading what was written).
Evans is completely alone in his crazy claims, which is why nobody knows or cares who he is. My the way, Dana Nuccitelli is an environmental consultant with a PhD in astrophysics from Berkely.
So are you conceding that Evans' climate sensitivity claims are completely stupid and fully debunked?
Do you agree or disagree that the data I presented to you here and here is correct. Can we at least establish that much?
No shill. So your entire argument still rests on one lying electrical engineer?
Hansen's predictions are discussed in my link above and more fully . They were remarkably good. This strategy of trying to discredit the entire body of global warming theory by picking tiny holes in the future predictions of a scientist clearly isn't going anywhere.
Our knowledge of the future is always probabilistic, based on our best current knowledge. On a much shorter time scale weather prediction is often wrong, but we don't go trashing the entire science of meteorology, unless we're pieces of shit paid by a coal company.
Follow the money!!
all dana1981 did was point out the numerous studies by other authors
And all Evans did was plot the predicted data from said studies against real life data.
You're STILL arguing sources. Fuck that shit. I'm going to straight to the raw data.
Do you agree or disagree that the data I presented to you here and here is correct. Can we at least establish that much?
No shill...
OK, fine, I accept that. Now lets narrow it down. Starting with this: https://mises-media.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/full_width/s3/evans_figure3.png?itok=Z7e6_uZu
Which part is wrong? Hansen's 1988 predictions, or subsequent reality from NASA satellites. No more back tracking and attacking the person who collated the information, lets go straight to the data itself, that you said is WRONG.
You know you don't actually have the raw data, you're still just linking to Evans graph.
That is, you should be looking at scenario B, not A. Hansen was close, and the correction amounts to the correct climate sensitivity of about 3, not Evans' stupid, disproven, claim of 0.6.
You may be paid for this, but I'm not. James Hansen not predicting the future perfectly does not invalidate climate science or lend any credibility to the one crackpot that you trust more than the combined expertise of the planets best researchers.
>James Hansen not predicting the future perfectly
Baby steps, there we go, now we're getting somewhere. So you acknowledge that Hanson got it wrong according to his models. That was all I was after. The data that Hansen provided to congress, and was the key study that got the whole global warming / climate change ball rolling in 1988 was wrong. There was no way we could have known then, but now, 30 years later, the results are widely available, and they don't follow Hansen's models.
Scientists aren't infallible, and they can get things wrong sometimes. If you like, we can look at the 1990 IPCC report also, or any other report you can find that shows predicted temperature vs actual over the past 20+ years.
And no, I'm not being paid. I was once a believer, especially after it was pushed on us in HS, infact, Captain Planet was one of my favourite shows growing up. But when you grow up and the story keeps changing, you need to put aside what you thought, and be open to new ideas. It's part of the process of maturity. If Hansen, or the 1990 IPCC, or any other model that was based on positive feedbacks was correct, then I'd be 100% on your team.
My personal opinion is that climate change is real, but only a small fraction is caused by humans, and the vast majority is due to the sun. A good analogy is to pretend you're in a boat, with a motor (the sun) that propels you forward, but the speed of the motor varies randomly. The human factor (reduced CO2 emissions etc) is like someone leaning out of the boat, and using their hand to try and paddle the boat forward. It makes a small difference, but you're exhausted, and the result is insignificant compared to the output of the boat motor. Also, I think that as the earth gets warmer, it's going to also get more humid, causing more rainfall, and ultimately the environment will become much more hospitable and ideal for growing plants, especially with increased CO2.
Either way. Believe what you want to believe, I don't care. What I care about is when government gets involved and either charges more tax, or diverts funds from other things, to pay for "green" schemes. Or charges other companies more tax, that then pass on the increase to customers, so the cost of my electricity, gas, or fuel increases even more when I'm already on a shoestring budget, and desperately trying to save enough money to afford the deposit for a house.
(post is archived)