>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.
You're really quite stupid aren't you? The reason you write so much while thinking so little is called the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Your cringe-worthy personal opinions aside, , and the science is as settled as we could hope for. It's all there in the IPCC reports for anyone with the ability to study independently and understand. That's not you, and sadly I don't think you can comprehend just how much more competent others are.
Sorry to be insulting, at least you won't lack friends, but you'll probably get sold a few bridges.
You don't insult someone and then apologise for it, that's just weak. I write a lot because it is a throwback to my uni days writing reports. Also, "settled science" is an oxymoron. You're a zealot, and I pity you.
Either way, I got what I was after. By your own admission, Hansen's report got it wrong. Maybe in another 30 years we can discuss the latest 2018 IPCC reports/models and talk about how those are also wrong.
I apologized because I don't mean to hurt your feelings and I know it's an awful thing to say - but I genuinely think you're not smart enough to understand the topic, and not even wise enough to follow the money and appreciate the expertise of others.
By your own admission, Hansen's report got it wrong.
He got it right in the same way we don't lose faith in the metservice if the weatherman predicts a 35 degree day and what we get is 30. But I already explained that, and many other things that I think are just beyond you.
(post is archived)