Ex-NASA expert issues call for climate solutions

Dec 03, 2013
Climatologist Dr James Hansen, former head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, poses during a photocall in Coventry, in central England, on March 19, 2009

Longtime NASA expert James Hansen has issued a call for new approaches to stop global warming, saying solutions are needed and that currently accepted targets are too dangerous.

His 26-page paper in the open-access journal PLOS ONE outlines the dangers of and the devastating impact it has already had on the world environment.

Global warming of two degrees Celsius would be "far into the dangerous range," he said, referring to the 2009 Copenhagen accord which said deep cuts in emissions were needed to reduce emissions and keep the increase in global temperature below two degrees Celsius relative to pre-industrial times.

While has already reached a level of less than one degree Celsius, Arctic sea ice has melted at a faster rate than expected, the oceans have been rapidly acidifying and heatwaves, drought and wildfires have risen in intensity, he said.

These events "imply that society should reassess what constitutes a 'dangerous level,' of global warming," Hansen wrote.

Instead, efforts should be made to constrain global warming to the level it has already reached, he said.

The warming of the past few decades "has brought global temperature close to if not slightly above the prior range of the Holocene," he said, referring to the last 11,700 years of Earth history, since the end of the last Ice Age.

"We conclude that an appropriate target would be to keep at a level within or close to the Holocene range."

Hansen is an adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University and former head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City.

His article called on world leaders, researchers and policy makers to respond with active attempts to restore the Earth's energy balance.

PLOS ONE editorial director Damian Pattinson said the journal would publish any articles that pass a peer-review process on ways to reverse the troubling trend.

"Our hope is to generate a wide range of submissions on climate research and in particular papers that address solutions to the challenges posed by a changing climate, such as alternative energy development, environmental preservation, the problems of acidification, adaptation strategies and restoration of failing ecosystems," he said.

A PLOS Collection, "Responding to Climate Change," will be launched in early 2014 to highlight the research.

"Although there is merit in simply chronicling what is happening, there is still opportunity for humanity to exercise free will," said Hansen.

"Thus our objective is to define what the science indicates is needed."

Explore further: Experts say nuclear power needed to slow warming

More information: Hansen J, Kharecha P, Sato M, Masson-Delmotte V, Ackerman F, et al. (2013) Assessing ''Dangerous Climate Change'': Required Reduction of Carbon Emissions to Protect Young People, Future Generations and Nature. PLOS ONE 8(12): e81648. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0081648 , dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0081648

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Experts say nuclear power needed to slow warming

Nov 03, 2013

Some of the world's top climate scientists say wind and solar energy won't be enough to head off extreme global warming, and they're asking environmentalists to support the development of safer nuclear power ...

Recommended for you

Selective logging takes its toll on mammals, amphibians

17 hours ago

The selective logging of trees in otherwise intact tropical forests can take a serious toll on the number of animal species living there. Mammals and amphibians are particularly sensitive to the effects of ...

User comments : 69

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

dogbert
1.9 / 5 (28) Dec 03, 2013
Hanson has a history of arrests and activism. He likes to note that he worked for NASA, but NASA sought to control his public statements which were not the product of NASA.

He is an extremist. He represents much of what is wrong with the AGW advocates.
gregor1
1.9 / 5 (26) Dec 03, 2013
Yes,he's a nutter who delights in spreading disinformation. He once claimed the oceans would boil like on the planet Venus. Looks like he's still at it and Pysorg is still facilitating him.
Fungussa
3.2 / 5 (18) Dec 03, 2013
'dogbert' and 'gregor1', your criticisms are opinions, they aren't based on knowledge. You should keep your opinions to yourselves, as they are misleading.

The quality of Phys.org is likely to improve if it adopts the same approach as PopularScience, by disallowing all comments.
____________
Dec 03, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
____________
Dec 03, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
____________
Dec 03, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
____________
Dec 03, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
____________
Dec 03, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
____________
Dec 03, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Maggnus
3.3 / 5 (15) Dec 03, 2013
Nik by any other name is still a denialist and pedophile.
____________
Dec 03, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
____________
Dec 04, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (21) Dec 04, 2013
James Hansen has issued a call for new approaches to stop global warming
I Agree! We should STOP GLOBAL WARMING!

Oh wait... never mind...

http://www.woodfo....8/trend

...it already stopped.

____________
Dec 04, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
____________
Dec 04, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
____________
Dec 04, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
____________
Dec 04, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
____________
Dec 04, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
____________
Dec 04, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
____________
Dec 04, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
____________
Dec 04, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
____________
Dec 04, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
____________
Dec 04, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
____________
Dec 04, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
____________
Dec 04, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
____________
Dec 04, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
VendicarE
3.8 / 5 (11) Dec 04, 2013
"Hanson has a history of arrests and activism." - DogBerTard

Excellent. I commend him on his morality and veracity.

Don't you?

VendicarE
3.9 / 5 (11) Dec 04, 2013
"Yes,he's a nutter who delights in spreading disinformation." - GregorTard

Anthony Watts certainly is.

____________
Dec 04, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
____________
Dec 04, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
VendicarE
4.2 / 5 (10) Dec 04, 2013
"Coauthor Lise Van Susteren inspired "The National Wildlife Federation Jumps The Shark" " - NikkieTard

If Incoherence and Mindlessness are the goal, NikkieTard hits the mark every time.
VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (10) Dec 04, 2013
"Coauthor Makiko Sato was discovered in a Freedom Of Information Act inquiry " - NikkieTard

Once again NikkieTard posts an accusation and then follows up with some random graphic image that does not support or even apply to the accusation he makes.

It is all part of his fantasy life, his arrested mental development and the mental condition he has publicly admitted to suffering.

____________
Dec 04, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
VendicarE
3.8 / 5 (11) Dec 04, 2013
NikkieTard link points to ....

Assessing ''Dangerous Climate Change'': Required
Reduction of Carbon Emissions to Protect Young People,
Future Generations and Nature

Authors

James Hansen
Pushker Kharecha
Makiko Sato1
Valerie Masson-Delmotte
Frank Ackerman
David J. Beerling
Paul J. Hearty
Ove Hoegh-Guldberg
Shi-Ling Hsu
Camille Parmesan
Johan Rockstrom
Eelco J. Rohling
Jeffrey Sachs
Pete Smith
Konrad Steffen
Lise Van Susteren
Karina von Schuckmann
James C. Zachos

I agree with the scientists who authored that paper.
NikkieTard - a failed New York desk lamp "artist" does not.

I'll side with my scientist peers thank you.
VendicarE
3.5 / 5 (11) Dec 04, 2013
"I am working with Pushker Kharecha and Makiko Sato to define the required emissions scenario." - NikkieTard

Once again, NikkieTard's mental disease sees something evil and nefarious in the above sentence.

For months now, we have been appealing to him to take his Ritalin and seek additional psychiatric help before he is once again arrested for sexually assaulting a child, and assault with a deadly weapon.
____________
Dec 04, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
VendicarE
3.5 / 5 (11) Dec 04, 2013
"Link for Google challenged VendicarE about that FOIA," - NikkieTard

Another meaningless link from NikkieTard, who no doubt is beginning to hear those voices in his head again.

Nikkie... You need to spray your head silver to prevent those moon beams from controlling your mind.
Urgelt
3.2 / 5 (11) Dec 04, 2013
An article like this is catnip to denialists. They can't resist; and out comes the flood of half-truths, pure fabrications, cherry-picked data, faulty reasoning, invective and hatred. The flood is so intense, it's really not worth bothering to refute it, especially since nothing we might say will pass their mind filters unless it's in full agreement. There is no discussion possible; only hollering.

What I wonder is why they bother on a science site. Nobody who knows science even a bit is going to fall for their absurd junk science. They'll have better luck convincing Fox readers; why don't they head over there and vent?
VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (10) Dec 04, 2013
"VendicarE's regular stalker death threats against user NikFromNYC - NikkieTard

I don't see any death threats, but NikkieTard's diseased mind does.

It sees many things that don't exist. That is ultimately why he has a long arrest record, why is a failed desk lamp "artist", and why he still lives in university subsidized housing.

Nikkie could have been a chemist with a good future. But his mental disease took that away from him.

So sad.
VendicarE
3.8 / 5 (10) Dec 04, 2013
"...it already stopped." - UbVonTard

UbVonTard just continues to repeat the same lie over and over again like a broken record.

His plot shows is from HadCrut 3 which everyone knows omits large swaths of the earth's polar regions and hence doesn't reflect a global average temperature - even though he claims it does.

HadCrut4 has fewer omissions, and is more global in scope.

http://www.woodfo...20/trend

And shows an increase in global temperatures of 0.1'C since 1997

Lying is what UbVonTard does
Lying is what he lives for
Lying is his life
Lying is what he does.
He is a pure, lying liar.
____________
Dec 04, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
runrig
3.5 / 5 (11) Dec 04, 2013
Nik:

I long since lost patience with you.

If you continue in the same vein as last time, then you will (very quickly) go the way of the bin again.
____________
Dec 04, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
runrig
3.5 / 5 (11) Dec 04, 2013
Urgelt:
"What I wonder is why they bother on a science site. Nobody who knows science even a bit is going to fall for their absurd junk science. They'll have better luck convincing Fox readers; why don't they head over there and vent?

Nik told me he has an "activist" agenda. Some strange idea that page hits here on phys.org will advance the denialist cause.

Err yes, I know.

He won't last long in his current undercover guise – the same modus operandi makes him stand out like a sore thumb.

By the look of the blitz on here he must have spent his "hiatus" storing up "little tidbits" from the usual denialist Blogs.
runrig
3.5 / 5 (11) Dec 04, 2013
runrig is Tony Banton, whose entire UK Met Office retiree pension is at risk from prime minister Cameron's recent order to "get rid of all the green crap!" and the potential massive public green scam backlash.


Hello Nik - thanks for the confirmation.

BTW: I get a Gov pension (x0.5 as I left 8 yrs early) as the UKMO is a branch of the MOD.
runrig
3.5 / 5 (11) Dec 04, 2013
Nik:

-_NikFromNYC_- (test123)

If you'd used the above it would have at least been honest. Logical as well as …..

By using " ___________ " you don't fool anyone as your unique brand of paranoia and blitzing copy/paste rhetoric, lies and mistruths from the usual denialist Blogs are indeed unique in the lexicon.

There you are you see – fame at last.
____________
Dec 04, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
runrig
3.5 / 5 (11) Dec 04, 2013
He doesn't care about UK retirees that are dying by the thousands due to heating fuel poverty brought on by his own alarmist claims even though his Met Office just drastically reduced its own former hothouse projections!

https://www.gov.u...oull-get]https://www.gov.u...oull-get[/url]
https://www.gov.u...oull-get]https://www.gov.u...oull-get[/url]

There are also grants available for more efficient energy use adptions.
https://www.gov.u...measures

I myself had cavity wall and loft insulation installed with £200 of the ~£250 cost paid in subsidy.

BTW; Climate when warming globally does NOT - indeed cannot, given sinks and sources of heat - behave by uniformly heating. Regional cold/warm is just that and with the yin/yang appearing in another region. Such than the average temp cancels out (saving the overlying AGW term). The clue is in the word GLOBAL.
Anyone who is incapable of understanding that (most denialists) do not deserve any credence or correspondence.

cont
____________
Dec 04, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
runrig
3.8 / 5 (10) Dec 04, 2013
cont

Nik: Clue - it's call science or in terms of seasonal weather, Meteorology. On which I am an expert, sorry.

Yet again Nik says… "Met Office just drastically reduced its own former hothouse projections!"

And I will repeat, yet again, that you refer to an experimental decadal model that attempts to model climate cycles that GCM's do not and cannot given the necessary smoothing caused by ensemble techniques. The UKMO remains behind the IPCC assessments on GW.

Good luck to them because the forecasting of the PDO/ENSO cycle remains elusive. It matters not however in the continuing rise of temp as that cycle just overlies the basic in vs out imbalance in the Earths' energy – the balance unequivocally proven by measurement and just basic physics.

I'll let you now return (until you're banned again - or perhaps not if you moderate your behaviour) and waffle on about Spencer's negative cloud feed-back theory that has been shunned by his peers.
____________
Dec 04, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
runrig
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 04, 2013
____________
Dec 04, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
____________
Dec 04, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
__________
Dec 04, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
full_disclosure
1 / 5 (15) Dec 04, 2013
"...it already stopped." - UbVonTard

UbVonTard just continues to repeat the same lie over and over again like a broken record.

His plot shows is from HadCrut 3 which everyone knows omits large swaths of the earth's polar regions and hence doesn't reflect a global average temperature - even though he claims it does.

HadCrut4 has fewer omissions, and is more global in scope.

http://www.woodfo...20/trend

And shows an increase in global temperatures of 0.1'C since 1997

Lying is what UbVonTard does
Lying is what he lives for
Lying is his life
Lying is what he does.
He is a pure, lying liar.


Time to change your diaper Herr Vendicar….
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (13) Dec 05, 2013
His plot shows is from HadCrut 3...
Vendi-chatterbot ]ust continues to repeat the same lie over and over again like a broken record.

Everyone knows HadCRUT4 was intentionally manipulated to show increased warming in the late 20th century.

And HadCRUT4 is not as valued as HadCRUT3, by the scientific community. Since 2012, papers citing HadCRUT3 (only) outnumber HadCRUT4 (only) papers nearly two to one (and a lot of the HadCRUT4 papers are just trying to justify HadCRUT4).

Funny isn't it that HadCRUT4 also shows a pause? ...a pause lasting more than 13 years:

http://www.woodfo....8/trend

LOL. Even when Vendi-chatterbot TRIES to hide the pause by using overtly manipulated data, it just can't! LOL

Poor Vendi-chatterbot. It just can't stop lying.
Lying is its programming
Lying is what it does.
Lying is what it was made to do.
Lying is the chatterbot way.
goracle
2 / 5 (11) Dec 06, 2013
"Hanson has a history of arrests and activism." - DogBerTard

Excellent. I commend him on his morality and veracity.

Don't you?


Yes, just like Mandela and Ghandi both had a "history of arrest and activism". Supposedly, so did Jesus of Nazareth.
Maggnus
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 06, 2013
LOL. Even when Vendi-chatterbot TRIES to hide the pause by using overtly manipulated data, it just can't! LOL


Look who's talking! Take out he 2000.8 and make it 2000 and what happens:

http://www.woodfo....8/trend

You're a joke uba, laughingly inept and predictable, easily manipulated, and utterly gullible. What a sad case!

I'm so glad you're trying to promote the denialist side, your arguments are so laughable one doesn't even really need to counter them. No doubt you have Nik and others of his ilk on your side, because as is typical of the denialists, they don't have the sense to be embarrassed by your buffoonery.
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 06, 2013
For those who understand climate, here's a graph worth actually looking at:

http://www.woodfo...13/trend
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (11) Dec 07, 2013
Look who's talking! Take out he 2000.8 and make it 2000 and what happens:
You've increased the time span and therefore only show warming from BEFORE my time span. This in no way negates my claim.

You're a joke uba, laughingly inept and predictable, easily manipulated, and utterly gullible. What a sad case!
Typical AGWite personal attack. Is this the best "science" you have?

I'm so glad you're trying to promote the denialist side, your arguments are so laughable one doesn't even really need to counter them.
Nice slight of hand. My arguments stand resolute, so you mockingly admit they cannot be effectively countered.

No doubt you have Nik and others of his ilk on your side, because as is typical of the denialists, they don't have the sense to be embarrassed by your buffoonery.
It appears they know the truth when they see it. Why do you work so hard to hide it?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (12) Dec 07, 2013
For those who understand climate, here's a graph worth actually looking at:
Wan't the claim, increasing CO2 is supposed to force continued and accelerating warming?

Hmm... let's check that...

http://www.woodfo....8/trend

Well, CO2 obviously continues to steadily increase...

http://www.woodfo....8/trend

...Yet temperatures steadfastly refuse to budge upward!

Funny... I just don't see a correlation...

Protoplasmix
2.2 / 5 (13) Dec 07, 2013
...Yet temperatures steadfastly refuse to budge upward!
Funny... I just don't see a correlation...

Perhaps that's because you steadfastly refuse to budge from denying it? Try this article from Nature (07 March 2013) and pay special attention to the part that says, "…which helps to explain why global temperatures have risen so quickly in recent decades…"
Global temperatures are close to 11,000 year peak
And if you try to be critical of Marcott, please review these responses first, to see if your criticism has already been addressed. Thanks. Response by Marcott, et al. :
http://www.realcl...t-et-al/
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 07, 2013
This in no way negates my claim.
What claim? You make no claims Uba, you simply decide that there isn't anything happening and then cherry pick data to fit your decision. That's called denialism.
My arguments stand resolute, so you mockingly admit they cannot be effectively countered.
You're playing whack-a-mole, nothing else. As soon as it is pointed out that your understandings are incomplete, misrepresented, cherry-picked or wrong you move to the very next article to repeat the same thing. That's not a resolute argument, that's denialism.
It appears they know the truth when they see it. Why do you work so hard to hide it?
A genetic fallacy. You ascribe motives that are not apparent. Hell, they're not even hinted at. A typically denialist position.
Wan't the claim, increasing CO2 is supposed to force continued and accelerating warming?
a false dichotomy. And so it goes, nam infinitum, in aeternum usque ad vomitum satiata. Denialism.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Dec 08, 2013
Perhaps that's because you steadfastly refuse to budge from denying it? Try this article from Nature (07 March 2013) and pay special attention to the part that says, "…which helps to explain why global temperatures have risen so quickly in recent decades…"
Hmm... it appears you don't understand what "global warming" means, and/or have no idea what's really happening to global temperatures. Let me spell it out for you...

Standard definition of global warming:

"global warming
n.
An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change."

Global temperatures: http://www.woodfo....7/trend

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Dec 08, 2013
What claim?
Typical chatterbot response. It can't understand the context, so it simply denies the context had meaning altogether.

Review my claim regarding HadCRUT4, understand it, and try again...

...that is, if you can...

Egleton
2.8 / 5 (9) Dec 08, 2013
The denialist will disappear when they stop being paid.
Photovoltaics and windpower are moving in on King Coal. Every year they get cheaper to produce.
King Coal is getting desperate.
Expect intensive lobbying. Spain has already started taxing photovoltaics.
No-matter. Perth has not got enough spinning reserves for the mid-day surge when all the air conditioners come on line. It relies on private solar cells for peak demand.
So much for "free"-market capitalism.
Denialists are King Coal's crutch pieces. Without them he cannot stand.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Dec 08, 2013
Why do people like Hansen fear change?

"Uncertainty is an inherent part of new ideas, and it's also something that most people would do almost anything to avoid. People's partiality toward certainty biases them against creative ideas and can interfere with their ability to even recognize creative ideas."
http://www.slate....ing.html
Sinister1811
3.8 / 5 (4) Dec 08, 2013
Typical chatterbot response.


Stop calling people you don't agree with chatterbots. That is so lame!
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 08, 2013
Typical chatterbot response.


Stop calling people you don't agree with chatterbots. That is so lame!

"* RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)"
http://www.bestof...radicals
Why must AGWites resort to these tactics if their science is sound?
casualjoe
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 08, 2013
If more people saw the wood for the trees they would refrain from quoting that stupid website.
Protip: Not everything you see on the internet is true.
Maggnus
2.5 / 5 (4) Dec 08, 2013
Hmm... it appears you don't understand what "global warming" means, and/or have no idea what's really happening to global temperatures. Let me spell it out for you...

Standard definition of global warming:

"global warming
n.
An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change."


Whack-a-mole. Whack-a-mole. Whack-a-mole. Keep talking dum dum, you do more harm to your own cause by opening your mouth than any scientist can do by countering your stupidity.

Laughingly inept!
Maggnus
3 / 5 (4) Dec 08, 2013
Typical chatterbot response. It can't understand the context, so it simply denies the context had meaning altogether.

Review my claim regarding HadCRUT4, understand it, and try again...

...that is, if you can...
Oh, you mean the one where you claim there is some nefarious group that has somehow convinced the scientists at the MET office and the University of East Anglia to purposefully fudge their temperature datasets to cause all us humans to bow to some otherworld group? That is your usual laughingly inept attempt at creating doubt!

Whack-a-mole.

Please, keep talking, you're too stupid to even realize the harm you bring to your own cause! It's great!
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Dec 08, 2013
The denialist will disappear when they stop being paid.
So who's paying you to be a denialist? Why won't you you freely admit global warming has stopped?

http://www.woodfo....7/trend

Maggnus
3 / 5 (4) Dec 08, 2013
So who's paying you to be a denialist? Why won't you you freely admit global warming has stopped?


Whack-a-mole. Because it hasn't.
Whack job!
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 08, 2013
Why do people like Hansen fear change?

"Uncertainty is an inherent part of new ideas, and it's also something that most people would do almost anything to avoid. People's partiality toward certainty biases them against creative ideas and can interfere with their ability to even recognize creative ideas."
http://www.slate....ing.html
Sorry Rygg, I meant to give you a 5 rating for that.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Dec 08, 2013
Typical chatterbot response.


Stop calling people you don't agree with chatterbots. That is so lame!
It's widely known the AGWite community has deployed chatbots.

http://phys.org/n...nts.html

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Dec 08, 2013
"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)"

Why must AGWites resort to these tactics if their science is sound?
Now that is a very good question.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Dec 08, 2013
If more people saw the wood for the trees they would refrain from quoting that stupid website.
Protip: Not everything you see on the internet is true.
Maybe if you did some research, you'd find the data woodfortrees uses comes directly from the various climate reporting agencies.

But no-o-o. It's much too much work for AGWites to bother with finding the truth for themselves. It's easier to let other people do the thinking for them. ...people like Hansen.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Dec 08, 2013
Typical chatterbot response. It can't understand the context, so it simply denies the context had meaning altogether.

Review my claim regarding HadCRUT4, understand it, and try again...

...that is, if you can...
Oh, you mean the one where you claim there is some nefarious group that has somehow convinced the scientists at the MET office and the University of East Anglia to purposefully fudge their temperature datasets to cause all us humans to bow to some otherworld group? That is your usual laughingly inept attempt at creating doubt!

Whack-a-mole.

Please, keep talking, you're too stupid to even realize the harm you bring to your own cause! It's great!
And here's the proof Maggnus is (or often is) simply a chatbot. It failed to understand my claim enirely.

Even HadCRUT4 shows no warming in 13 years:

http://www.woodfo....8/trend

But will any AGWite admit this...?

Maggnus
3 / 5 (4) Dec 08, 2013
It's widely known the AGWite community has deployed chatbots.
Widely known is it! Hahaha what a moroon!
Maggnus
3 / 5 (4) Dec 08, 2013
And here's the proof Maggnus is (or often is) simply a chatbot. It failed to understand my claim enirely.

Even HadCRUT4 shows no warming in 13 years: But will any AGWite admit this...?


Whack-a-mole.

Denialism: denialism is exhibited by individuals choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid dealing with an uncomfortable truth. Author Paul O'Shea remarks, "[It] is the refusal to accept an empirically verifiable reality. ...


Yep, exactly.

Gullibility: credulousness: tendency to believe too readily and therefore to be easily deceived
So aptly displayed by Uba the Moron. In his case, stupidly gullible.
goracle
2.4 / 5 (5) Dec 08, 2013
It's widely known the AGWite community has deployed chatbots.
Widely known is it! Hahaha what a moroon!

Remember the 'expert' on everything on Cheers, who repeated used the line "It's a well-known fact" before spouting whatever claim he decided to pull from his butt on the spur of the moment?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Dec 09, 2013
Temperatures refuse to climb:

http://www.woodfo....7/trend

Antarctic ice continues to creep northward:

http://arctic.atm...ctic.png

And the Arctic ice has recovered so abruptly scientists are beginning to fear a period of global cooling is at hand:

"2013 saw substantially more (Arctic) ice at summer's end ...in the Antarctic, sea ice reached the highest extent recorded in the satellite record."

"This summer saw air temperatures at the 925 hPa level that were 1 to 3 degrees Celsius (2 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit) lower than last summer."

"It was also a cool summer compared to recent years over much of the Arctic Ocean, and even cooler than the 1981 to 2010 average in some regions, particularly north of Greenland."

http://nsidc.org/...icenews/

And STILL the AGW alarmists whine. What will it take to satisfy them?

Maggnus
2.8 / 5 (4) Dec 09, 2013
Temperatures refuse to climb:
Whack -a-mole.
Antarctic ice continues to creep northward:
Whack-a-mole.
And the Arctic ice has recovered so abruptly scientists are beginning to fear a period of global cooling is at hand:
Sensationalist denialism. That's a new low, even for UbaMoron. That is so spectacularly not true I can't believe your pants didn't burst into flame. Hahaha you'll go to any length, and you look so stupid doing it, that it's almost hard to watch.
And STILL the AGW alarmists whine. What will it take to satisfy them?
Well, a start would be for you to learn word comprehension.

Maggnus
2 / 5 (3) Dec 09, 2013
Look UbaMoron, I can cut and paste too! Want to race to see who can do it faster?

At least NikfromPedophiliaville would paste his garbage from other sites. You don't even have the sense to do that!

You are such a denialist moron!
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (4) Dec 09, 2013
I think it's obvious that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will increase the global temperature, very much akin to throwing gasoline on a fire. It's simple physics. How much is obviously debatable.

My questions, especially in response to this article are:

What SHOULD the global temperature average be? According to who? Why? How do we keep it there forever? Should we? Are there natural variations that should be allowed to take place? Who decides that and why? What moral authority to human beings have to put a freeze on the climate in 1800 and say anything else is "wrong"?

OR, is it just about getting CO2 levels down to pre-industrial levels and then shutting up? OR is it about getting your pet political policies implemented under the cover of human irresponsibility?

This "debate" has gotten so convoluted, politicized, and distorted that it's not even about climate change anymore for either side....
Maggnus
3.8 / 5 (4) Dec 09, 2013
What SHOULD the global temperature average be? According to who? Why?


I think your question is wrong MM, in that I don't think the issue is truly what the global temperature is (or should be) its the speed of the change of the temperature. But, to partly answer your question, see this: https://www2.ucar...ture-now So really, what we are talking about is not bringing the CO2 levels down, it's bringing the increase in CO2 levels down. That is to say, its not just that there is a lot of CO2 now in the air (there is about 400PPM now, nearly double what it was 100 years ago) but we continue to add gigatonnes of it every year. There is change coming, we are seeing it everywhere, so going backwards won't work - and its impractical. It's a matter of slowing the rate of change to allow the planet and it's systems to catch up.

Denialists don't seem to get a basic fact; the planet will survive this. It has survived worse. Its us that won't.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Dec 09, 2013
Its us that won't.

Why not?
Maggnus
2 / 5 (2) Dec 10, 2013
Its us that won't.

Why not?
Because Socialists like you are allowed to procreate!
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Dec 10, 2013
AGWites can't predict with any degree of confidence how climate change will destroy humanity.
Instead they advocate and promote policies that would limit the technologies needed to adapt to any climate.
Maggnus
2.5 / 5 (2) Dec 10, 2013
It's people that are promoting your brand of Socialism that create the problems. Capitalism advocates the use of new technologies to deal with the problems identified by the scientific community. It's the Socialists like you that try to suppress the spirit of entrepreneurs that want to bring forward solutions.

Are you sure you're not a closet communist? You sound communist. Its that extreme Socialism you promote, sounds more communistic every time you comment on something.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 10, 2013
Capitalism advocates the use of new technologies to deal with the problems identified by the scientific community


If a profit can be earned in a free market.

Why does the scientific community advocate and support socialism?
I note the little bit about "problems identified by the scientific community". Why should a capitalist really care what the scientific community thinks are problems?
A real capitalist, like Rockefeller identified an opportunity with crude oil and hired a scientist to improve the refining process making clean kerosene at low cost, which is what his customers wanted.
I think the 'scientific community' tends toward socialism (govt control of private property) because they get miffed when they are ignored by consumers.
Hansen worked for Enron to promote Kyoto to promote Enron's natural gas business. But this is not capitalism. Enron, like GE, Solyndra, etc. need the power of the state to force consumers to buy their stuff.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Dec 11, 2013
Whack-a-mole.
Not science, just a childish retort.

Whack-a-mole.
Another childish retort.

Sensationalist denialism. That's a new low, even for UbaMoron. That is so spectacularly not true I can't believe your pants didn't burst into flame. Hahaha you'll go to any length, and you look so stupid doing it, that it's almost hard to watch.
More childish stupidity ...devoid of science.

Well, a start would be for you to learn word comprehension.
And more childish nonsense.

Maggnus offers absolutely nothing of substance, just nonsense and ad hominem.

Maggnus
3.8 / 5 (4) Dec 11, 2013
If a profit can be earned in a free market.
No kidding, that's called "Capitalism".
Why does the scientific community advocate and support socialism?
Only in Your mind. Science doesn't advocate anything. The rest of your post is just more anti-everything gish gallop.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (4) Dec 11, 2013
Maggnus offers absolutely nothing of substance, just nonsense and ad hominem.


And yet still more science than you can muster! Why don't you put up the graph that has been shown to be wrong again? Or talk about ice volume versus ice extent like there is no difference yet again? Or scream shrilly about how the scientists of the world are all colluding to hide whatever, again?

You play whack-a-mole and call it "skepticism". THAT'S nonsense UbaMoron.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (4) Dec 11, 2013
One final thing. An ad hominem is a logical fallacy committed when an argument is countered by attacking the person making the argument, instead of the argument itself. It presupposes that there is a debate between the parties. That is not the case here; that is, I am not arguing that Uba's argument is wrong because he is a moronic denialist, I am saying there is no debating with Uba because he is a denialist moron.
Uba, and others, do not come here to "debate" the science. They come here to promote a politically driven denialist agenda couched in conspiracy. DonGateley has accused me of using a logical fallacy. Get it straight Don and any others who feel the same way; I am straight up insulting and dismissing those people who have shown themselves to be interested only in debating the politics of denialism. My comments are intended to those people specifically, and those people only. Its not a debate. The science is settled. The only ones who don't realize that truth are denialists.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Dec 11, 2013
Science doesn't advocate anything.

Scientists do.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 11, 2013
The science is settled.

Science is NEVER settled.
Those who claim it is are doing so to stifle any further discussion and analysis of science.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Dec 15, 2013
Maggnus offers absolutely nothing of substance, just nonsense and ad hominem.


And yet still more science than you can muster! Why don't you put up the graph that has been shown to be wrong again?
This is a lie.

Or talk about ice volume versus ice extent like there is no difference yet again?
Another lie.

Or scream shrilly about how the scientists of the world are all colluding to hide whatever, again?
Another lie.

You play whack-a-mole and call it "skepticism". THAT'S nonsense UbaMoron.
And personal attacks...

Is this the best "science" you can muster?

I guess there's no real point in arguing with AGW zealots (religious believers), as their arguments aren't founded on logic and reason. They are demonstrably terrible human beings.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Dec 15, 2013
One final thing. An ad hominem is a logical fallacy committed when an argument is countered by attacking the person making the argument, instead of the argument itself.
Which is precisely what you have been doing!

...I am not arguing that Uba's argument is wrong...
Of course not, as you can't do so in respect to real science.

Uba, and others, do not come here to "debate" the science.
Another lie. As you've just admitted, you're the one refusing to debate the science!

ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 15, 2013
refusing to debate the science

AGWites can't debate the science without acknowledging the science is not settled.