The 'Old' Consensus?
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, September 21, 2007 4:20 PM PT
Climate Change: Did NASA scientist James Hansen, the global warming alarmist in chief, once believe we were headed for . . . an ice age? An old Washington Post story indicates he did.
--------------------------------------...
Related Topics: Global Warming
--------------------------------------...
On July 9, 1971, the Post published a story headlined "U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming." It told of a prediction by NASA and Columbia University scientist S.I. Rasool. The culprit: man's use of fossil fuels.
The Post reported that Rasool, writing in Science, argued that in "the next 50 years" fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun's rays that the Earth's average temperature could fall by six degrees.
Sustained emissions over five to 10 years, Rasool claimed, "could be sufficient to trigger an ice age."
Aiding Rasool's research, the Post reported, was a "computer program developed by Dr. James Hansen," who was, according to his resume, a Columbia University research associate at the time.
So what about those greenhouse gases that man pumps into the skies? Weren't they worried about them causing a greenhouse effect that would heat the planet, as Hansen, Al Gore and a host of others so fervently believe today?
"They found no need to worry about the carbon dioxide fuel-burning puts in the atmosphere," the Post said in the story, which was spotted last week by Washington resident John Lockwood, who was doing research at the Library of Congress and alerted the Washington Times to his finding.
Hansen has some explaining to do. The public deserves to know how he was converted from an apparent believer in a coming ice age who had no worries about greenhouse gas emissions to a global warming fear monger.
This is a man, as Lockwood noted in his message to the Times' John McCaslin, who has called those skeptical of his global warming theory "court jesters." We wonder: What choice words did he have for those who were skeptical of the ice age theory in 1971?
People can change their positions based on new information or by taking a closer or more open-minded look at what is already known. There's nothing wrong with a reversal or modification of views as long as it is arrived at honestly.
But what about political hypocrisy? It's clear that Hansen is as much a political animal as he is a scientist. Did he switch from one approaching cataclysm to another because he thought it would be easier to sell to the public? Was it a career advancement move or an honest change of heart on science, based on empirical evidence?
If Hansen wants to change positions again, the time is now. With NASA having recently revised historical temperature data that Hansen himself compiled, the door has been opened for him to embrace the ice age projections of the early 1970s.
Could be he's feeling a little chill in the air again. Investors Business Daily is an oil company sponsored website???
And if the cooling was caused by aersol hairspray, then why don't we hand out a few billion cans and tell everyone to spray> Instant global cooling? BAAAAAAAh .I also think arseholes are more detrimental to old OZ than aerosols This is at least the third time this article has been posted here.
Again: your $5 calculator has more computing power than the best computers in 1971, the knowledge of climate has increased exponentially since 1971. The scientist was correct at least in that aerosols have had a cooling effect on climate, this is well documented - ever heard of a "scrubber" or maybe a "catalytic converter"?
Further more, it does not appear that there is any evidence that Hansen was pushing the "ice age" theory from this article. HE WROTE A PROGRAM
meaning rasool told him what the program should include and hansen wrote it for him. This article proves nothing about Hansens views and even if it did, the year was 1971
People who let the media tell them what to think are sheep Just two points--your quotes from websites funded by the oil companies aren't worth more--they aren't worth that, but for the sake of readers who might be misled by these false claims:
Hanson is NOT a climatologist--he's barely even a scientist. What he is is one of Bush's political appointees and says whatever Bush tells him too--and, BTW, retracted the comments the ignorant jerks who keep claiming global warming isn't real keep quoting. DUH. . .
The "prediciction" from 1971. First of all, that wa s 36 years ago. do these nitwits not realize that there has been more than a little research done since then? Of course not--they probably never took a college course in science--if they even finished high school (most didn't, incidentally).
Be that as it may--this is an article from a popular media source-NOT a scientific journal. And NO scentists at that time were "predicting" another ice age--except in the general sense tha tit could happen at some point--and if you wait enough centuries, probably will. This was the earliest phase of scientific investigation of long term climate--and there were a lot of HYPOTHESES put forward.
A hypothesis, for the enlightenment of these jerks--is NOT a prediction, it is NOT a scientific consensus, it is, by definition, NOT regarded as proven fact. And that is all scientists in the 1970s were doing-speculaing and advancing hypotheses as a early step in starting to understand global climate patterns.
Today--the data is in, the research has been done, and the reality of global warming is a PROVEN fact. So are the human causes of the current global warming.
These are FACTS. YOur "opinion" -- or outdated popular science articles--or all the whining in the world--will not change one of these facts--their truth is not subject to debate, or to anyone's opinion--and most especially not the opinions of jacka--es who know nothing about science, how it is done, r how it works. James Hansen wrote a computer program and he's responsible for someone's research? How desperate are the deniers anyway?
Note that the few scientists who theorized about "global cooling", had no resemblance to the global warming scientists of today. They had little data and no backing from any major scientific organizations.
Todays global warming scientists are the vast majority, with a mountain of data, and backing from every major scientific organization.
The few guys who supported global cooling were in fact, much like the "skeptics" of today.
The NASA data revision was trivial, amounting to less than a thousandth of a degree worldwide. It's a tribute to their diligence, which in no way alters any theories.
If this is all you've got, it's less than feeble.
More here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=9... I'd prefer to be a sheep in this instance rather than an ostrich!!! People who don't believe in global warming are the sheep. The article is nonsense. The only reference it has to Hanson is the statement that, "Aiding Rasool's research, the Post reported, was a "computer program developed by Dr. James Hansen." Yet the entire theme of the article is that Hanson predicted an ice age at one time. This obvious distortion of the facts is abhorrent. All this says is that Hansen wrote some software that was used by a guy named Rasool who was trying to predict an Ice Age. It does not in any way shape or form suggest that Hansen predicted an Ice Age. As one who writes software, I find the notion that I am responsible for how it is used by any user who comes along. I think that's nonsensical and fatuous, and that the courts have ruled to the contrary a long time ago (as long as the software is for a legal purpose). When you guys are quoting other people do you ever include anything they actually said? It is the sheep that are the most concerned about Global Warming. They worry about being too hot.
I think you are trying to pull the wool over our eyes. Who cares what people think (or what you think).
We are in the midst of some global climatic change. Whether it's "permanent" or "temporary" (i.e. cyclical), planetary ice is melting and the only question is is it going to erode our shorelines by 6 inches or 6 feet.
And, it's happening now, not 100 years from now; so, whether you believe or not believe is irrelevant, you would know within ten years as to what is really happening.
Only advice I have is: if you are on the coast (or below sea level in New Orleans), sell your house and get out now while others will pay for your property... As for the person who thinks predictions were wrong because of weak computer technology.... well I have news for you. Even today's "super computers" have nowhere near enough power to process all the different variables of the environment. A lot of variables (such as precipitation) aren't even factored in on the computer models that predict a massive climate change. Hansen never gave an opinion on anything in 1971. And I challenge you to show me where he did.
The only thing Hansen did was provide his computer climate model to another scientist. Hansen's model was right then, and it is still right now. Global temperatures declined from the mid 1940's to the mid 1970's due to the effects of sulfate aerosol cooling. Apparently Hansen's model predicted this correctly.
Then the US and Europe passed air pollution laws in the 1970's. The laws worked, and the air got cleaner, sulfates in the air declined, and the sulfate cooling effect declined too.
But those laws did nothing to reduce the amount of CO2 emissions, so the CO2 has continued to increase, and continued to warm the planet. Hansen's model predicts this correctly too. I, for one am a very hot person. My wife however is ice cold : Explain that. People know more than they did in 1971... Look at the excueses posted in Hansens defence. This guy could say anything and be believed!
He must be the high priest of the church of global warming! |
