3 ms·
You guys don't seem able to decide if he never said it and Reiss made it all up (an extraordinary claim), or if he said it but it doesn't matter. It'll probabl
by nvm0n2 3y ago
You guys don't seem able to decide if he never said it and Reiss made it all up (an extraordinary claim), or if he said it but it doesn't matter.
It'll probably be another goalpost move but let's try again. Take the Hansen's 1989 written testimony to Congress you're keen on. No arguments about sources there, right?
He presented three scenarios and said "Scenario A assumes continued growth rates of trace gas emissions typical of the past 20 years". He also wrote "We have considered cases ranging from business as usual which is scenario A to draconian emission cuts, scenario C, which would totally eliminate net trace gas growth by year 2000."
Look at any graph of CO2 and it goes up in a straight line since measurements began, so we are on scenario A, business as usual. This enormously over-predicted temperature trends even after all the changes they make to the temperature record. Hansen and his supporters reacted by trying to claim he never said those things and had been predicting scenario B all along. His written testimony shows that this isn't true, but that's how it goes.
Hansen is for sure an actual scientist, so these problems are enough to disprove what you said about what actual scientists have been saying.
- acdha 3y ago> You guys don't seem able to decide if he never said it and Reiss made it all up (an extraordinary claim), or if he said it but it doesn't matter. It does matter because you’re trying to criticize an entire field of science by ignoring all of the accurate predictions made in official publications in favor of attacking an incorrect summary of a misstatement made by someone else which differed in both the time period and conditions (the book for which the original interview question was made specified doubling CO2, which is a level we’re nowhere near). Similarly, the rest of your post is trying to sound science-y but it’s conspicuous how you always have to paraphrase things and allege all of these non-specific problems, again carefully without making a claim specific enough to fact check and ignoring things like the Montreal Protocol which impacted some of the growth curves. Finally, dealing quite mining here is not any more fun than it is with creationists. I would politely suggest again that you focus on the IPCC reports – those represent the work of many people rather than a single person and have a much better claim to represent the consensus at the time they were published.
- nvm0n2 3y agoThis thread is going nowhere, you're both in denial: - <example of bad predictions> It has to come from actual scientists! - <example from Hansen> I don't believe you, you must be making it up. - <citation> Still can't believe it, primary sources only! - <citation of another false claim by the same scientist, in his own words, from the source you selected> What about all the other predictions! You're paraphrasing! Sciency sounding! Creationists! IPCC! You don't seem to know how to respond to counter-examples that disprove your initial belief so keep falling back on a grab-bag of memetic clichés that don't actually apply here. What does creationism have to do with anything? What is "sciency sounding" about something as basic as temperature? How can I be paraphrasing anything when the words are a direct quote from his written testimony to Congress? Go look up his Scenario A "business as usual" predictions and see for yourself how far off it is from even today's adjusted-upwards temperature record. The gap is massive.