The other day I pointed out that:
Obama’s “My Brother’s Keeper” initiative targets $350 million at poverty = 1/3 of one billion dollars in our 16 trillion dollar economy = 1/48,000 of GDP …
… or $50 million less than former NY Mayor (stop-and-frisk) Bloomberg wasted on an inexcusably wasteful new county courthouse in the Bronx — both 1939 original and 1976 annex both in perfect condition (crime down 4X, too, by 2004).
I have to find it for you. This is the latest throwaway answers by Repubs when discussing increases in income. Unfortunately, the bunk of that increase is made up of Government program inputs.
” If you’ve already imagined how hard it would be for an honest, but inexperienced, investigator of climate science to get at the truth about Hansen’s 1988 predictions, now imagine how much harder it is when data are plotted in misleading fashion.
Computer models of global climate are far from perfect. But they remain our best tool to predict future climate change. Even so, they are not the basis for concluding that climate change is really happening, that it’s mainly because of us, and that it’s dangerous. Very dangerous. Those conclusions are based on observation of past climate changes (including way back to the glacial cycles over the last million years and more), and those pesky little laws of physics.
But the fact remains that far too many people, and organizations, who really don’t have the knowledge to know what they’re talking about, bombard us with misleading claims. That’s one of the main reasons our society remains paralyzed, doing next to nothing to address what is really the defining issue of this century.”
EM, please, please look at the graph. ” Hansen estimated future temperature based on three scenarios of possible greenhouse gas emissions, high emissions (scenario A), medium (scenario B), and low (scenario C). Scenario C, the no rise in GHGs from 2000, is not today’s temperature reality. It coincidentally is the closest of Hansen’s Scenario to today’s measurements. Even there it is high when compared to the HadCru3 measurements.
Hansen’s Scenario A, continue on the same path, is today’s GHG reality and Hansen’s estimate is also +.75C higher than today’s HadCru3 measurements.
His total argument is spin. If the estimates do not match measurements, and especially if his most conservative scenario, C, diverges then discussing the internals of Radiative Forcings, which is a much larger category of forcings than just GHGs, Hansen’s contention.
Tamino writes for a subset of novices who know almost nothing about climate and/or statistics. You’ve shown you are a member in good standing with that group.
Feel free to make those observations at Tamino’s blog. I am a self admitted googler who cannot even keep up with “that group”, but I believe I understand what is being said. Like the fact that the graph is pure and utter bs. Or like your thought that hansen only concerned himself with GHGs is nonsense.
Let me know how you make out over there, or in any discussion with real scientists. Or if you wish, I could post it for you? Let me know.
EM, you are funny!, The chart was from your reeferfence which took it from GWPF. It referenced GHGs. Not I.
Hansen’s 1988 predictions have been an issue since they were first made, Since it was made as part of Congressional Testimony, and the details were poorly documented. A thorough discussion with many links is available here: http://climateaudit.org/2008/01/16/thoughts-on-hansen-et-al-1988/
What makes your comment funny is your acceptance of Tamino’s misdirection of focusing on the Hansen details on Radiative Forcing (GHG or all of them). But you failed to actually look at the graphic and discern that ALL the scenarios are bad, worse, and atrocious, when compared with observations.
Hansen’s 1988 predictions were wrong. To think otherwise is to ignore the data.
Hint: did Tamino ever claim Hansen’s prediction true or did he just rant against the GWPF article Do not forget to read my reference to get a thorough historical background of the debate.
Yup! Steve McIntyre is the one person most climatologists fear. If their work has errors he will find them. Which is kind of strange, if you think your science is sound.
Anyway, you have failed to answer my points. Why do you thin that Tamino did not actually answer the GWPF (and the many others if you actually had read Steve McIntyre’s article) claim that the predictions were wrong, and Tamino only concentrated on changes in Forcings from those Hansen used? BTW, the Forcings were the basis of the Hansen predictions, so he had them fundamentally wrong also!
But you keep on Googling. With enough knowledge you will become better at the science and the debate.
When all you have are ad homs and ridicule, you have nothing to add. Answer my points. They are about your own article. Either you understand the fundamental problems of it or not.
BTW, I do debate several “real scientists”, but almost never on sites that edit comments, Tamino’s, SkS, Real climate etc.
I would rather have hot nails driven into my eyes than have a discussion with you.
You simply refuse to stop cutting and pasting bs from ahs, and making changes to stop any debate. Consider the Alley reconstruction thing, just like every denialist you refuse to even consider his data stopped in the 19th century. Why? For the same reason you want to ignore Tamino’s answer to the questions you ask me; it does not fit your bs.
Just like using McIntyre as some sort of fact checker, I mean yeah let’s pay attention to the guy who “checked” Climategate, yet somehow failed in all of his facts.
As Tamino said:
” far too many people, and organizations, who really don’t have the knowledge to know what they’re talking about, bombard us with misleading claims. That’s one of the main reasons our society remains paralyzed, doing next to nothing to address what is really the defining issue of this century.”
Answer my points. They are about your own article. Either you understand the fundamental problems of it or not.
I guess the answer is OR NOT.
Since you believe comparing Hansen’s 1988 predictions with modified Forcings, and using dataset differences as a basis of disputing g out an analysis of TRENDS is OK., Then citing the Tamino’s penultimate paragraph, I will cite his last slightly modified: I”n the meantime, I advise everyone who hears anything at all from the Tamino to be skeptical. Be very skeptical.” That also goes for SkS, RealClimate, ThinkProgress, Grist, and the several more alarmist blogs using comment editing to win a point.
fwiw, Peterson’s Guide to Financial Blog Commenters
rjs:
Where is Peak when you need him?
The other day I pointed out that:
Obama’s “My Brother’s Keeper” initiative targets $350 million at poverty = 1/3 of one billion dollars in our 16 trillion dollar economy = 1/48,000 of GDP …
… or $50 million less than former NY Mayor (stop-and-frisk) Bloomberg wasted on an inexcusably wasteful new county courthouse in the Bronx — both 1939 original and 1976 annex both in perfect condition (crime down 4X, too, by 2004).
Now:
Obama announces $600 million in grant programs to prepare workforce for jobs = 1/24,000th of GDP …
… or $30 million less than Mad King Bloomberg blew opening another new courthouse in downtown Brooklyn.
Again, I call it Obama-doesn’t-care.
Dennis:
But, but wait a minute. Didn’t the lowest quintile already experience an increase of income equivalent to 49%? So why do they need more income?
Run75441,
Because they still share less than 5% of accumulated wealth, silly.
heh,heh. You played right into it. Thanks.
Run,
49% of what? And where does that metric come from?
Jack:
I have to find it for you. This is the latest throwaway answers by Repubs when discussing increases in income. Unfortunately, the bunk of that increase is made up of Government program inputs.
Testing comment section.
” If you’ve already imagined how hard it would be for an honest, but inexperienced, investigator of climate science to get at the truth about Hansen’s 1988 predictions, now imagine how much harder it is when data are plotted in misleading fashion.
Computer models of global climate are far from perfect. But they remain our best tool to predict future climate change. Even so, they are not the basis for concluding that climate change is really happening, that it’s mainly because of us, and that it’s dangerous. Very dangerous. Those conclusions are based on observation of past climate changes (including way back to the glacial cycles over the last million years and more), and those pesky little laws of physics.
But the fact remains that far too many people, and organizations, who really don’t have the knowledge to know what they’re talking about, bombard us with misleading claims. That’s one of the main reasons our society remains paralyzed, doing next to nothing to address what is really the defining issue of this century.”
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/03/21/hansens-1988-predictions/#more-7152
EM, please, please look at the graph. ” Hansen estimated future temperature based on three scenarios of possible greenhouse gas emissions, high emissions (scenario A), medium (scenario B), and low (scenario C). Scenario C, the no rise in GHGs from 2000, is not today’s temperature reality. It coincidentally is the closest of Hansen’s Scenario to today’s measurements. Even there it is high when compared to the HadCru3 measurements.
Hansen’s Scenario A, continue on the same path, is today’s GHG reality and Hansen’s estimate is also +.75C higher than today’s HadCru3 measurements.
His total argument is spin. If the estimates do not match measurements, and especially if his most conservative scenario, C, diverges then discussing the internals of Radiative Forcings, which is a much larger category of forcings than just GHGs, Hansen’s contention.
Tamino writes for a subset of novices who know almost nothing about climate and/or statistics. You’ve shown you are a member in good standing with that group.
Feel free to make those observations at Tamino’s blog. I am a self admitted googler who cannot even keep up with “that group”, but I believe I understand what is being said. Like the fact that the graph is pure and utter bs. Or like your thought that hansen only concerned himself with GHGs is nonsense.
Let me know how you make out over there, or in any discussion with real scientists. Or if you wish, I could post it for you? Let me know.
EM, you are funny!, The chart was from your reeferfence which took it from GWPF. It referenced GHGs. Not I.
Hansen’s 1988 predictions have been an issue since they were first made, Since it was made as part of Congressional Testimony, and the details were poorly documented. A thorough discussion with many links is available here: http://climateaudit.org/2008/01/16/thoughts-on-hansen-et-al-1988/
What makes your comment funny is your acceptance of Tamino’s misdirection of focusing on the Hansen details on Radiative Forcing (GHG or all of them). But you failed to actually look at the graphic and discern that ALL the scenarios are bad, worse, and atrocious, when compared with observations.
Hansen’s 1988 predictions were wrong. To think otherwise is to ignore the data.
Hint: did Tamino ever claim Hansen’s prediction true or did he just rant against the GWPF article Do not forget to read my reference to get a thorough historical background of the debate.
Pure bs, CoRev.
Steve McIntyre?
Seriously?
Stop putting your cut and pastes from the WUWTs of the world(which includes climateaudit) out there. You’re wasting bytes.
Yup! Steve McIntyre is the one person most climatologists fear. If their work has errors he will find them. Which is kind of strange, if you think your science is sound.
Anyway, you have failed to answer my points. Why do you thin that Tamino did not actually answer the GWPF (and the many others if you actually had read Steve McIntyre’s article) claim that the predictions were wrong, and Tamino only concentrated on changes in Forcings from those Hansen used? BTW, the Forcings were the basis of the Hansen predictions, so he had them fundamentally wrong also!
But you keep on Googling. With enough knowledge you will become better at the science and the debate.
More bs.
Please feel free to enter debate with real scientists instead of googlers.
I would enjoy reading as you are as embarrassed as Pielke(s) are when they do so.
When all you have are ad homs and ridicule, you have nothing to add. Answer my points. They are about your own article. Either you understand the fundamental problems of it or not.
BTW, I do debate several “real scientists”, but almost never on sites that edit comments, Tamino’s, SkS, Real climate etc.
I would rather have hot nails driven into my eyes than have a discussion with you.
You simply refuse to stop cutting and pasting bs from ahs, and making changes to stop any debate. Consider the Alley reconstruction thing, just like every denialist you refuse to even consider his data stopped in the 19th century. Why? For the same reason you want to ignore Tamino’s answer to the questions you ask me; it does not fit your bs.
Just like using McIntyre as some sort of fact checker, I mean yeah let’s pay attention to the guy who “checked” Climategate, yet somehow failed in all of his facts.
As Tamino said:
” far too many people, and organizations, who really don’t have the knowledge to know what they’re talking about, bombard us with misleading claims. That’s one of the main reasons our society remains paralyzed, doing next to nothing to address what is really the defining issue of this century.”
Answer my points. They are about your own article. Either you understand the fundamental problems of it or not.
I guess the answer is OR NOT.
Since you believe comparing Hansen’s 1988 predictions with modified Forcings, and using dataset differences as a basis of disputing g out an analysis of TRENDS is OK., Then citing the Tamino’s penultimate paragraph, I will cite his last slightly modified: I”n the meantime, I advise everyone who hears anything at all from the Tamino to be skeptical. Be very skeptical.” That also goes for SkS, RealClimate, ThinkProgress, Grist, and the several more alarmist blogs using comment editing to win a point.
Comment editing?
More bs. You know why they edit. It is because of people like you. And only when you just get beyond silly.
But here’s a test. Take your thoughts over there and if they edit them other than the way I said, I will admit you are correct.
EM been there. Done that. Also seen many example from others.
How’re your eye? They must be really painful.
G’day to you.
Give me the link to your being there.
BTW,
Angry Bear also edits comments. Nice knowin’ ya’.
“I’ve had a perfectly wonderful evening. But this wasn’t it.” – Groucho Marx