Quote:

The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/earth/29climate.html?ex=1296190800&en=28e236da0977ee7f&ei=5088

---

Quote:

Prominent scientist James Hansen criticizes President Bush’s climate change policy, despite the fact that the policy is in part based on Hansen’s own findings.

This is unheard of: A prominent scientist in the pay of the federal government attacks the President in a crucial state (Iowa) one week before the election. Not just any prominent scientist, either, but James Hansen, recipient of $250,000 in pocket change from the Heinz Foundation, run by Mrs. John Kerry. Don’t worry, though, he said he was speaking as a private citizen because he paid his own way. With Mrs. Kerry’s money, we might add, in his family nest egg.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2004/10/28/blowing-your-own-whistle/

---

Quote:

And although we weren’t there, we can only assume he summarized the results of his research on global warming, which were very succinctly stated in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2001:

Quote:

Future global warming can be predicted much more accurately than is generally realized…we predict additional warming in the next 50 years of ¾ +/- 1/4ºC, a warming rate of 0.15ºC +/- 0.05ºC per decade.

---

That is precisely the same low figure that the so-called “skeptics”—the writers of these alerts and our apparently few friends—have been touting for years (readers will note that the White House never asked us!). Hansen’s figure sits at the bottom limit of projections made by the teeming horde of scientists and bureaucrats from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

---

Quote:

this data means bullshit to me...

---

Quote:

I just finished a degree in environmental science...

---

Quote:

...global climate change is happening, its not a debate...

---

Quote:

the overwhelming chutzpah of the man to actually accuse someone else of scientific malfeasance while at the same time concealing his data and methods to avoid a necessary correction is certainly impressive.

---

Quote:

ow much (if any) of the very slight rise in temperature over the last hundred years or so can be attributed to humans burning stuff?

---

Quote:

...just the liberal media's fault that 9 of the warmest years on record happened in the last 10.

---

ArcofaJourney said:

i'm sure it's just a coincidence that the recent warming spell HAPPENS to coincide with the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, and it's just the liberal media's fault that 9 of the warmest years on record happened in the last 10. All of the climate change models indicate this period of warming happened to coincide with the industrial revolution. Is this a coincidence? Coal doesn't dig itself out of the ground and light itself.

---

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming







"The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and CH4 have increased by 31% and 149% respectively above pre-industrial levels since 1750. These levels are considerably higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores. From less direct geological evidence it is believed that CO2 values this high were last attained 20 million years ago.[18] Fossil fuel burning has produced about three-quarters of the increase in CO2 from human activity over the past 20 years. Most of the rest is due to land-use change, in particular deforestation.[19]"

---

Quote:

If you missed NEWSWEEK's story, here's the gist. A "well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change." This "denial machine" has obstructed action against global warming and is still "running at full throttle." The story's thrust: discredit the "denial machine," and the country can start the serious business of fighting global warming. The story was a wonderful read, marred only by its being fundamentally misleading.

---

Quote:

It's always galling to be exhorted to curb your consumption by people who are living the poshest lifestyle imaginable. But the problem here goes beyond aesthetics. Eco-hypocrites undercut the very message they're trying to peddle. How desperate could the planet's plight be if the people who present themselves as most concerned about it consider flying first-class commercial an unacceptable sacrifice? Why should anyone bother to carpool when Streisand requires her own convoy? Or forgo A/C for a fan when Edwards is chilling in the largest house in his county? The implication of the hypocrites' behavior is that we must take all measures to fight global warming short of those that would reduce our quality of life. But a reduction in quality of life—or at least a redefinition of it—is exactly what Americans are going to have to accept to make a meaningful dent in greenhouse gas levels.

---

zappaisgod said:

We need to build both

---

Quote:

My statement about his data being bullshit was in reference to the fact that i believe he is trying to distort the actual statistics of the matter by leaving out the beginning of the rise(1750-1900)

---

Quote:

Therefore someone with such a degree would know that one of the minima of the Little Ice Age is generally agreed to be -- surprise, surprise -- 1750. Talk about trying to distort the actual statistics of the matter!

---