Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tecoyah
Then I am confused I think. From what I have read I get the issue you are bringing up as inconsistencies in the Ideas put forward by Mr Hansen. I have spent the better part of this page trying to explain that he did not put the Ice Age Idea on tha table, as I believed you expressed he had. If this is not the case, then it seems you are simply stating that by virtue of his research being used by another scientist to create a hypothesis, he must then also believe in said hypothesis. Is that correct?
Might it also be possible (though I certainly dont know), that the clarity you note in the 80's was due to the very use of his research you have taken issue with? And if so, I think that might very well be his answer to the question you raise, and likely the only one you will get. Its not likely the man will try to explain why he changed his mind....if he didn't.
|
Hansen is a very intelligent person and for the most part credible. In the '70's there was scientific based concerns about global cooling due to human activity, rather than global warming. People continued research, they continued to question and continued to debate the issue, it was not an issue deemed as settled. Hansen clearly continued his work. At the time he was either silent on the issue of climate change or had not made up his mind - to the best of my knowledge. However, we do know his work was used to support the work of people who believed the globe was cooling. If the question is settled, perhaps Hansen can further clarify how his current modeling, which suggests we have 9 years, can be used with a higher degree of certainty than models developed in the 70's.
Again, all I really suggest is that he come forward and answer questions.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
LOL....another "objective" IBD editorial, but not as good as the one called "Apocalypse Cow" which downplays the human impact, misrepresents a UN study and blames cow flatulence.
But even given the fact (?) that Hansen may have received $750,000 from Soros for "media packaging" (whatever that means), the research in question is NASA research.....which one could reasonably believe is more objective than the multitude of global warming debunking studies, with $millions of funding from Exxon-Mobile Foundation, the American Petroleum Institute, the George T Marshall Institute, et al.
More "grist for the mill: Look at the funding of five prominent global warming skeptics
And lets not forget the political contributions of big oil, mostly to support members of Congress who are global warming skeptics, opposed to funding alternative energy r&d, and are "big oil friendly" on related energy/environment issues....amounting to over $100 million in the last four election cycles. |
On both sides of the issue, the money involved, is a good reason for people to make their work transparent for all to see and review.
We have already had people requesting information on temperature modeling algorithms from NASA that Hansen did not provide. Perhaps he had a good reason, but the issue was on the table and not responded to. Given the current climate (pardon the pun) transparency in the discussion will only help, in spite of the fact that many believe the issue is settled..