Malice Aforethought
Look, anyone with two active brain cells knows there is no way we can know if AGW exists, and the evidence points to it not existing- but this is priceless and perfect.
“Dr. Hansen purposely and with malice aforethought manipulates actual temperature observations in order to perpetuate a global warming hoax.
If I’m wrong, he can sue me. But he won’t, because he’s a fraud.”
Wonder if Bill better call a lawyer? LOL! You Go, Bill!
23 comments Og | Uncategorized
I have more than two brain cells, not sure if they are still asleep, but I think we can determine if AGW exists. Determining that would require a more healthy and balanced scientific debate than is currently happening.
My educated guess is that if AGW is happening, it is only partially responsible for the climate changes attributed to it. I suspect normal fluctuations in solar output may have more to do with it.
Alright, Wasp, if you believe we can tell, please explain how. The earth is 4.7 billion years old. Thermometers accurate to within a few degrees are less than a hundred years old. How can we tell AGW exists? What is warm? How warm is warm? Convince me.
By examining the historical record, containing data such as the extensive growing of wine grapes in England, we know that circa 900CE the climate was warmer than it is today. This is generally called the Mideval Climatic Optimum.
We also know from sea bottom cores and lake bottom sediments that during the immediate few thousand years after the most recent Ice Age that the climate was even warmer than it was in 900CE. Like for example we know that oaks grew to 6000 feet in Norway during that period. Today they barely make it there at sea level.
That period is called the Hypsothermal.
These acts tend to be convienently ignored by the doom and gloom global warming types.
Even those observations, Charles, amount to hearsay, and guesses, and really describe weather, and not climate. Since nobody can go back into time with a thermometer and take actual readings, who knows what the weather was actually like then? A freak season or series of seasons?
I sent off notice of this to an attorney I know to be an ardent AGW Kool-ade drinker. I asked if she was inclined to do some pro-bono work.
I just received a response:
I’m still thinking of a suitable response. Any suggestions?
Og, first I think that it AGW is real, it is overstated. The more data we have, the more certain we can be about the validity of the conclusion. The global temperature data show a cooling period from 1940 to 1970 then a warming period until about 2000 when things appear to have started cooling again.
I have heard of two theories which could explain this data. The first is that the sun’s output fluctuates through a 55 to 70 year cycle. The second is that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere makes the earth warmer, and sulfur dioxide makes the earth cooler. Supposedly sulfur dioxide makes clouds more reflective.
I don’t know if we have enough historical data to see which explanation more strongly corresponds with temperature data. If we don’t have enough, we could gather more.
I will concede that gathering enough data to make the conclusion irrefutable may take more time than is remaining in our lifetimes.
I wantr to know how anyone can make ANY conclusion on a statistically insignificant amount of data. When someone tells me that? well, i wont hold my breath.
No one of these Gorgaclecs can explain why Mars and Jupiter have shown a significant increase in surface temp. over the last few years? I believe we are in a natural cycle, yes human emissions may have a slight influence but compared to what Ma Nature can dish out we are like a mosquito swatting an elephant. :-)
Gorgalecs… I meant to type.
Robotic beings that slavishly follow their master and spew the same trash.
I don’t think human activity can cause any significant, lasting change (up or down) in the world’s temperatures. What’s the average temperature of the world? What’s the IDEAL average world temperature? Who says? When was the last time it was this warm/cold? How many cars and factories were in operation? Just too many questions.
P.S. My blogspot link is dead, effective about 2 weeks ago. defunct. mortis. muerte. sleepin’ wit da fishes. eyes like little “X’s.” out like a light. Can you please switch it to http://www.mukluk.wordpress.com ?
Time to buy a big, gas guzzling truck.
Sourdough: Done. Dick: WIsh I could afford to, they’re extra cheap nowadays.
Rich WASP;
The greenhouse theory is pretty well confirmed. Greenhouse gasses trap heat in the atmosphere. If less heat is re-radiated into space than the Earth absorbs from the sun, then the Earth will warm.
Global warming is unknown and — at present — unknowable. We simply do not have sufficient data and cannot gather sufficient data. A computer powerful enough to accurately model the atmosphere would be as large as the planet itself. The only real accurate model of the climate is the climate.
Anthropogenic Global Warming (which is what AGW stands for) is pretty much definitively falsified. It hasn’t happened, isn’t happening, and won’t happen any time in the near future.
I doubt anyone can imagine the real conditions it would take for human activity to overcome the natural feedback systems to such an extent as to cause catastrophic global warming.
Certainly NONE of the calamities the GW alarmists have been threatening occurred at times in Earth’s past when it’s a pretty good guess global temperatures were far higher than those for which the calamities are threatened. In fact, all indicators is that a generally warmer climate is a GOOD thing.
The warmista alarmists are using AGW as a stalking horse with the aim of instituting fascist social policies which comport with their vision of how humanity ought to progress. Never mind that their nostrums have always failed, they’re dead set on forcing them on us.
This is not conspiracy theory paranoia. All you need to do is listen to what the warmistas and other watermelons (green on the outside, red on the in) say in their own words and voices. They want higher energy costs. They want higher food costs, poorer nutrition, government controls over people’s life choices. They want fewer people on the planet and they don’t care if people die horrible ugly deaths to get us there. They want humanity to effectively disappear from the surface of the Earth. And they don’t think THEY should be the ones to pay — in lives, blood, or treasure.
M
I spent most of my professional life postulating outcome based on DATA.
We got nuthin’ here folks… move along…
When plants (wine grapes, oak trees) with very specific and well known temperature requirements can be shown by physical evidence to have grown in a given area at a given time that is hardly hearsay. It’s solid scientific evidence.
It should also be noted that there are what might be called “fossil thermometers.”
One example I recall from geology is that one can determine the temperature certain ocean microbes grew at from the ratio of Oxygen-16 to Oxygen-18 in their shells.
Interestingly, the “Itwas just weather” argument is one that the global warming worshipers use to dismiss the warm periods I mentioned.
charles: so you do have a time machine to verify the accuracy of this data, right?
Well, Og… As you know, such things as tree ring data and ice cores are what’s known as proxies. They stand in for actual temperature record.
And we can analogize using them because we know how such indicators behave and have behaved in time periods for which we have an extant temperature record.
A record which is maintained in part by individuals such as Dr. James Hansen. Of GISS (NASA).
See how that works?
M
Don’t need one.
This data can be verified in the lab, and has been.
It can also be verified by observing processes in nature as they are happening in today’s world, and they have been.
One of the basic principles of geology, well accepted for over 150 years now, is that the processes we observe in today’s world can be extrapolated to understand what we observe about the past.
This demand for a time machine dissapoints me deeply, since it’s basically a dismissal of the scientific method. In fact it reminds me of the sort of dismissals issued by outfits such as the Institute for Creation Research.
Doesn’t make any difference what happens, Hennesy has committed slander and should be sued. Problem is he’s not worth being sued so nobody will bother. He’s just another neocon coward hiding behind a keyboard
Speaking of cowards hiding behind keyboards, ALG, you seem to be hiding behind a nom de plume. At least Hennesy had the balls to use his real name.
Who’s the coward now?
Not surprise by this at all, Nate. Which is why I left it. I think I’m gonna let Pascal use that big brain of his to dissect ALG.
Thanks loads buddy. :/
I’ll address ALG’s comment in the next post. In the meantime, let me try to explain something about the benefits of anonymity (to the limits that it can be maintained — and that is near impossible.)
Never let use of a pseudonym distract you from the thought or inanity expressed. I consider it better to have an opponent speak what the enemy is thinking than my having to presume what he’s thinking. Better to box with real words than shadows. (Both Plato and Hegel taught that the riffraff should only see shadows).
Blaise Pascal posted anonymously to protect his head from Louis XIV. The 3 authors of the Federalist papers published anonymously in part to keep the discussion objective as possible by disconnecting the writings from the known personalities.
ALG might publish anonymously because doing it by name would be admitting speaking to us Neanderthals — unacceptable conduct in (and reason for being excluded from) some circles. Posting for our benefit (though it might not seem to be for our benefit) can be bad for business.
P.S.
Anyone can try to post anonymously at PascalFervor.com by sending printed material to me in an unmarked envelope to PO BOX 861334, Los Angeles 90086. (I reserve the right to refuse it or to edit.) There are examples there under “insider alerts” and in the archive, both linked in the sidebar.
A Liberal soi-disant “Genius”;
It is important when making accusations of such nature that they must be accurate and apposite.
Your accusation is inapposite as the statement made cannot be slander, it being in written communication, and therefore — if defamatory — libel.
However: The defense to any charge of defamation is the truth. And what Hennessey said is manifestly true on all points, as even the slightest awareness of the state of the art in AGW research reveals.
Hansen has lied by omission and commission in several venues and on myriad topics. Having lied, and done so repeatedly, he is a liar. Res ipso loquitur.
The GISS has manipulated data on bases subsequently demonstrated to be specious. Justifications offered have been mendacious, as independent review of their data and methods has reveals.
Since Hansen is director of GISS, it is quite reasonable to charge him with the mismanagement of the data. His behavior in attempting to prevent discovery of his … lapses speaks to his guilty conscience. He knew that his perfidy would be discovered forthwith once examination of his work were permitted to go forth, so he threw up endless specious stumbling blocks to discovery.
YOU, having made a written statement you cannot demonstrate the truth of against Bill Hennessey, on the other hand, have manifestly committed libel. Of course, your cowardly anonymity renders your accusation risibly moot. Then again, Bill might not consider it libelous, only stupid. Good thing, because I think otherwise, your eructions are actionable. Disclaimer: IANAL.
But you really need to know your shit before you shoot your mouth off.
M