Why? Because he knows what he's talking about.

Post #301,411 by Another Scott 12/23/08 1:25:28 PM Reply	Why? Because he knows what he's talking about. It's a combination of things - his experience, his publication record, etc. Look at "gcnp58"'s reply at http://answers.yahoo...1205125459AAystmD Hansen's "h-index" is 32. That's a high number and shows substantial contributions to his field over time. He's not a kook or a crank. Isnt he the same guy who didnt like the october arctic ice numbers so substituted Septembers numbers instead? Hardly. Numbers get revised over time - it's the nature of imperfect estimation. For example, http://en.wikipedia....e_record_database Correcting climate record database In August 2007 Stephen McIntyre noticed that many U.S. temperature records from the Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) displayed a discontinuity around the year 2000. NASA corrected the data and reported that "data for 2000 and later years were inadvertently appended to USHCN data for prior years without including the adjustments at these stations that had been defined by the NOAA National Climate Data Center."[31] The correction resulted in a slight (0.15 degree C) decrease in U.S. average temperatures post-2000, and 1934 replaced 1998 as the warmest year in the U.S. The years have changed rankings before: in a 2001 paper 1934 was marginally warmer than 1998. Hansen argues that using yearly rankings in this way is bad because it magnifies tiny differences, and that addition of new data to an analysis always causes values to fluctuate slightly. He further states that the difference between the 1934 and 1998 temperatures is insignificant and that the adjustment effect on the global temperature record is invisible.[32][33] (Emphasis added.) Cheers, Scott.
Post #301,416 by boxley 12/23/08 1:41:56 PM Reply	Re: Why? Because he knows what he's talking about. yeah, he always adjusts the data in his favor. In other fields like medical research that is called skewing and suppressing. Drugmakers get sued for that thanx, bill
Post #301,430 by Ashton 12/23/08 5:02:12 PM Reply	Got a problem with decimals? 'Insignificant' == insignificant == 'in the noise between accuracy and precision' == aka: 'false precision', like: when the weatherman-doll says, '49.87% likely rain' Absurd on the face; correct notation: "it's about 50/50." Remember always: Muricans Are {mostly} innumerate. The 'number of significant figures' in a conclusion: implies a related degree of precision throughout the calcualtion. That is a metric which requires that a (summarizing) numerical value does not falsely imply an overall precision greater than: the (statistically-weighted) precision(s) of all measurements from which that 'value' is derived. In case at hand: Hit don' mattah ayTall. RTFM.
Post #301,449 by boxley 12/23/08 8:44:11 PM Reply	insignificant lot less than< 20% which is the amount the october ice melt was off your bank account is off by 1 penny that is significant in the overall condition of your bank. When you lose a penny a month and the banker assures you it is an anomaly the fucker is stealin huge. This guy? Like I said the sideshow bob of the global climate change you RTFM its called history, yesteryear when giraffes and wildebeastes inhabited the sahara. When grapes were cultivated in Labrador and patagonia resembled italy in cultural and agricultural attributes. This shit has happened before and will happen again. Look at what peter is saying, mitigate the changes or watch reruns of waterworld and pray yer gills develop in time. Either way it will happen or not. This guy is a just schill lookin for your buck.
Post #301,456 by Another Scott 12/23/08 9:22:25 PM Reply	If Hansen were looking to get rich, he wouldn't be at NASA. Hansen feels passionately about his life's work. Most people do when they're able to work on things they really care about. Some people are motivated by more than money. http://seedmagazine....new_scientist.php Really, Box, you can disagree with him without impugning his motives. And it would be good if you applied as much skepticism to the critics of anthropomorphic climate change as you do to the experts. I'll get you started: http://www.sourcewat...e_change_skeptics :-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #301,470 by boxley 12/24/08 8:29:35 AM Reply	If hansen wasnt at nasa he would find it hard to get a job I have met scientific types that work in government because they are too fucking blind and stupid about their wrong obsessions to get a job elsewhere. Biologists are not much different. thanx, bill
Post #301,474 by Another Scott 12/24/08 9:27:22 AM Reply	Hansen's CV http://www.columbia....hansen_200702.pdf Idiots don't get elected to the NAS. Anecdotes aren't evidence, Box. Cheers, Scott.
Post #301,475 by boxley 12/24/08 9:35:03 AM Reply	does he believe than c02 belched from a volcano is bigger than the same element farted from a car? If so he moves from scientist to priest, CV aside thanx, bill
Post #301,478 by Another Scott 12/24/08 9:45:10 AM Reply	We've been through volcanoes multiple times, Box. http://gristmill.gri...6/12/17/223957/72 The fact of the matter is, the sum total of all CO2 out-gassed by active volcanoes amounts to about 1/150th of anthropogenic emissions. HTH! Cheers, Scott.
Post #301,480 by boxley 12/24/08 9:50:18 AM Reply	nice duck there,
Post #301,525 by Ashton 12/25/08 1:13:45 AM Reply	.. if you think a duck resembles a coffin-nail, perhaps.
Post #301,529 by boxley 12/25/08 8:52:31 AM Reply	point==missed the postulation that the c02 element itself is larger, as in size of a single element when emitted from a volcano than the physical size of a single c02 element when emitted from a car exhaust, as proclaimed by some, leaves the realm of science for religion. I was inquiring if the high priest under discussion also held that tenet.
Post #301,534 by Another Scott 12/25/08 9:40:41 AM Reply	You, and they, apparently misunderstand the argument. 1) Volcanoes are not a major source of CO2. (They are a major source of SO2, but that's a completely different compound. http://www.temis.nl/aviation/so2.php) 2) CO2 is made of carbon and oxygen. They both have isotopes - atoms with the same number of protons (6 for Carbon, 8 for Oxygen) but different numbers of neutrons. These isotopes have different properties and their ratios in a sample of gas can give lots of information - like whether the carbon was recently part of the atmosphere or whether it was locked up in the Earth for millions of years. The ratio changes because one of the carbon isotopes is radioactive, so the ratio of C14 to C12 changes over time. http://en.wikipedia....sotopes_of_carbon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen-16 http://www.physicsfo....php/t-29375.html All of this is known and accepted science. There is no controversy about the physics. Where it gets complicated is in the details. How are the samples taken? How are they protected from contamination? How are they analyzed? What are the error bars (how accurately are the numbers known, and what is the real precision of the value)? Cheers, Scott.
Post #301,556 by Ashton 12/26/08 2:44:16 AM Reply	re all the ad hominems: prend moi tel que je suis (I won't attribute simple-malice to you for the frequent baseless calumniation of parties unknown; I believe there is another cause.) Here's someone else who slogs to a different drummer, trusting that her certainty-of-a-negative (correlation) supersedes the (surely-mistaken) assessments of those legions of plodders, not remotely as ept in diagnosis or treatment. (It is unclear if solipsism per se, is yet a punishable offense, or merely actions which ensue from such an expressed mindset.) The unnecessary death of a little girl http://open.salon.co...source=newsletter Now, as to whether denial of say, 'ongoing planetary disease' may also be conflated within the precedent of Prince v Massachusetts -?- that clearly limns a problem which might stump the USSC, Focus on the Farmily Valuez and other ad hoc institutions of fact or neurasthenia. I am confident however, that a superior arbiter exists: the IGM shall be able to conduct this official comparison in exemplary manner (given the many self-attributed virtues of its humbly-brilliant members.) The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. -- H.L. Mencken
Post #301,562 by boxley 12/26/08 10:25:33 AM Reply	so lets pretend shall we? the broad goes into the hospital with the kid trumpeting to all and sundry that she and the kid has HIV so explain in detail the different medications and steps taken to treat pneumonia in that case that does not apply to a child with pneumonia without aids, anxiously awaiting your reply. Somehow I imagine the answer is nuffink different
Post #301,573 by Ashton 12/26/08 4:57:46 PM Reply	Is it that you don't read for comprehension or, that you Can't? Pneumocystis is an otherwise harmless bacteria that causes pneumonia only in people who are severely compromised by AIDS or other immunologic failures. *Why did Christine Maggiore withhold this critical information?* She did it because she is an activist who believes that HIV does not cause AIDS. Sheesh ... get thee to a comprehensive Comprehension analyst before you The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. -- H.L. Mencken
Post #301,576 by boxley 12/26/08 5:44:10 PM Reply	my bad, just saw the pnemonia, HIV causes aids? I thought having unprotected sex with someone who has aids caused aids. Learn something new every day thanx, bill

Welcome to IWETHEY!