Tuesday, February 03, 2009

Out of date

Via Counting Cats, I find this piece of shit website—complete with countdown clock—which maintains that we have only 100 months (well, 94 months now) to save the planet.
We have 100 months to save the planet. When the clock stops ticking we could be beyond the climate's 'tipping point', the point of no return.

Or, of course, equally we may not be. Since the world's scientists have absolutely failed to show that the Earth's climate is reliant on positive feedbacks to the extent that there actually could be a "tipping point", I think that I shall call "bullshit".

Of course, I entirely endorse Nick M's view of this too.
I propose a wager with these criminal charlatans and miserable chicken lickens. If the sky hasn’t fallen within their 100 months (down to 94 now) and reached the fabled “run-away” tipping point of no return then Monbiot, Gore and Porritt and all their thieving scumbag acolytes should do the decent thing and make their own leaps of faith off Beachy Head. Seems only fair. They afterall have been asking the entire planet to make a leap of faith and pay for it ourselves. They want the world to gamble it all and I think they should be prepared to cover that bet.

Damn straight.

James "Liar" Hansen: look at the man—he looks like some kind of comedy baddie from the X Files or something. Seriously, would you trust this cunt with your money?

None of these climate alarmists are exactly renowned for their accuracy anyway; after all, having gone to the trouble to set up this site, only a few days ago the High Priest of AGW, James "Liar" Hansen, rendered the whole fucking thing obsolete.

Being super at maths, you will have worked out that 94 months is a little under eight years—and yet, on the 18th Janary, it was reported that Hansen believed there was less than four years until we all die in a blazing fireball or something.
Barack Obama has only four years to save the world. That is the stark assessment of Nasa scientist and leading climate expert Jim Hansen who last week warned only urgent action by the new president could halt the devastating climate change that now threatens Earth. Crucially, that action will have to be taken within Obama's first administration, he added.

Only four years? Come on, guys: this is the most important issue facing mankind, is it not? On this hinges the entire existence of the human race and the health of Gaia herself!

So, is it eight years, or four? Or is it, in fact, neither of these options because the whole thing is just a colossal scam?

Yep.

ADDENDUM: it was very kind of the Head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Liar Hansen, to give the incoming President such a clear warning, eh? Obviously, far from following the recent trend of making massive cuts to NASA's budgets, President Obama really needs to throw more money at the space agency in order to probe this impending catastrophe.

If only James Hansen's old boss, Dr John S Theon, hadn't popped up and basically called his old employee a liar, a fraud and a massive gobshite and rubbished his climate models into the bargain.

Still, some years on, we can test the truth of some of Hansen's predictions and see whether he is likely to be right with his wild prognostications. What about his famous original speech to the Senate Committee, and his model-based prediction of rocketing temperatures—what he right? That's right, chaps, his predications were way off.

And now, over at the Prometheus blog, here's another Hansen's great predictions, concerning the "super El Nino": surely this one must be right?
About three years ago I made note of a prediction by NASA’s Jim Hansen that a “super El Niño” could be on the way. In Hansen’s words then:
We suggest that an El Nino is likely to originate in 2006 and that there is a good chance it will be a “super El Nino”, rivaling the 1983 and 1997-1998 El Ninos, which were successively labeled the “El Nino of the century” as they were of unprecedented strength in the previous 100 years.

How did this prediction do? Well there is a little something for everyone. There was in fact a 2006-2007 El Niño event.

Ooh, ooh! looking good, James: looking good...
In the words of climatologist Mike McPhadden the event:
started late, ended early and was below average strength

So it wasn’t nearly a super El Niño, and by contrast, the tropical Pacific has been mostly in La Niña conditions since Hansen made his forecast.
Oops! That's a swing and a miss, Jimmy! A swing and a miss! So, what's Liar Hansen's next move...?
For his part, Hansen is still predicting the onset of an El Niño event that will drive global temperatures to a new record high in 2009 or 2010.

Yep: if you are found to be wrong, just shift that date forward a bit, eh, James?

"Hey, everyone: I know that I said that the world will end in four years, but I was mistaken. It'll be in eight. No, really... Wait! Where are you all going? Look, seriously guys, I mean it this time..."

James "Liar" Hansen, ladies and gentlemen: give him a big hand for being one of the biggest, most corrupt, scare-mongering sacks of shit on the last thirty years...

19 comments:

View from the Solent said...

Aaah, that would be Ice Age Hansen, of course.
http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=275267681833290

Old Holborn said...

Fucking freezing out, innit?

Sir Henry Morgan said...

"leading climate expert Jim Hansen"

Something not right here. Let me correct it for you (whoever you are):

"leading bullshit expert Jim Hansen"

There, that's better isn't it.

haddock said...

I keep confusing Jim Hanson with Jim Henson who made the entertaining Muppet Show.... easy mistake to make, I don't think he was much of a scientist but encouraged viewers to suspend belief in reality.

Jumping off Beachy Head holds no fear for idiots like them ( at the moment ) as they seriously believe* that the sea will be lapping around their ankles on the top of the former cliffs by then.

* I cannot imagine that they actually believe the horseshit they talk, just expect us to.

Frank O'Dwyer said...

The claim that Hansen predicted a super El Nino in 2006 is itself false.

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2009/02/pielke_jr_how_low_can_he_go.php

You're also claiming that Theon was his boss, and even Theon didn't claim that. He said he was 'in effect' his supervisor. And of course what 'in effect' means is 'not really'.

But 'underling criticises Hansen' doesn't play so well. Nor do any of Theon's other, uh, interesting claims check out.

It really makes your case look even weaker than it already is when you have to scrabble together such misinformation from the bottom of the barrel to support it.

I still await the day when the 'sceptics' manage to spot some of their own errors such as these. There are certainly plenty of them so it's amazing none of the auditors or Galileos have stepped forward to comment on them, or even noticed them after they've been pointed out the first few dozen times.

JD said...

I've just come in from tobogganing - in Ireland's 'Sunny South East'.
I love the cold that global warming brings...JD.
www.okgetreal.com

Neal Asher said...

Lovely, just like the met office's perpetual predictions of "next year will be the warmest since..." They've done it for four years running now and got it wrong every time. I guess they're working on the European voting principle of 'you get it right once and that's the only one that counts'.

Frank O'Dwyer, Hansen has been riding this horse for so long he can't get off. The falsity or otherwise of his predictions is a lot less relevant than his perpetual manipulation of the data. He is a liar, an impeached witness and should be sacked at once.

Anonymous said...

What was that statement? Something like you cannot use reason to change to mind of someone who believes something without reason. Basically why it is pointless debating with religious or political fanatics.
I get the feeling that GW alarmists completely cut themselves off from any views or articles that go against their "beliefs". It is always comforting and comfortable to surround yourself with people who reflect your views back to you often with approbation. A bit like I imagine a Social workers canteen or teachers staff room. Cosy.

Not a sheep said...

A few weeks ago, I blogged along similar lines - "A small article in The Mail shows the depths to which the Man Made Climate Change brainwashers will stoop to.

An article starts "Global warming could trigger a stand-off between world powers over territory and resources in the Arctic as the ice thaws, Nato's chief warned yesterday." and contains this line that at first glance may seem worryingly conclusive, but is it?

"Some scientists predict that Arctic waters could be ice-free in summer by 2013, meaning that exploration for oil and natural gas will become possible in once inaccessible areas."


"Some scientists" - thousands, hundreds, tens or two...
"could be ice-free in summer by 2013" - could, so could could not be; what odds were given that it "could be"? "
Man Made Climate Change is more a religion than a science, and not a peaceful religion either.

Frank O'Dwyer said...

Neal Asher,

"The falsity or otherwise of his predictions is a lot less relevant"

translation: change the subject

" than his perpetual manipulation of the data. "

No evidence of that.

Certainly the denialists would look like raving lunatics if they claim that he fudged the numbers (which they do claim) to make it look like it wasn't warming for 10 years (which they also claim) or to show recent cooling (which they also claim) or that it shows a UHI warming effect (a further incompatible claim they make). I'm not sure why he would introduce fake cooling or how he would manage to make the same record show all those mutually incompatible things, perhaps you could explain?

And then of course there's the fact that the GISS trend agrees very well with the other sources that Hansen has nothing to do with (not that he personally supervises every aspect of GISS either). So how did he manage that one?

Last but not least, as I mentioned elsewhere, Hansen seems to have tricked much of the animal and plant kingdom into thinking its warming, too. I say if Hansen and the vast conspiracy can do all that, give them whatever they want. For they are clearly a great deal smarter than their opposition.

"He is a liar, an impeached witness and should be sacked at once."

In other words you can't attack his science so you attack him with the ludicrous allegations of a conspiracy theorist.

Meanwhile he remains one of the most respected scientists out there and recognised as such by the rest of the vast conspiracy - e.g. the American Meteorological Society, which recently awarded him the 2009 Carl-Gustaf Rossby Research Medal.

Devil's Kitchen said...

Frank,

"And then of course there's the fact that the GISS trend agrees very well with the other sources that Hansen has nothing to do with..."

Not true. You might also like to look at the data before and after their adjustments.

"Last but not least, as I mentioned elsewhere, Hansen seems to have tricked much of the animal and plant kingdom into thinking its warming, too."

Really? Data please? But here's a good critique of the recent paper on tree mortality.

So, Frank, could you give me some hard data, please? Or are we entering the problem of unreliable data collection again?

DK

Neal Asher said...

No evidence of his perpetual manipulation of the data! Oh dear, Frank, you should try reading outside of Holy Writ. Just google the words 'Hansen manipulates data' and read the results. And try to do so without impersonating one of the three wise monkeys.

Frank O'Dwyer said...

DK,

"Not true"

Well yes it is true.

Here's a comparison of the 30 year trends for all sources. (I made this myself - it's an interactive site so you can look at other trends also if you want).

They all show similar rates of warming and in fact only UAH looks out of whack at all. I wonder who runs that and what their track record is like?

"Data please?"

Here for example.

Devil's Kitchen said...

Frank,

Thanks, I'll take a look (and your temperature site is very neat)...

DK

Frank O'Dwyer said...

DK,

Thanks - not actually my site I just used it to cobble that together :-)

El Draque said...

People who make a prediction and when it doesn't happen, they revise the prediction to a date a few years further into the future - - - what does that remind me of?
Oh, yes, the Jehovah's Witnesses predicting the Second Coming. First 1914, then 1975, then 1999 - etc. etc.
At least they don't try to make me pay them for it.
(I almost said "bleed me dry with tax" but that wouldn't be appropriate").

Thatcher's Child said...

Just been pointed at this link
The real power behind AGW
It seems Al Gore wasn't the politician who brought us Global Warming (or the internet for that matter)

It was a UN paper shuffler called Maurice Strong.

Dave said...

Whatever happened to the guys who used to walk around with "The end is nigh" sandwich boards?

Did they all get jobs working for Gore and Hansen?

Anonymous said...

"So, is it eight years, or four? "

Think about this, DK. Why might Hansen, when referring to the President of the United States, state he had 4 years to accomplish something? Really think hard about it. Consult some references. 4 years...president. Connections, connections.

Now you've thought about it, and perhaps spat out some of that frothing mouthwash, answer this simple MCQ:
Hansen said 4 years because:
A) It's the term of office of the president of the US of A.
B) Because cLIARmate LIEntists just make up however many years the tipping point is because they want to control us and get grants and just like lying waaaaaaa.

Don't feel bad about making amateurish errors. If you could accurately derive meaning from plain sentences in english, you probably wouldn't be a climate change denier.