Posted on 06/04/2012 10:10:31 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Full TITLE:
Note: This will be a top post for a day or two, new stories will appear below this one – please scroll down. Also, If you have not already, vote in the WUWT Sea Ice Forecast Poll, which closes at noon today.
============================================================
No, this isn’t a joke, it isn’t a fake document, and it isn’t a misinterpretation. It is a paper published by Dr. James Hansen (and the GISS team) in PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences). In the paper (published in 2000, but long since buried) they make these two bold statements (emphasis mine):
..we argue that rapid warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as chlorofluorocarbons, CH4, and N2O, not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols..
If sources of CH4 and O3 precursors were reduced in the future, the change in climate forcing by non-CO2 GHGs in the next 50 years could be near zero. Combined with a reduction of black carbon emissions and plausible success in slowing CO2 emissions, this reduction of non-CO2 GHGs could lead to a decline in the rate of global warming, reducing the danger of dramatic climate change.
Basically what Hansen is saying is that we should focus on air pollution, and some CO2 reduction, but not exclusively on CO2 alone. This is of course at odds with his famous 350ppm CO2 “safe level” upon which the activist organization 350.org is formed, along with many other pronouncements made by Hansen. I post the abstract and excerpts from the PNAS paper below. Be sure to note the item in red. – Anthony
(Excerpt) Read more at wattsupwiththat.com ...
240 Responses to the article at WUWT!!!
Liberal farting. See Barney Frank. Or hear him.
Just like that, they buy time, cost everybody else a bucket of money, and accomplish the same destructive ends.
It doesn't matter if it's Hansen or some other corrupt thug; it's the power to regulate that is the problem.
The more science you know, the less worried you are about climate
Who is running the National Science Foundation....the Propagandists?
**************************************EXCERPT*****************************************
wikeroy says:
Will James Hansen be put on The Black List now?
REPLY: Note the date, now embellished in red so people don’t miss it – Anthony
*************************************EXCERPT***************************************
alex says:
This is a quite old paper, isn´t it?
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/18/9875.long
Published online before print August 15, 2000, doi: 10.1073/pnas.170278997
PNAS August 29, 2000 vol. 97 no. 18 9875-9880
REPLY: You, like a few others, missed the two references I made to it being published in the year 2000, so I beefed up the notice to “in your face levels” – Anthony
***********************************EXCERPT************************************
Wow – what is going on with this man? The resurfacing of this paper is not going to be too popular with your EPA, nor with our Department of Energy and Climate Change (nor our Moonbat at the Guardian, nor our Jarvis Cocker “I’m not an expert” airhead). It is surely time that Hansen was brought to task by NASA – it would appear that his mist recent pronouncements (on CO2) might possibly be driven by some political masters..
Thanks
Michael
***************************************EXCERPT**********************************
Bob Tisdale says:
As of 2:09PM NDT, Hansen hasn’t posted a link to this paper at his website:
http://fromjameshansen.blogspot.com/
*******************************EXCERPT************************************
markx says:
Simple strategy. Never, ever admit you were wrong.
Just smoothly brush that all under the rug, then move on to the next stage of the research, and hopefully remain at the forefront.
I’ve seen this in biological sciences. I was at a conference years ago where a lead researcher in one field (probably regarded as the world’s leading expert) was openly mocking what we all thought was some very good research coming out of Europe. Within a year or two he realized the Europeans were correct, smoothly changed horses, did some similar reasearch of his own, and is still the highly respected world expert in the field. At no stage have I heard him apologize or mention that he was, for a time, mistaken.
However, good people, from the point of view of ‘science’, this IS all progress.
MORE:
************************************EXCERPT****************************************
Keith Jackson says:
As I remember, when this came out the first time (in 2000) there were cries of outrage from the environmental activist community… the very idea that we might get by without destroying the world economy was complete heresy. Hansen was in grave danger of losing his guru status! I have long suspected that this very danger may well have had a hand in shaping his subsequent behavior.
Q: According to scientists, whom you revere, do you know that homosapiens appeared on earth 200,000 years ago.
A: That’s about right.
Q: Were there cool and warm periods from then to now?
A: Many.
Q: Did homosapiens have the alleged carbon foot print on earth 200,000 or 100,000 or 20,000 years ago that we allegedly do today?
A: No, they were hunter/gatherers and lived off sustainable resources, organically.
Q: Do you know that the last ice age was 18,000 years ago?
A: That recent?
Q: So from your past answers, can you conclude that humans, with their organic foot print 18,000 years ago were the cause of the earth to warm, thereby ending that ice age?
A: Of course not. They did not pollute nor have the carbon foot print we do today? I said there have been many cool and warm periods. Science tells us so.
Q: So how can you say that humans today are the cause of global warming when humans 18,000 years ago did not cause global warming? (using the associative law of algebra if A=B and B=C, the A=C).
A: (sound of crickets)
Sometimes I think we are missing a bet by NOT fighting thuggery with thuggery. I say kick the soapbox out from under Hanson, and let him fall on his butt.
Unfortunately his soapbox is protected by not only the first amendment, but the MSM as well while they avoid reporting any truth whatsoever.
The truth being the Leftists promoting AGW/Climate Change don’t have any proof. Only theory, and respond with discussion of theory (spin) when asked for proof.
****************************EXCERPT****************************************
DirkH says:
It was not possible to get 1.2 bn USD a year for his employer NASA with the air pollution argument so he got the order to find something more in line with the UNIPCC’s mission, would be my guess.
http://notrickszone.com/2012/04/12/nasa-abdalatis-response-to-50-esteemed-professionals-is-managerial-negligence-an-embarrassment/#comment-92515
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/FY12-climate-fs.pdf
GISS – distorting science since 1971 (at least).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Schneider
“In 1971, Schneider was second author on a Science paper with S. I. Rasool titled “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate” (Science 173, 138–141). ”
Schneider’s prediction: 3.5 degree C cooling through air pollution.
Think I put up a thread .
CA: Air Resources Board to make webcast on ‘black carbon and other “short-lived” greenhouse gases. ‘
What rapid warming?
Excellent.
(did I ask a bad question?)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.