https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99KFz7RtZaM
Apparently this video has now been pulled. It was a mixed bag both talking about global cooling and possible global warming. I wondered if I spotted Hansen in the first scene but was going to take a closely look later. I guess from the mix of themes it was produced around 1980. The title suggested it might have been shown on the BBC, but it was long and I didn’t get to the part I remember most distinctly which would be the last 10 minutes, so I still don’t know if this is the film they showed. However I didn’t obviously recognise it.

[As JK rightly highlights I stated ECS as 1. It should have been stated as a temperature. Using a typical figure for the effect of CO2 without feedbacks this would be 1C. However, that 1C figure is itself disputed. Prof Hermann Harde suggested a 30% lower figure based on latest HITRAN data which I understand would be ~0.6C. To avoid going into this complexity, please read ECS as meaning Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity relative to Equilibrium Climate sensitivity without feedbacks (~1C)]
After watching Andrew Dessler “Noddy” presentation on Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity, I was left in fits of laughter by the contrast of his shear arrogance & lack of experience with feedback systems and the appalling data in this graph:-
You could read anything you like into that and he did! He may as well have shown this:
Continue reading →

I’ve been dealing with another one of those vile internet bullies who keep trying to write the global cooling scare out of history.
What really shows their low IQ, is that Hansen wasn’t saying anything different from what most intelligent people would still readily accept today: “we are heading toward another ice-age some time”. The only difference is that we had a cooling period in the 1970s and it was suggested this could be the beginning. I understand that was the original reason for forming the IPCC – so the IPCC stems out of this global cooling scare.
OK, it was “sexed up” by broadcasters like the BBC. We don’t have the evidence to show how much Hansen himself did to promote this scare, but we do know his colleagues did their part and without evidence to the contrary it is reasonable to conclude that Hansen supported them.

There was a global cooling scare and that’s a fact

Even the first paper to mention “global warming” by Broecker in 1997 was trying to explain the lack of cooling that had been predicted as a result of finding apparent cycles in the Camp Century Ice Core. Broecker suggested that CO2 “global warming” was the reason the predicted global cooling had not occurred. It is really that cut and dried.
Back to this alarmist bully. What they most disliked is that I said people like Hansen believed in global cooling.
For a real scientist, that wouldn’t be a problem. After 40 years of new data real scientists are allowed to change their view – indeed it is the mark of a real scientist that they do change their view when new data comes in.
So, only the greenblob fanatic would worry if Hansen changed his mind. The simple fact is almost everyone did accept that global cooling was likely sooner or later and so it’s patently ridiculous to suggest Hansen was in the very small minority who didn’t.
However, the real reason I’m posting this, is that whilst they are a dying breed, like all lost causes the last few people are the real fanatics. So just to make sure that if I ever meet another one of these fanatical bullies I want to have the evidence to hand. So I’m posting this newspaper clipping I found that clearly shows Hansen put his name to an article predicting global cooling.
Note that there’s not the slightest hint he objected to this inclusion of his name supporting the assertion made presumably by his boss. There’s no hint of a contrary view and I’ve no doubt there’s no letter from Hansen objecting to his name supporting this global cooling assertion.
So, unless or until someone supplies evidence from that time showing he disagreed, it is true that Hansen did support this global cooling.

For heaven’s sake – after watching the programs – as a school kid we all talked about how it would happen at school,
… so arguably even I was part of this global cooling consensus.

U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming

By Victor Cohn Washington Post Staff Writer
Jul 9, 1971
The world could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disasterous new ice age a leading atmospheric scientist predicts.
Dr S.I.Rasool of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Columbia University says that:
[not yet done]
…
They also had available a computer program developed by Dr.James Hansen there to study the optical properties of the clouds of Venus. They applied the same program to make what Rasool called the first sophisticated calculations of fuel dust’s sunlight-scattering properties.
They found no need to worry about the carbon dioxide fuel-burning puts in the atmosphere. The fuel particles they do worry about are sulphates, nitrates and hydrocarbns, with the largest single source sulfur dioxide converted to sulfates.

Looking down the list of speakers at Ringberg today, it struck me that not one of them was an engineer and none of them seemed to have any relevant qualifications or experience in feedback systems. So if they aren’t trained how to undestand such systems and don’t have any experience with such systems how can any of them claim any expertise that would be necessary for their views to have any credibility?
So, I thought I would ask some simple questions (not that I’m likely to get response):

1. Please tell me who present at RingBerg has ever had any formal training in analysing systems with feedback as you are discussing?

2. Please tell me who present has had any experience with systems with feedback? (Ideally ones with involving temperature such as temperature control – and your home central heating does not apply!)

3. Why were the policy makers misled about climate sensitivity and not told the “hard science” only supports CO2 warming of ~1C?

The only bit of the global warming propaganda that can even remotely be called “hard science” is the calculation of the effect of CO2 without feedbacks (which are the highly speculative subject of Ringberg). The direct effect of CO2 can be calculated based on spectral data, and it is the only reasonably confident figure available.

So why were policy makers never made aware of this figure? As far as I can tell the actual estimated impact of CO2 was only ever given once, using obscure language an in a footnote.

To my mind this is clear proof that the lack of “hard science” behind climate sensitivity was intentionally with-held from policy makers.

4. Why do the IPCC still use the 1998 HITRAN database for its CO2 calculations

As I understand the work of Professor Hermann Harde, the main reason his estimates of the effect of CO2 are around 30% lower than those given by the IPCC is simply that he alone is using the “latest” version of the HITRAN spectral database. However, this is not at all new having been around since 2007. In contrast, the IPCC are using 16 year old data from ~1998.

Put simply, this means all estimates of global warming would drop by 30% if the IPCC used the later HITRAN data for the CO2 spectral emissions and absorption.

This week it appears that many top … I was going to say people  but will be only academics … are meeting at the Max-Planck institute in Ringberg ostensibly to talk about “climate sensitivity”. But in reality it will be to work out how to respond to the criticisms (indeed fact) that the climate models have failed.
Unfortunately, it is pretty easy to predict what will happen. The best we can hope for is that they will say “sceptics rightly recognised there were problems”. However what is entirely predictable is that whatever they admit (in complex language opaque to all but us sceptics), the narrative will be that sceptics are to blame. I suspect we will be criticised for attacking them which no doubt they will say is the reason it took so long to decide something was wrong. Hypocritically, we will then be attacked for not being willing to work with them (when not one sceptic will have been told let alone invited to Ringberg), for misunderstanding the science (when we were the only ones who correctly predicted the pause), etc. etc. Academics will be portrayed as victims and sceptics as the nasty bogeymen who do not recognise the true “unadulterated brilliance” of the academics.
The reality, is that they haven’t a clue what caused the pause. But such is the power of group think that there a real danger that if you put a lot of like minded people in a room with a planet full of parameters they can cherry pick and tweak, that they will manage to convince themselves that “something” caused the pause: that “the models work but needed tweaking”, and that they will effectively say that “sceptics misunderstood the climate but just happened to misunderstand in a way that just happened to fit this ‘pause explainer'”. Continue reading →

I’ve been searching on and off all day looking for my daily dose of shoving the temperature data showing its not warmed at anything like the lowest IPCC prediction they made in 2001 down the throats of the few remaining alarmists. And I cannot find one discussion going on line a the moment.
I am seriously concerned! I am suffering withdrawal symptoms!
Have they withdrawn, routed, changed sides, all attending some international climate meeting in a phone box somewhere?
No doubt normal alarmist service will resume shortly – but what if it doesn’t? What will I do then?

Dear Barack Obama & David Cameron,
Any Democrat, Tory or any other politicians who are still extolling the virtues of  Global warming, seeing the flop of Naomi Oreskes’s hatefest film: “Merchants of Doubt” will now know that they have been very mistaken: the public are no longer swallowing the global warming lies!

Oh dear!

What a shame you didn’t listen to us sceptics when you had the chance to change your policies! What a shame you continued listening to those public sector zealots obsessed with the idea that the private sector fossil fuel economy that gave our nations are wealth is evil. What a shame you gullibly fell for the lies from those so obsessed with their hatred for industry and “evil” icon: CO2, that they labelled this essential plant food as a pollutant.

Did it never occur to you that you were being led to attack vast constituencies of your own voters?

This is what happens to you politicians when you get into power and stuck inside the political bubble. You become surrounded by sycophants telling “the emperor” that some transparently awful policy is just what the public want. And they lie to you about “deniers” telling you these “deniers” are evil and that “deniers” have no understanding of the science. And you fell for these lies?
This is what real sceptics, those real flesh sceptics who vote actually think:

And whilst you have been in the political bubble, this is what has really been happening to global temperatures as CO2 rose and plants worldwide have flourished from rising CO2:

My Apology to Obama & Cameron

Maybe I should apologise to you: because if I had been prepared to work for free for months last year after the survey of 4-5000 sceptics; if had been prepared to read through the hate filled papers of academics about us sceptics; if I had been prepared to go through the ritual humiliation of peer review by those same academics who so hate us from the private sector;  if I had then put in vast efforts of time and money to try to force you to listen, … then perhaps, I might just have been able to warn you about the results of the survey of sceptics.

You would have known that we sceptics are really quite a sane sensible well qualified bunch, that we are no different from the “scientists” in the public sector except we understand the real economy and they don’t. You would have known sceptics are on the whole just as competent (or arguably more) to judge so called “Global warming” as those academics. You might have understood that sceptics are really very well respected members of society who individually are part of the key opinion group on science.
In short, it was totally daft for you politician to ignore us! Yet you did!
And if you had known that, you wouldn’t now be stuck with this political poison.
So, sorry Obama, sorry Cameron, sorry to the hate-mongers like Kerry, sorry to the gullible idiots like Milliband. Sorry Jo Swinson my own MP. Sorry … to every politician who were so keen to jump on the bandwagon of hate directed against vast swathes or your own electorates.
To misquote one notorious politician:

“Go home to your constituencies and … prepare for humiliation.“

regards,

Mike Haseler BSc.MBA

The Academicene is a period in earth’s history marked by the PC boundary. The PC boundary is usually characterised by a rapid increase in paper, much of it apparently for no purpose.
Although modern scholars dispute the timing even some dispute its existence it is widely believed by the sceptics to coincide with the end of the change from GC to GW paper.