Uh-Oh! More Ice In the Antarctic!

Why would he have done that? He was on an American TV show, being broadcast to Americans

 

You might want ask Doctor Tim Ball why he edited the information.

 

Because this shows how barbaric his home country is for hating the poor of course... ~ ( sarcasm)

 

wow how denierworlds convoluted logic can become unraveled and ensnare themselves in their loony arguements....CC used to be a plot conceived by al gore the UN and the leftist/liberal/socialist/commie hordes to relieve us of our money but now it's morphed into a conspiracy of free market coroporate millionaires and billionaires (secretly they're socialist commies)to steal our money...

 

Good Grief, anyway here's a little history of others forecasting climate doom.
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/FireAndIce.pdf

 

Good find, one thing he points out is the new Medieval tactic of silencing opposing opinions and science. The new totalitarianism. Universities are some of the worst in silencing free speech on this issue.

 

Which headline would you like to start with - The 1975 Ice age one is a particular favorite for debunking deniers, but your link, your choice

 

The same James Hansen that started the warming hype started the cooling scare in the 70's.

 

So good science is now hype, He proposed a very well thought out theory, that when tested failed. He was the one who ultimately refuted his own theory in 1978, after the data he needed was finally collected in Sept 1978

 

You don't see the problem do you? Hansen is an alarmist. If he could have continued on the cooling hype he would have but everyone lost interest. Now, using the same tactic, he has tackled and gained the support of government to back his alarmism. Now, the "establishment" is trying to suppress good science that refutes or even calls into question the current alarmist meme.

M. Mann
“I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board.”

Jones to Mann.
“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL”: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is!”

 

The fact that Mann's hockey stick is so statistically flawed yet supported by the "establishment" should give you a clue to research other avenues. If it were not for the internet, the "establishment" would have already silenced all opposing viewpoints. That should give you pause.

 

Have you read his 1975 paper or 1979 retraction? I have and did at the time. He made no hype of the science, the media did. He could not test his theory on Earth, and when the data came in, he had written his retraction and had it published within 6 months.

 

One would think that, if one did not actually read science. (Like, for instance, most climate deniers.) Because those who read the literature would know that increasing sea ice in the Anatarctic is indeed a consequence of global warming, and was predicted by climate models decades ago.

It happens because the increase in precipitation over the Southern Ocean (caused by global warming) combined with increased meltwater from Antarctica (also caused by global warming), both freshen the sea surface water, making ice easier to form.

 

How do you think it got in the news in the first place?

 

Seriously if I have to explain how journalism works, you are not worth my time

 

Seriously, you can't see that Hansen is a media whore? BTW, your dismissal of anything real or factual is pretty much what true believers do.

 

Since the US and Europe are better able to reduce their CO2 emissions below targets (the US meet Kyoto Protocol targets without even trying), wouldn't they be selling carbon credits to the 3rd world countries looking to increase their energy production?

 

The New York Times reports that the UN wants the U.S. to implement a tax on "carbon pollution." Am I too paranoid in thinking this "requirement" will be met via some cap and and trade scheme. The African Carbon Credit Exchange is already in place (established in Kenya of all places).

 

In the old days weather reports would reference a Canadian air mass. Now (to scare liberals) they talk about a polar vortex and say that Global Warming is making it colder.

 

I know a right wing couple who love to boast how "green" they are because she buys a new Camry Hybrid every year. They became angry at me when I laughed in their face.

After pointing out they bought a McMansion (for two people to live in), a vacation house in Florida, he's a car collector with a fleet of vintage cars, they fly everywhere and take cruises, buy new SUVs for their two princesses (I mean daughters), etc. They're also EXTREMELY protective of their possessions. They won't sit on their expensive chairs, touch the woodwork, use the "good china. They're excuse is the same for everything: they're afraid they might wear the stuff out or damage it. OCD from the go. But they want to protect the environment.

They might have a lot of stuff but they're miserable people.

I don't go to the extreme you suggested but good suggestions otherwise. Please try it yourself.

 

If a cap and trade scheme were established, who do you think would be in a better position to sell excess carbon credits, the US or the 3rd world?

 

The guy wrote a rebuttle of his own theory - Something deniers need to ignore to get all scientist to fit the narrative

 

It seems pretty clear to me that so called Annex I countries will not be selling carbon credits.

 

And trumpeted the new one just like the other one as if it were fact, which of course it only would be if there were proof, which there is none.

 

I wasn't aware of Marcott 2013 but his is even worse that Manns.Seems he took 70 odd proxy studies and smoothed the data for 1740 back, spliced in data from another paper to cover 1740 to 1900, then used the Hadcrut data for 1900 onward which of course produced a hockey stick to rival Manns. He took torturing the data to get the desired result to a entirely new level