Hansen 1988 : Children Are Doomed By 2008

“The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”

http://dir.salon.com/books/int/2001/10/23/weather/

When did he say this will happen?

Within 20 or 30 years. And remember we had this conversation in 1988 or 1989.

Does he still believe these things?

Yes, he still believes everything. I talked to him a few months ago and he said he wouldn’t change anything that he said then.

Advertisements

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

109 Responses to Hansen 1988 : Children Are Doomed By 2008

  1. Philip Finck says:

    What more could you possibly say?

  2. Mike Davis says:

    They were discussing SIM Planet on Big Jim’s Super Nintendo. I mean No Body could be that stupid to believe what these people are clamoring about. If they are they deserve what this path leads to. TonyD, ChrisD, Lazarus, And a few other of our brilliant visitors.

  3. R. de Haan says:

    “talked to him a few months ago and he said he wouldn’t change anything that he said then”.
    No true scientist would take on such a position.
    This is the attitude of political activist, not a scientist

  4. suyts says:

    lol, Hansen’s theme song….

    Or did I miss again
    I think I missed again oh
    Or did I miss again
    I think I missed again

    Phil Collins

  5. The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water.

    As one commenter said, it’s under snow and that is H2O. So he must have meant snow.

  6. Tony Duncan says:

    This was when he made the same stunning predictions to The US congress where he had the attention of the entire US media, Right?And these predictions are all documented in his other writings and scientific papers, correct?

    • truthsword says:

      Why is it so important to you that Hanses didn’t say what he said? It’s not like he doesn’t have many other predictions that have failed that are documented in his writings and papers. With a horrible track record with nearly none of his ‘predictions’ beign accurate, why does this one bother you so much?

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Thuthsword,

        please point out to me where in my comment I made any indication I suggest he didn’t say this. There have been at least 4 or 5, maybe 10 times I have repeatedly not denied he said this.
        And why do you think this one bothers me so much? it bothers me no more or less than many things Steve writes. If I was the one that kept bringing it up, you would have a point.
        As for his track record, I have never said that his predictions were accurate. All I have ever pointed out was that his 1988 paper and congressional testimony were not unreasonable descriptions of the science at the time, and that his other papers have not been outside the range of what other climate scientists have written.
        I might ask why STEVE is obsessed with one quote, that was said privately and never repeated by Hansen, that occurred at the same time as he was testifying before congress and having a scientific peer reviewed paper published that did NOT say these things at all.
        I have never defended the statement or denied he said it. Steve keeps bringing it up, I keep responding with the same simple observations.

      • Paul H says:

        Tony

        If you cannot see the significance of Hansen’s wacky predictions, I don’t think anyone else here can help you.

    • sunsettommy says:

      What is stunning is your imbecilic refusal to admit that DR. Hansen is full of prediction errors.

      Not only that the journalist in question claims that Dr. Hansen who made that flooding quote TO HIM.States that Dr. Hansen still stands by it.

      “Yes, he still believes everything. I talked to him a few months ago and he said he wouldn’t change anything that he said then.”

      This is why you warmist guys are losing ground all over the place these days.You are running on evasive bullcrap.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        My goodness, in looking up congressional climate testimony, I came across this huff post explanation from Huffpost. Either Huffpost is just flat out lying or Reiss is flat out lying and the publishers have recalled all the copies of Reiss’ book and replaced it with the NEW warmest disinformation, or Steve got this one wrong…. 20 0r 30 or times on this blog.
        If Steve is wrong does that mean he has to make a retraction on every comment or just every post where he mentions this?
        Does this mean I have to make a retraction for every time I did not question the veracity of the quote? Does it mean I have to publicly apologize to Hansen or Reiss for not checking with them before accepting Steve’s regurgitation of the Salon mistake (as no one there actually checked the book apparently). I must be most at fault since the quote did not fit with his public comments or written papers and I knew that, having read all the papers that Steve has so faithfully posted here!

      • Mike Davis says:

        Huff-N-Puff is well known for creative Journalism, also known as “Making stuff up”! They along with Romm are sceptics best friends!

    • sunsettommy says:

      Yeah those “stunning” predictions that have been shown to be well off the mark.

      LOL

  7. Andy Weiss says:

    The horse is obviously lame, but alamists keep riding it. That is their mistake, not ours.

  8. Anything is possible says:

    “All I have ever pointed out was that his 1988 paper and congressional testimony were not unreasonable descriptions of the science at the time, ”

    ____________________________________________________________

    ……..Which have now been proven wrong.

    Yet, here we are 22 years later, and Hansen is STILL beating us over the head with it.

    Do you get it now?

    • Paul H says:

      I think Tony must be blinded by the light.

    • Tony Duncan says:

      From what I just read, all of you just accepted what you wanted to believe, and nobody ever bothered to read the actual quote from the book.
      Funny how I am not holding my breath for the slew of apologies that should forthwith be coming from all the right wing climate denier sites that broadcast this piece of misinformation uncritically.
      Of course maybe huffiest and or Reiss are lying and someone here will actually look up the book on page 30 and see that it really says what Steve keeps insisting he said.
      then I will apologize for believing anything in that commie warmist rag!

      • All the other newspapers with similar quotes from the 1980s were lying too.

      • suyts says:

        Tony, the book did indeed quote Hansen. Hansen even acknowledges this. However, apparently, the author is stating he misspoke as to years of prediction. Now, they are asserting it was a 40 year prediction as opposed to a 20 year prediction.(with a doubling of CO2) So, we can have another countdown to disaster. Given Hansen’s history with historical numbers, this probably shouldn’t be a surprise.

        Here’s some of Hansen’s ramblings…….scroll down to the bottom……

        http://climateclash.com/2011/01/27/james-hansen-singing-in-the-rain/

        Years pass and only now Hansen seeks to set the record straight?? ppphhhhttt.

        I guess, Reiss is taking one for the team in this case.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        So which of us is going to go to super human lengths and check out what the book actually says? The Coming Storm, Bob Reiss 2001

      • suyts says:

        lol, well, I’m not buying the book, but I’m also not clear as to what came first, the interview or the publishing of the book. But regardless, this is classic alarmist tactics.

        Regardless of Hansen stated back in the 80s, Reiss gave an interview and stated the 20 yr/Manhattan thing. If you look at the date of Hansen’s babbling it was Jan of this year…………Now, Tony, I ask, if you were Hansen, and this was false, wouldn’t have you addressed this prior to last January? But, he left things open, so he could have it both ways. If it doesn’t occur, then he states he never said that, if it does occur, he states he told us all along. Again, it looks like Reiss is taking one for the team.

      • suyts says:

        This statement should not go without note.

        “I talked to him a few months ago and he said he wouldn’t change anything that he said then.”

        This means they’ve been in contact prior to the interview and discussed the contents of the book.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        SUYTS,

        I have gone to the extraordinary lengths of ordering the book. Something I finally realized none here have the resources to accomplish. I shall let you know shortly whether the publishing company has in fact replaced the offending statements with the new whitewashed statements that Reiss is now claiming instead of the fully researched quotes form the Salon article.

        I read Hansen’s link. says nothing about this issue.

        I actually think it is quite funny that you blame Hansen for letting you guys hang yourselves, because NO one bothered to check the real source.
        But as I said I am waiting for the book. Maybe I will get one that has the original print minus the white-out and the new scrolled quote.

  9. Tony Duncan says:

    As expected all sorts of replies that do not relate to what I actually wrote and more assumptions about what I believe that are based on nothing I have ever said.

    I don’t care what others attribute to Hansen in private conversations. I base my responses on what he says publicly and what he writes. To do otherwise is a waste of time and only serves to distort the issue. I am happy to discuss anything Hansen says publicly.

    • Paul H says:

      All very convenient but Hansen still made it clear he stood by what he said 13 years later.

      If he has changed his mind since then he has had ample opportunity to say so.

    • Paul H says:

      Tony

      If you don’t want to discuss these issues, then fine. But we will continue to do so.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Paul,

        I would never dream of denying you the pleasure. 😉

      • Paul H says:

        I thought you did not want to discuss it!!

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Paul,

        I said I am happy to discuss anything Hansen says publicly

      • Mike Davis says:

        The year Hansen claimed to have been censored and not allowed to talk to the media was the year he gave the most interviews up to that date.
        His defenders are still trying to rewrite his Congressional testimony and claim his label BAU on the graph was not a realistic scenario. It was piss poor science then and it is still piss poor science. The testimony was a staged extravaganza that would have done any Entertainer good to have been able to pull off such a stunt.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Mike,

        that may all be true, and yet it said nothing about Manhattan being underwater, when he had a captive audience and could have made the biggest splash possible.

    • Tony Duncan says:

      Ok, this will be my last comment. While I should apologize to Hansen and Reiss, (unless of course this is a flat out lie and it DOESN’T say what they claim in the book), my above post was proper, and your enthusiastic foaming at the mouth acceptance of this misinformation is not indicative of people trying to find the truth about CO2 and the climate.

      • ChrisD says:

        Tony, if they actually looked at the book, they’d find that Reiss, who says he was speaking from memory, without his notes, got it wrong in the Salon interview. That would be inconvenient, as it would kill one of the very favorite myths, so they won’t do that. It’s quite clear. The question involved 40 years AND a doubling of CO2, neither one of which has happened yet.

        Or maybe they don’t know how to get an ISBN. Here, let’s help them:

        ISBN-10: 0756777917
        ISBN-13: 978-075677­7913

        lol, well, I’m not buying the book

        Many towns have institutions called “libraries.” They contain “books,” which are collections of words, and you can look at them, and even take them home for a while, for free! There are people in these “libraries” who can help you find the “book” you are interested in. I know, it’s amazing!

        • I’ve posted quite a few other links from newspapers in the 1980s showing similar and worse predictions from Hansen, but feel free to keep your head buried.

      • ChrisD says:

        What’s this post about, Steve?

        Feel free to keep your head buried.

        You’re physically incapable of admitting that anything you said was wrong, aren’t you? It would be so easy in this case, too. The original information, i.e., the Salon article, seemed to indicate that Hansen really did make this prediction. Only subsequent information showed that it was wrong. So you wouldn’t even have to say you were wrong, just that new information casts doubt on what was contain in Salon.

        But even that is too much for you, apparently. It’s quite sad.

      • ChrisD says:

        You crack me up. Seriously. It’s comical. You’re always good for a laugh when I need one. Thank you for that.

        • Your dissonance about Hansen is beyond comprehension. No matter how many spectacular mispredictions I point out, you keep your head buried where the sun never shines.

          He never said any of those things. It was a giant conspiracy for three decades to make him look like an idiot.

      • suyts says:

        Wtf Chris? What is it with you guys? You wait almost a week after my post to say something snarky? Why don’t you pull your head out and try going up the thread 2 whole comments and see what I posted or the relevant post one whole comment under it. The books’ statement isn’t relevant. Check your time line about Hansen’s assertions and Reiss’ recollections.

        Now it isn’t true? God, I love history revisionism.

      • ChrisD says:

        Of course it’s not relevant. It doesn’t fit your worldview. Let’s see what we have:

        1.Remarks given in a live interview, from memory, without notes, without the opportunity to fact check, that fits your worldview.

        2. Information in the same guy’s book, written at leisure, from notes, with the opportunity to fact check, that doesn’t fit your worldview.

        Of course #2 is irrelevant. Doesn’t matter that Reiss explicitly states that he was mistaken in the interview. Why should it? It’s damned inconvenient.

        You guys are too much. It’s hysterical, really. You can’t even give up on one teeny, tiny myth when the very guy you’re invoking about flat-out says he was wrong.

      • ChrisD says:

        Seriously, Steve, stop it. My sides hurt now.

        Try to follow this. I know it’s hard.

        I’m talking about this post.

      • ChrisD says:

        Don’t you have anything better to do?

        Yes, but nothing else is this funny.

      • ChrisD says:

        I know, you’ve told me this before, a hundred or so times. It must be true.

        But I don’t think I can really convey to anyone what an honor it is to be called a moron by the one and only Steven Goddard.

        I’m thinking of getting a sash. And maybe some medals or campaign ribbons. I really want people to know about this.

      • suyts says:

        Soooo, the time line means nothing to you?

        Reiss does an interview with a moron as an interviewee. 1988

        Reiss recites information in an interview as an interviewee. 2001 Giving the 20 year prediction. The same year he wrote his book. People all over the world starts laughing at Hansen.

        Reiss writes a book that has the years different. Copy righted 2001, that puts the prediction at 40 years. People all over the world continue to laugh at Hansen. Provides good coverage for Hansen, he’ll probably be dead by the time his new/old prediction doesn’t come true. In which case we can all laugh at him posthumously.

        Hansen in 2011 decides finally decides to answer critics after being a mockery for 10 years and point out the discrepancy of the years.

        Of course, it is possible that Reiss and Hansen are such obliviots and never cared to correct the misquote because they weren’t aware of the statement and people’s reaction to such absurdity. OTOH, we can have another countdown, with Hansen’s same absurdity, only twenty years later. Well, 17 and counting now.

        No Chris, the books statement is relevant to the absurdity posited by Death Train. 20 or 40.

        Chris, you want to buy the decade later walk back, that’s your prerogative. If you’re gullible enough to believe all of his other assertions as reality, it doesn’t surprise me that your willing to suck this up, too. And, personally, I don’t care.

        No, it isn’t relevant. The statement was made and left to stand by both authors. Only after the 20 years prediction comes and passes does Hansen wish to correct it. That fine. Its just more typical double sided, covering the bets, alarmism we’ve all come to expect from people such as him.

        If you want to be part of the flock that gets fooled some of the time, go for it.

      • ChrisD says:

        No matter how many of Hansen’s errors are pointed out to you, you continue with your head up your posterior. That is not an honor.

        And no matter how many times I point out that I’m talking about this post, you continue with your head up your posterior. That is not a surprise.

        • And no matter how many times you come over here to waste everyone’s time, you don’t win any respect. You could stare at a forest and see only one twig.

      • ChrisD says:

        Chris, you want to buy the decade later walk back, that’s your prerogative.

        The only problem with your position is that you have the timeline wrong. The correct conditions–doubling CO2 + 40 years–appeared in the original 2001 edition of the book, which was, to state the obvious, written–from contemporaneous notes–sometime prior to its 2001 publication. Both the writing and the publication of this book occurred before the “casual phone interview” (Reiss’s characterization) took place, without notes.

        So there was no “decade later walkback”. The correct conditions were already in print at the time the Salon interview was published.

        So, exactly as I predicted last October in this very blog, the characterization of Hansen’s prediction in Salon was wrong. It didn’t make any sense back then, it still doesn’t, and Reiss himself has now confirmed it.

        But, of course, you guys know what Hansen said to Reiss better than Reiss does, right?

      • ChrisD says:

        Still laffin’.

      • ChrisD says:

        Like most warmists, you are completely oblivious.

        A great example of why I’m laffin’. I love irony!

      • suyts says:

        No Chris, I don’t know what was really stated. I’d like to be able to take Hansen at his word, but he’s shown to be disingenuous. I don’t know this Reiss person, but given he’s got a vested interest in climate alarmism, and given he’s not bothered to publicly correct his “error” until recently, then I’ve little choice than to lump him with the rest of the team. As I stated earlier, its just as well, because now we have another Hansen absurdity to count down.

        I find it much more probably that neither of these geniuses know exactly what was stated other than some absurd prediction regarding Manhattan being underwater and then Reiss just wrote something down and repeated maybe the same absurdity or a similar one. Chris, it doesn’t matter to me.

        Just to illustrate their erstwhile intentional ambiguity, you stated, “exactly as I predicted last October in this very blog,…”
        Now, consider the time line and you “predicting” an event that happened over 10 years ago.

        Chris, that doesn’t make any sense either. Both Reiss and Hansen remained conspicuously silent until recently? Not one or the other, both.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Sorry that was not my last comment, but this thread has been the most amazing experience I have had here, and that is saying a LOT.
        As Chris has pointed out, (assuming Reiss is not lying or the publisher has not recalled and reprinted all the books), there is no problem with the time line. interview and notes and book come before the interview. The book was published BEFORE the interview. the information was there for any one to check. There is a picture of the book in the Salon interview, there is a link to amazon.com. there are libraries.

        I was attacked repeatedly over and over again many times on different occasions for QUESTIONING whether the quote was accurate. This is ESPECIALLY funny because I NEVER questioned the accuracy of the quote. I always said it had no bearing on anything because they were not public comments of his. I was wrong not to question the accuracy of the quote because it was inconsistent with both his writings and public comment . I admit that now.
        As someone said he has had “hundreds of interviews and he never disavowed the Salon Quote. Does anyone have any source that has him repeating the quote, or has ANY other interviewer ASKED him about that specific quote? He told Reiss he stood by what he (actually) said, not the mistaken quote
        the fact that Steve has made SUCH a huge deal about this over and over and that I have challenged him on this repeatedly makes this especially heart warming.
        But I await the arrival of the book and will let you all know what I find!

      • ChrisD says:

        It’s interesting. In this comment, Steve asks a commenter (not me) who defends Hansen, “Are you accusing Reiss of lying?”

        But since Reiss has stated flat out that he was mistaken in the Salon interview, apparently it is now OK to accuse Reiss of lying.

        There’s a word for this. Let’s play Wheel of Fortune.

        H _ P _ C R _ S Y

      • ChrisD says:

        @suyts:

        Now, consider the time line and you “predicting” an event that happened over 10 years ago.

        No, what I predicted was that there was more to this than we knew. And, lo, it has come to pass that there was more to this than we knew.

        OTOH, we can have another countdown, with Hansen’s same absurdity, only twenty years later. Well, 17 and counting now.

        No. 40 years represents only one of the two conditions. The other was a doubling of CO2, which has not yet occurred. The countdown hasn’t even started yet.

      • ChrisD says:

        What a pile of crap. No one makes mistakes like that.

        Seriously? In an casual phone interview, responding to a question that he likely didn’t anticipate, recalling a conversation that occurred a decade earlier, without notes? Really? No one would make a mistake like that?

        Yer a hoot & a half, Steve. This is really amusing. You should take your show on the road. Glenn Beck did, why not you?

        • What are you smoking. The world’s most famous climatologist makes a forecast of Manhattan going underwater, windows boarded up, birds gone, high winds, crime .. and the reporter got it mixed up. Right – that is about as believable as everything else you say.

      • ChrisD says:

        OK, so you are calling Reiss a liar.

        Thanks, I just wanted to clarify that.

      • ChrisD says:

        No, you’re calling Reiss a liar. It’s his story that you find to be “not credible.” He’s the one who says that the book is right and Salon is wrong. So, you’re calling him a liar.

      • ChrisD says:

        Yes.

        Also, black is white, and up is down.

  10. suyts says:

    What the hell? Chris, do you think Steve is a mind reader? Look at the date of this posting. Then look at the date of the link I posted…………. Yeh, the only one offered here as to the account Hansen offered.

    Let’s see, Steve posts this recap of the Salon interview on 15 Jan. Hansen rambles on the 27th. This is the only statement I’ve seen of Hansen’s towards the Salon interview. I posted this 9 March. I was only made aware of it a short time prior. Now you guys want to lend validity to this, that’s fine. But Steve had no way of even knowing of its existence when posting this and just because you and Tony thinks this may lay this to rest doesn’t mean everyone else will see it this way.

    10 years? Really?

    • ChrisD says:

      I’m not complaining about the post.

      The problem is that Steve won’t admit now, given the information that is now available, that the Salon article may have been inaccurate.

      There would be no shame in doing this. He wasn’t even wrong. This is new information that was not available at the time of the post. All he needs to admit is that there is new information, published subsequent to this post, that casts doubt on the accuracy of the Salon article. It’s just that simple.

      But he is incapable of this. For that matter, sorry, I don’t see anyone here who has made this trivial concession. And, of course, Tony and I are labeled imbeciles, idiots, and morons for pointing out the simple facts of the case.

      • ChrisD says:

        OK, thanks, I’ll add that to the list. Imbecile, idiot, moron, maroon. Do you think that counts separately from moron?

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Chris,

        I am waiting for the book. it should be here soon, and I will let you know if the original words have been cut out and new ones taped in.
        Yet, it is a fascinating case study. Steve and others here are presented with clear objective information that totally contradicts what they have been saying for many months. And instead of treating it as just a simple mistake that has no particular bearing on their scientific arguments they twist reality around into contortions undreamed of by string theorists. If this info is true it ONLY means that Hansen is slightly less insane than they have been presenting him. And that is apparently intolerable. I have pointed out a number of occasions where Steve cannot admit an incontrovertible mistake, but this one certainly takes the cake.

        I must say, I am quite impressed with the rhetorical skills of this group though. I think if Stalin had people this capable in Izvestia and Pravda we would all have been singing the internationale by 1946.

      • Me says:

        Tony Duncan, I thought your types didn’t like Conspiracy Theories?

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Me,

        I don’t like conspiracy theories that are based on a totally one-sided view of information.
        This is just a case of information being accepted uncritically, when the actual source is easily available to check. As I have said all along, Hansen’s quote even if it had been accurate is meaningless. The fact that Steve put SO MUCH meaning into it and it is wrong and he would likely commit Hari Kiri before admitting it, is the part of this that is the most fun.

      • Me says:

        I must say, I am quite impressed with the rhetorical skills of this group though. I think if Stalin had people this capable in Izvestia and Pravda we would all have been singing the internationale by 1946.

        That sounds like a conspiracy theory to me stated by you Tony Duncan.

        But said you don’t like conspiracy theories that are based on a totally one-sided view of information, just your side I guess, then it’s OK!

      • ChrisD says:

        That sounds like a conspiracy theory to me stated by you Tony Duncan.

        Tony and I are simply pointing out that Reiss himself says that the account of the prediction in the Salon interview was inaccurate.

        Not much of a conspiracy theory.

      • Me says:

        ChrisD I didn’t say anything about what Reiss himself says, I only stated what Tony Duncan himself said, get that straight.

        So do you believe what Tony Duncan himself said that he is quite impressed with the rhetorical skills of this group though. he thinks if Stalin had people this capable in Izvestia and Pravda we would all have been singing the internationale by 1946?

      • ChrisD says:

        Sorry, still doesn’t sound like a conspiracy theory to me. He’s just saying that some of the posters here have a talent for doublespeak. No conspiracy required for that.

      • Me says:

        Yeah, I thought so. I figured you wait a while before showing up again!

        But you didn’t answer my question, you just made a stupid statement.

        Do you believe what Tony Duncan himself said that he is quite impressed with the rhetorical skills of this group though. he thinks if Stalin had people this capable in Izvestia and Pravda we would all have been singing the internationale by 1946?

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Yeah Chris,

        Do you believe what I said that that ” he is quite impressed with the rhetorical skills of this group though. he thinks if Stalin had people this capable in Izvestia and Pravda we would all have been singing the internationale by 1946?”
        Well, Chris, Do YA? HUH? Do you deny I said it? What are you scared of Chris? You KNOW that if you admit to this it demolishes your entire premise.

        and here I thought it was a compliment!

      • Me says:

        Yeah After it is Tony duncan’s conspiracy theory, you know he doesn’t like conspiracy theories, except for that one!

      • ChrisD says:

        Um, yeah, I believe he said it, sine I can read it. It just doesn’t sound like a conspiracy theory to me.

        You sure seem upset. Not sure why.

      • Me says:

        There is no believe, he said it. So if Stalin had people this capable in Izvestia and Pravda we would all have been singing the internationale by 1946. In a sense calling us communist and saying that is the road we are leading things.
        Sounds pretty much like a conspiracy theory to me.
        What was you said earlier here?
        There’s a word for this. Let’s play Wheel of Fortune.

        H _ P _ C R _ S Y

      • ChrisD says:

        There is no believe, he said it.

        Yes, that’s what I said. You asked me if I believed it. I responded, yes, I do, because I can read it.

        In a sense calling us communist and saying that is the road we are leading things

        No, that’s not at all what he said, or meant. The only point of the comment was that some people here are very good at twisting words.

        Let me try a different version of the same point: If only Churchill had had the rhetorical skill exhibited here, World War II would have been a lot shorter.

        Am I implying that you’re all members of the British Conservative Party?

        Honestly, this is just bizarre.

      • Me says:

        No, that’s not at all what he said, or meant. The only point of the comment was that some people here are very good at twisting words.

        LOL, like you are doing now. You get caught in your own BS and you are trying spin it!

        So you speak for Tony now. HAHA you two must be joined at the hip or something!

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Chris,

        you obviously don’t get it you MOROON!.
        Don’t you know that Stalin secretly invented a time machine because the commies took the REALLY good NAZI scientists, and using occult powers to reach through to the world of Cthluthu, transformed into space time energy beings and transmogrified the latent astral energy and timescaped Steve and Mike and Pumpernickel to this time period in order to revitalize the communist movement under the banner of free enterprise and liberty and freedom. They would then take over the world when it was shown that hansen lied about climate change. The world would be so relieved that they had avoided the crushing slavery of Obamacaptrade, that they would acclaim them overlords and submit to their slightest whim. Stalin would then be re-animated from the cryogenic crypt under the barely frozen tundra of Irkuksk, and…. well, the rest is only accessible to someone with a higher security clearance than you have.

        Using Occam’s razor your contention that he was just saying people here are good at twisting words is so implausible compared to the above theory, which fits all the facts perfectly and more elegantly, you must indeed be a MAROON.

      • Me says:

        HAHA, you said it Tony Duncan, HEHE
        Chris,
        You obviously don’t get it you MOROON!

        And that was the most stupid Conspiracy Theory ever Tony Duncan! But you said you don’t like conspiracy theories, HAHA, Honestly, this is just BIZARRE! HAHAHA. You, Tony, must indeed be a MAROON. HAHA.
        But hey, there’s a word for this. Let’s play Wheel of Fortune again. HAHAHA.

        H _ P _ C R _ S Y

      • ChrisD says:

        How old are you?

    • Tony Duncan says:

      SUYTS,

      You don’t need to take Hansen on Reiss at their word. You just need to look at the book on page 30. I will do so in short order and get back to you.
      I will examine the book for any tampering and post an un-adulterateded scan of the page (you can trust me) if anyone would like.
      I see nothing wrong or duplicitous in what Hansen or Reiss have done with this. I think it rather comical that NO-ONE bothered to check the book which is prominently displayed no the Salon Web site. And so far no one I have seen has posted any interview with Hansen where they ask him about this.
      the fact that his words were not at all consistent with his public testimony or research papers or any other 1st person source should have at least resulted in SOME skepticism. This sort of thing is why I do not call people like Steve Skeptics. A skeptic is someone who questions information form ALL sides. I only see Steve and most others on here question CAGW.

    • ChrisD says:

      I have pointed out a number of occasions where Steve cannot admit an incontrovertible mistake, but this one certainly takes the cake.

      Well, I think this one, wherein Steve refuses to admit that the 8th Amendment doesn’t apply to damages awarded in civil cases despite consternation among his own followers and contrary information from a lawyer who specializes in the field, gives the current case a run for its money.

      But it’s a close call for sure.

  11. Me says:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/09/monday-mirthiness/

    Hey ChrisD, in this link above, which one is you? Let me guess you the one with the man boobs!

  12. ChrisD says:

    OK, I’m holding in my hand a library copy of the 2001 edition of The Coming Storm by Rob Reiss.

    Atter talking about various effects of a doubling of CO2 (e.g., more 90-degree days), Reiss writes:

    [B]ack in New York, later, one of the reporters, visiting Hansen’s office, would bring the scientist to his window, and the men would gaze down at the “Flowers by Valli” shop and the green awning of Cafe 112 across Broadway, and the reporter would ask the scientist whether, if he was right, and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere really doubled, anything down there would look different because of it by 2030. Would average people notice any changes?

    This is in the edition of the book that was published before the Salon interview. The conditions include a 42-year time frame and a doubling of CO2. If that doesn’t put an end to it, I can’t imagine what it would take.

    So, “Hansen 1998: Children Are Doomed by 2008” will no longer fly, and I trust we will not see its like again.

    (Tony, it will be interesting to see if anything is different in your newer edition.)

    • Tony Duncan says:

      But Chris,

      What about STALIN!!!!???? You are just hiding from that aren’t you? You warmest are incapable of having a rational conversation.

      • ChrisD says:

        Hard to have a rational conversation when one side isn’t being completely rational, eh?

        I’m at a complete loss to explain the apparent rage. Some of the good folk here seem to have a bit of difficulty with anyone who doesn’t agree with them.

      • Me says:

        But you aren’t complaining, Right, HAHAHA.
        But, Honestly, this is just BIZARRE, Eh? HAHAHA.

    • suyts says:

      Which, shows what, exactly? That they played it both ways…….again. This is just another example of two contradictory statements made by the same people. This is a common occurrence in the world of climatology.

      It isn’t believable that both, not one or the other, but both would take 10 years to clear up a misconception. It isn’t believable that the Salon interview took place with no notes. Look at the details of the interview. Are the birdies and police contingent upon the same doubling and 40 years? Was Reiss invoking poetic license during the Salon interview? If he isn’t credible in the interview, why would you lend him credence in his book?

      Why and how would Reiss come up with “if the CO2 doubled, by the year 2030……..” <———what?

      Did you notice how Hansen framed the question?

      "So give Michaels a pass on this one –assume that he reads Salon, but he did not check the original source, Reiss’ book."

      Uhmm, no Jim, the book isn't the original source. Either Reiss or Hansen or both are the original sources. The fact that there are two contradictory statements in print only means that this is yet another example of alarmists talking out of both sides of their…………….. mouth. And snow is a thing of the past. Sorry guys, Hansen and Reiss tried to have it both ways. Only after the first dire prediction didn't come true do they move to clear up the misunderstanding. I've given alarmist countless mulligans over such events. They get no more.

      Reiss said something interesting too….well maybe he said it, we don't really know. "But when I spoke to the Salon reporter 10 years later ­probably because I’d been watching the predictions come true, I remembered it as a 20 year question.“

      Sure, now name one prediction that has come true. Both were complicit in attempting to alarm and mislead the public. 10 years.

      Am I in the twilight zone or did we have different post to continue this conversation?

      • Tony Duncan says:

        SUYTS,

        You are grasping at straws here. It is very simple, and you are flailing around desperately to find some sort of bizarre justification for a mistake. You have not responded to MY question. Has ANYONE in the 22 years since 1988 asked Hansen if he said that in 20 years the West Side Highway will be under water? Steve has posted numerous newspaper reports of Hansen. None of them say that. As I have REPEATEDLY pointed out, this quote was inconsistent with all his public statements and his written papers. As I have said REPEATEDLY the only relevant things are what he says publicly and what his writings say. the fact that no-one bothered to check what his book said when it is prominently displayed in the article with the misquote, makes a strong case that the people attacking him are not interested in the truth. just interested in discrediting their enemies. it is exactly this sort of thing that leads me not to take Pumpernickels word in the “Garnaut” post that the USGS and the majority of the scientific establishment is wrong about the amount of outgassing of CO2 form the ocean because he has found a blog that lists lots of information that totally contradicts their position. I am SKEPTICAL and question that they are either unaware of this or are fraudulently covering up all this information, because you guys cannot admit even a mistake as iron clad as this. If you did EVER admit a mistake, I would have some trust that you are interested in the truth. I have no resin to believe that based on this sort of bizarre self defense.

      • ChrisD says:

        Am I in the twilight zone

        You asked this question in a different context, but I have to say that I’m afraid so. If you can’t distinguish between a previously published book, written at leisure and with ample opportunity to check facts and notes, and a casual telephone interview, and you think that both are equally reliable, then, yes, I have to say that I think so.

        Reiss made a mistake in a telephone interview regarding a conversation that occurred over a decade earlier. He says so. Hansen says so. The published book says so. It’s that simple. You, along with everyone else here, are blinded by your hatred of anyone who disagrees with your position on AGW, and of Hansen in particular.

        There appears to be no point in further discussi0n.

      • glacierman says:

        ChrisD said: “There appears to be no point in further discussi0n.”

        At last, something we all agree on.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Glacierman,

        the crucial factor is that we apparently cannot agree on something as clearcut and obvious and indisputable as this.

        • It is completely clear that Hansen has been making wildly exaggerated forecasts for 40 years, and that his followers can’t see that he is intellectually naked.

      • suyts says:

        Tony,
        Sorry, the length of the thread and the different participants, preclude me from knowing where all the questions are directed and to whom. I’ve no idea if anyone has or hasn’t asked Hansen directly. It doesn’t matter.

        I’m not grasping at anything. This is what happened. The fact that there are two contradictory statements in print by the same parties is consistent with the conduct of climatologists and their enablers. If anyone is grasping, it would be you and Chris. So desperate you two are to find anything that would validate Hansen you quote from a text written by the same persons that was quoted in the Salon interview. Sorry, I’ll pass on buying that. To pretend Hansen wasn’t aware of the interview is simply incredible. To pretend Reiss wasn’t aware of the perception given by the interview is simply incredible.

        The reason why no one bothered to check the book is because it isn’t relevant. All this proves is that two people got together and stated two different things. Or one person stated two different things. Either way, …….ten years. And snow is a thing of the past……. same scenario. This epitomizes the greater climate discussion. Their “science” is conducted by interview and press release with gross overstatements and sweeping generalizations. Its spaghetti cooking at its best. Throw something against the wall, if it sticks, then tout it. If it slides down, simply say that it was never stated, or misquoted, or contexted wrongly or……

        Tony, I make mistakes every day. I admit to my mistakes. It isn’t a mistake to say both Reiss and Hansen played it both ways. In fact, it would be difficult for a rational person to believe otherwise. 10 years. Bizarre self-defense? It isn’t my conduct that needs defended.

        Why are you using me to address Pumpernickel?

        Chris, casual telephone interview…..really? Another incredulous assertion. He’s attempting to give the impression this interview took place while he was on an errand to pick up groceries.
        You know, I would have bought the “Reiss made a mistake….” line if it hadn’t taken 10 years to clear up. The fact is, he said what he said and let it stand until the time frame for the dire prediction passed before addressing it. And, so did Hansen. Its called plausible deniability. But, it is implausible to me.

        Most importantly, you mischaracterize my emotional response to people that disagree with my views on AGW….. actually, my views on CAGW. It is not hatred. There are a lot of things I hate about the general climate discussion, but I don’t hate people such as yourself or Tony. In fact, I consider you guys as necessary contributors to the climate discussion, and as fellow skeptics that hasn’t yet attained healthy skepticism. But I’ve full faith that we’ll get there. Chris, if I’ve ever left the impression that I could hold hatred towards you or any other person actively engaged in this general climate discussion, then I truly apologize. It is never, nor was it ever my intention to have anyone left with that impression.

        But, on this point, you are correct, “There appears to be no point in further discussi0n.”….. for this particular topic.

        I’ll leave you with this thought. If I come across as cynical about these topics, it is only because cynicism has been well earned. It isn’t for me that I argue about the intentions of Hansen,(I don’t buy what he’s selling, I never did.) but rather people such as yourself and Tony. Consider all of the people Hansen and Reiss left dangling and grasping for a defense of them. For 10 years they left you guys out in the cold and only after the time had expired for the dire prognostication and the fact that it would be inconvenient for themselves, personally, to have this left as an impression do they move to state it was a mistake. With friends like that……..

        James

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s