Is Manhattan Underwater?

Tony Duncan has done a lot of research on the exact date which Hansen said Manhattan drowned or will drown. Which date do you think?

A. 2008

B. 2018

C. 2028

Webcam imagery seems to indicate that Manhattan has not yet drowned, but with multi-metre sea level rise coming this century, it can’t be far off. Hopefully GISS is packing up shop ahead of the flood, and moving to Pakistan where they will be better appreciated.


About stevengoddard

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

37 Responses to Is Manhattan Underwater?

  1. Al Gored says:

    Speaking of fearmongering, look at what is STILL posted (from Nov 2009) at the Guardian:

    “Global warming could create 150 million ‘climate refugees’ by 2050

    Environmental Justice Foundation report says 10% of the global population is at risk of forced displacement due to climate change”

    I assume that the people living on the first two floors of Manhattan will be included among these refugee.

  2. suyts says:

    Excellent….. as we can see, those weren’t predictions, but rather scenarios!!!

  3. gator69 says:

    Is Mr Duncan employed as James Hansen’s press secretary? Can we get a comment?

  4. Paul H says:

    Well as Homer forecast that temperatures would be the hottest for 100,000 years by 2011, I will go for Answer A.

    Within 15 years,” said Goddard Space Flight Honcho James Hansen, “global temperatures will rise to a level which hasn’t existed on earth for 100,000 years”.

    The News and Courier, June 17th 1986,5141658&dq=james-hansen+desert&hl=en

  5. Tony Duncan says:


    being as we all know the date and that it is predicated on a doubling of C02 by that time, your post is another example of your attempts at avoiding admitting that your numerous posts on this issue were wrong, and the subsequent ones where you lie by repeating the misquote after you were made aware it was a misquote.

    but you give me WAY too much credit. it took, barely ANY research to assess the true date. it is in a book that was published in 2001 and is clearly repeatedly hawked on the website that has the misquote you are unable to admit is a misquote (or lie from the reporter, if you want to be cantankerous). So you and Anthony, and Michaels and a host of others could easily have done what I did and avoided the embarrassment. At least Anthony Watt, admitted he was wrong as soon as he got the info.

    • You are completely psychotic

      • Ill wind blowing says:

        “You’re a maroon.”
        “You’re a loon.”
        “Take your meds.”


        And now, from the master of empty rhetoric:

        “You are completely psychotic.”

      • suyts says:

        Ill, in some perverse way, I think Tony actually enjoys that. He surely expects it. And, as Steve points out, he allows Tony and your comments to be made.

        I can’t even get simple questions answered posted at any of the alarmists sites. Which is odd, because the last comments I made at RealClimate, was an attempt to clear up some confusion on their part. If they had listened to me, they wouldn’t have embarrassed themselves in the McShane and Wyner rejoinder. But, you can lead a horse to water……….

      • Ill wind blowing says:

        Steve, the professional of “Real Science”::

        Romm doesn’t allow any contrary comments. Real Climate censors most


        You didn’t mention Skeptical Science and you can’t BS me about them because I’ve seen how they treat both sides. So here’s a lesson on the meaning of professionalism.

        I’ll give one example of true professionalism on SkS versus this site and WUWT.

        A newbie showed up on SkS and said “But if they’re not deniers what are they?”

        I jokingly told him that he should be careful because the mods would snip him for using the word “denier”.

        I was half right. We both got snipped.

        On one occasion, his majesty and Lord of skeptics, Monckton dropped in on SkS and gave one of his usual psychotic rants. The mods made it clear that no one was to make any derogatory posts about him.

        Now compare that to your site and WUWT.

        There is constant red baiting and other absurd insults. Official rules of behaviour (WUWT) that prohibit name calling; on one side only-the “Alarmist/Warmist” side.

        • Please stop changing the subject. Tony Duncan has been going on for month after month claiming that Hansen didn’t say Manhattan would drown. I have put up with his idiocy over and over and over again.

          By contrast, Joe Romm trashes me and then won’t even let me respond.

      • suyts says:

        Ill, I understand the point you’re trying to make, and Steve doesn’t need my help, but I’ll make just one point of contention…… uhmm, this isn’t, nor is WUWT, a profession for either Steve or Anthony to my knowledge. They do this free gratis. So, they cannot act professionally by virtue of the very nature of the sites. Though, I find it interesting you would compare WUWT to RealScience. In my view, their styles are completely different. And while you may have found one site that freely snips from either side, I prefer a site that doesn’t snip. (to a point)

        You may not like his responses, nor his perspective, but you should give him props for allowing you to freely express yourself here. You are free to present your point-of-view and a very free environment. Sure, it isn’t for the faint of heart, and maybe you or I might do it differently, but it does hold a certain appeal that isn’t offered by any other site of which I’m aware.

        This only confounding thing to me is, how come more alarmists don’t come here and take advantage of the open dialogue? If the complaint is that Anthony(or other skeptic sites) doesn’t allow for dissenting opinions (they all do) then this would be the place to come and play.

      • Tony Duncan says:


        No you are lying about WHAT I have said. I have never said Hansen didn’t say Manhattan wouldn’t drown. I have been very clear about that. I have always ONLY corrected your repeated erroneous statements that it would happen in 2008 without a doubling of CO2,.
        I have taken issue with your exaggeration of his actual quote, but that is a relatively minor point, and I feel generous in giving you some political license in saying Manhattan underwater, when he said West Side Highway.

        • The post is “WHAT DATE WILL MANHATTAN DROWN?” Give your answer, state your peace and STFU. I am so sick of you and your endless inability to comprehend the most simple concepts.

  6. But remember, just because Hansen said it in 1988, repeated it in 2001, was published as having said it, confirmed it multiple times, and then changed his story only when it was exceptionally obvious he wasn’t even within the correct millennium, doesn’t mean that he was correctly quoted. I mean, you have to take specious emendations as gospel, not what people actually said at the time, was published having said, confirmed after being published, & then tried to cover up when it became clear they were huffing nitrous.

    • Tony Duncan says:


      You totally saved Steve’s butt on this one. Wow, how come no one else has been able to find all that documentation that has Hansen repeatedly saying manhattan would be underwater by 2008″?

      please supply all those references, I WILL be relieved that I can stop calling Steve a liar.
      let’s see… You have documentation somewhere that he said Manhattan would be underwater in 1988, and also in 2001, that it was published as having said it, and he confirmed it multiple times. AND that he changed his mind after saying this over an over again.

      Funny the ONLY place I have found where it mentions anything about 2008 and manhattan underwater is the misquote in the Salon article. The one from that second hand source, Bob Reiss 13 years after the fact in a phone interview that is a promo piece for the already published book, which CLEARLY has the date as 2028 and with a doubling of CO2.
      Also strange that you are saying exactly the opposite of what I have repeated here over and over again, that Hansen NEVER changed his mind, because he never said 2008 and none of his other writings or statements say anything like this.
      You must have found some lost treasure trove of Hansen memorabilia.

      So please supply the links so I can apologize to Steve right away.

      Yup supply those links pronto, I am writing my apology speech right now.

      Boy, “emendations”. I should have known it was stupid to argue with someone who uses words like THAT.

  7. gator69 says:

    “Funny the ONLY place I have found where it mentions anything about 2008 and manhattan underwater is the misquote in the Salon article. The one from that second hand source, Bob Reiss 13 years after the fact in a phone interview that is a promo piece for the already published book, which CLEARLY has the date as 2028 and with a doubling of CO2.”

    If only Mr Duncan were as critical of AR4, he might have some credibility.

  8. Welp, folks, there it is. Look! More evidence from “Tony Duncan”. Words like CLEARLY and ONLY can’t be argued with. There’s Hansen’s words in print for upwards of 10 years, and yet that’s somehow a “misquote”. There’s Hansen saying very clearly that he wouldn’t change one thing, yet somehow that’s a misquote too. Gosh, it’s almost like anything that “Tony Duncan” doesn’t believe is a misquote. Maybe “Tony Duncan” can look up the misquote in his Merriam-Webster under the entry for “solipsism”.

    PS “solipsism” is a big word. Don’t hurt your abnormally intellectual juggling abilities trying to look it up.

  9. glacierman says:

    hansen the most misquoted and least understood sxientist in history.

    tony do you have those responses stored in a database for quicker cutting and pasting?

  10. PhilJourdan says:

    Tony Duncan says:
    July 20, 2011 at 7:33 pm

    please supply all those references, I WILL be relieved that I can stop calling Steve a liar.

    you should stop calling him a liar immediately. You can call him wrong, but again, you have no idea if he is lying. You are not Jeanne Dixon, no matter what your stand up routine is.

    • Tony Duncan says:


      I am very careful to say that before he knew the Salon quote was wrong, he was ONLY mistaken, and quite within his rights to attack Hansen for the statement. It was totally reasonable to consider the quote accurate, even though i repeatedly pointed out it was inconsistent with any other statements or papers of his. But once Steve was made fully aware of the misquote, and NO ONE has been able to supply ANY evidence that contradicts the facts as I have repeatedly set them forth, until they do so, Steve is consciously deceiving people – lying. Anyone who reads his posts without getting the full story will believe that Hansen said something he did not say.
      There is NO OTHER evidence to support the 2008 date, the second hand source has retracted the statement and Hansen has denied it categorically. The fact that there is actual documented proof of the ACTUAL quote in the form of the book, which was published before the article and that the article is totally a promotion for the book, makes the book the ONLY documented authority of what Hansen actually said in the talk between Hansen and Reiss. When I have said Steve was lying I have almost always gone to the trouble of supplying all the facts of the situation so that people can make their own judgement.
      Steve once censored what I wrote, and has since then in no way interfered with my comments. i certainly respect that, but it IS his blog and he can do as he sees fit.

      • OK, so Hansen didn’t forecast that Manhattan will drown. Reiss made the whole thing up. Hansen never predicted multi-metre sea level rise. The moon is made of green cheese. Will you ever shut up?

      • Me says:

        Well that settles it,Tony is a woman, because only a woman can nag and nag and nag until she gets her way. :mrgreen:
        But Ill Wind Tooting would probably say

      • suyts says:

        Tony, you are choosing to believe a person known to have manipulated historical data. The length and details of the interview itself casts great doubt to the “no notes” assertion. It simply isn’t credible. A book written by a source that lacks credibility isn’t what I would call proof. The time line is also suspect. 20 years? 10 years? phhttt. Yeh, Hansen was just suddenly made aware last year…….uhmm, I’m calling more BS on that.

        Tony, obviously you are free to believe what you will. But, neither source for your proof holds any credibility.

        • Whatever he is babbling about is a straw man. Hansen made a ridiculous prediction and the exact details (whatever they are) are deep in the noise of stupidity. It will take at least 1,000 years before the west side highway is underwater at current rise rates.

  11. Latitude says:

    I pick 2050…..
    The Guardian says CO2 levels will double by 2050….
    and Tony says that what Hansel meant was based on a doubling….

    And Manhatten is about 8ft above sea level….that’s not counting the road being under water…..
    ….want to make it 10 ft so the road is under water???

    That’s 40 more years…..

    So that would mean sea levels would have to rise at the “rate” of 3 inches a year…..for 10 ft
    …………..2 1/2 inches if it’s 8 ft

    Is the sea rising at the rate of 2 1/2 – 3 inches a year????

  12. Grumpy Grampy ;) says:

    Manhattan is already under water! You guys just do ot have the correct version of SIM Planet that provides the latest CACA! Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Anomaly! 8)

  13. PhilJourdan says:

    Ill wind blowing says:
    July 21, 2011 at 3:09 am

    I wil give you the benefit of the doubt as I have Tony and simply say you are flat out wrong. WUWT sensors BOTH sides (and if you had read more than one article you would know that) when using inapropriate language. The D word is verbotten. As are curse words and many others. Should the “tender feelings of the little babies” get upset by calling them warmists or alarmists, Anthony would then ban those words as well. But since that is what they call themselves, and there is no load behind them (as the D- word has since it is simply a perjorative used to belittle to object and stop debate on the issue – like the Godwin law).

    Now, having been educated as to your mistake, should you continue to spread the falsehood, you will no longer just be in “error”, but more accurately a liar.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s