Advanced members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

63 Excellent

About staringclown

  • Rank
    My life is a very complicated drinking game...
  • Birthday 06/06/66

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  1. Again, the link is to an article. Not to the direct quotes of what Hansen said. The bit of cursory research reveals that the article is based on testimony Hansen gave to the US senate. The link is to the 1988 testimony which Hansen says is pretty much identical to 1986. The predictions he made in his testimony were for a rise ranging from 0.5C to 1.5C dependent on three scenarios. Scenario A was business as usual, Scenario B was with cuts to trace gases (cuts to chlorofluorocarbons) and scenario C drastic cuts to CO2. Below is a chart for scenario B. The Montreal protocol dealt with CFC cuts. BTW the 2-4 degree rises in your article/s were in Fahrenheit cos that's what the US uses. His chart in the link to his paper I posted above shows the same as below. Pretty much spot on. The reason you are sh*tting me is because you post newspaper articles headlines referring to other newspaper articles headlines with the original article no longer available to be viewed. You regard this as evidence. It isn't. It's just ridiculous. Go to source if you want to be taken seriously.
  2. Good observations. Just like Trump he doesn't seem to want to answer any direct questions. Like "Has snowfall decreased in the UK?"
  3. Have no fear I have awarded myself warning points for that post and sent myself a message that if this drunken posting continues I will be banning myself from the forum.
  4. Yeah, it was decided that you were a wanker.
  5. Yep. If all you have is newsworthy headlines then you are ignoring the scientific consensus. I honestly don't understand why this is a difficult concept for you. So, do you have the Hansen 1986 link? Of course you don't. You're all about FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt). You're a dinosaur. As you descend into oblivion, can I ask a personal question? Why do you persist? Do you have a shareholding? I get why the corporates involved misinform. Why you? Sheer bloody mindedness?
  6. The consensus was not global freezing at all. It is a myth and one which you seem to enjoy perpetuating. They are not terrible as the animation shows. Here's a link to the Hansen et al (1988) paper rather than some newspaper article. The article has the chart cited in the animation showing ~0.5-1.5 degree rise depending on the scenario (page # 9347). I don't know what paper the newspaper articles are referring to. Can you provide a link?
  7. I'm glad you asked. Here's a link going back to the early seventies with predictions versus observations.
  8. The IPCC blindsided by the savvy journalist.
  9. Inconsequential you say. Einstein no different from fake Inigo Jones?
  10. And you think there are better scientists than the current rabble?
  11. Surely your presence in the public service is raising the bar? Lifting the eyes of those hapless public servants to achieve greater things through your leadership.
  12. Of course it qualifies as a mild winter for the US if records on the upside are broken at such a ratio. The headline you posted was "Wet and mild: Warm winter predicted for much of the US" Not all. The US is a big place.
  13. Again, there is no "coming years" apart from the approach back to solar maxima. And we've gone through multiple of those cycles. To which cycle are you referring?
  14. Incidentally, the link you posted supports the "predictions" of Dr David Viner of Independent article infamy. In particular, his prediction that that heavy snow events would cause chaos in a future world where heavy snow was less frequent due to new generations being unused to such events. Remarkably prescient I'd say.