Видео

Problem is, there is no credible empirical evidence -- none -- for any of Hansen's absurd CO2 climate narrative nonscience.

The endless climate mantra: "Just you wait, it's going to be bad, you'll see". Repeat decade after decade in perpetuity.

Looking at Hansen's predictions (used by the IPCC) running out to 2020. They said that increased human sources of carbon were going into the atmosphere would result higher temperatures. More CO2, warmer world. Scenario A ('Business as Usual') was predicting a little over 35GtCO2/yr by 2020 (21.25 GtCO2 in 1987 with 1.5% predicted annual growth) which exactlty what we got). That should have given a warming in excess of 1.3°C between 1988 and 2000. But it didn't, so did Scenario B, hit the mark? No. Scenario B had emissions of about 21 GtC/yr in 2020. Around 60% of actual emissions, with a temperature rise of around 0.8°C. Oops that prediction was still too hot. Temperature-wise we have to get to Scenario C before we get close to reality. Scenario C predicted a temperature rise of 0.3°C to 2020, but that's with us reaching net zero from 2000! The actual temperature rise was 0.4°C. So Hansen's (and hence the IPCC's) prediction of a huge rise in emissions (which did happen) would result in steep rise in temperature (which didn't happen) is bunk. Instead we got a small rise in temperature, much lower than predicted by Scenario A, and half that of Scenario B. The actual rise was essentially the same as predicted if we had stopped burning fossil fuel. To hammer the point home, Hansen’s predictions were worse than 'Big Oil'. A report from Harvard University noted "projections modeled by ExxonMobil scientists had an average ‘skill score’ of 72 ± 6 %, with the highest scoring 99%. For comparison, NASA scientist Dr. James Hansen’s global warming predictions presented to the U.S. Congress in 1988 had skill scores ranging from 38% to 66%. (When we account for differences between forecast and observed atmospheric CO2 levels, the ‘skill score’ of projections modeled by ExxonMobil scientists was 75 ± 5%, with seven projections scoring 85% or above. Again, for comparison, Hansen’s 1988 projections had corresponding skill scores of 28 to 81%.)" However even the Big Oil overestimated the warming at 0.2°C per decade. The IPCC followed Hansen on other aspects of climate. Both published charts showing the Medieval Warm Period was considerably warmer than the present (Hansen 1984, IPCC 1990). Of course, the Medieval Warm Period has magically ceased to be. Were they right? Are they wrong? Hansen also made some other cracking predictions. In his stagecrafted presentation to Congress in 1998 the New York Times reported his predictions thus “If the current pace of the buildup of these gases continues, the effect is likely to be a warming of 3 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit from the year 2025 to 2050,” and “The rise in global temperature is predicted to… melt glaciers and polar ice, thus causing sea levels to rise by one to four feet by the middle of the next century”. Yes, of course it will, Mr Hansen. In 2006 "We have at most ten years-not ten years to decide upon action, but ten years to alter fundamentally the trajectory of global greenhouse emissions." So presumably we are FUBARed. In 2009 he said Obama only had four years to save the Earth. Also in 2009 he endorsed a book that suggested razing civilisation to the ground.

Crack-pot scientist pushing hair-brained AGW theories....its astronomical...its the Star next to us, stoopid 😮

Thank you. That was exquisite.

"Nothing but a parachute"? I think that the 'nothing' is the most important part. Plus, there are two canopies, not one, an altimeter, a helmet, AAD and RSL. reading from a book? Try reading everything.

How did we emerge so uniquely fast and so much more advanced than anything else is this fishtank called earth. Answer is Because there was genetic manipulation. We were created.

Sorry, I seriously dislike AI voice overs. I wish you luck. But it's a dislike from me.