backtop


Print 92 comment(s) - last by ArcliteHawaii.. on Aug 12 at 5:49 PM


The past 30 years has seen more "hot" (orange), "very hot" (red) and "extremely hot" (brown) summers, compared to a base period defined in this study from 1951 to 1980  (Source: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio)
Hotter summers have become the norm from 1980 to present compared to 1951 to 1980 (the base period)

Source: Science Daily





Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: BS
By Reclaimer77 on 8/7/2012 1:55:24 PM , Rating: 2
Typical Tiffany.

It's extremely poor journalistic form to leave out the fact that Hansen has been investigated for multiple counts of fraud and has permanently tainted Climate Sciences and his own reputation. This guy was at the very heart of Climategate. He's already been caught manipulated temperature data.

The reader should at least be aware that this information is coming from someone who's ANYTHING but an unbiased observer of climate. The difference between an activist and a scientist starts the minute you believe so passionately about something, that the ends justify the means to advance the agenda. Regardless of it's accuracy and methodology used.

Honestly, shame on you Tiffany.


RE: BS
By amosbatto on 8/9/2012 5:46:05 PM , Rating: 2
What investigations? Anthony Watts reported that Hansen accepted $1.6 million in gifts and awards over a 5 year period and did not report it properly in government disclosure forms. In a few cases, NASA asked him to give back some of the money.

There does not appear to be any ongoing investigation of Hansen for these activities and the only article written about it seems to be Anthony Watt's article which was endlessly repeated over the right-wing blog-o-sphere. Given that the documents were made publicly available due to a court case and anyone could have investigated it, it is interesting that no reputable news sources bothered to write about it. It would appear that there isn't much there, or the violations aren't considered very significant. In my opinion, it does raise some conflict of interest questions, but it doesn't debunk Hansen's scientific articles, which are all peer-reviewed and generally have a number of coauthors at NASA, so you are also attacking the scientific credibility of a whole team of top climate scientists.

As for the climategate scandal, that is utter baloney and you know it. The question was what to do with proxy data which didn't agree with measured temperature data from thermometers. The scientists weighted the proxy data to agree with the measured data. It was publicly acknowledged in their published papers what they were doing long before the publication of the emails and there was no effort to deceive the public.

What happened is that a number of emails were quoted out of context to make it seem like the scientists were trying to deceive and manipulate the public, but all the investigations into the matter concluded that there was no effort to deceive the public.

The real question is whether anyone has been able to disprove the findings in Hansen's scientific articles. On that score, Hansen has an impeccable track record and is highly regarded in his field. Stop defaming the man when it is obvious that you have never even bothered to read his work.


"Folks that want porn can buy an Android phone." -- Steve Jobs










botimage
Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki