James Hansen, head of the Goddard Institute and Guru of the Church of Global Warming has a philosophy, "If God deals you bad numbers--fudge them." Hansen is the guy who came out with the announcement that October 2008 was the warmest in history and then, "OOPS NEVER MIND." The Grand Poobah of warming screwed up the numbers. It was actually a quite average month. Ranked 70th in the last 114 years. And guess what? Its wasn't the first time Hansen has screwed up his numbers.
A study published in the Journal of Nature Geoscience last month discovered that the model to predict Global Warming was was all wrong. According to the Article:
We conclude that in addition to direct CO2 forcing, other processes and/or feedbacks that are hitherto unknown must have caused a substantial portion of the warming during the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum. Once these processes have been identified, their potential effect on future climate change needs to be taken into account.In English, it said that around 55 Million years ago there was a major incident of Global Warming. This warming happened at the same time as a massive injection of carbon into the atmosphere. Scientists have used this information to create a the model used to predict the global warming that will occur via our collective carbon footprints. The problem is scientist now say that warming was much greater than one can expect from the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide alone. This means that either scientists are over predicting the future rise in temperatures from CO2 or something other than carbon dioxide created the temperature rise.
Here's something else they don't tell you in Man-Bear-Pig- Al Gore's movie, the temperature numbers aren't accurate. They keep on revising the numbers downward every few years, and that's where the warming comes from. For example, initially the temperature readings showed no warming since the 1970s, but then revised the numbers from the 1950's downward and presto! There was warming. Then they took out readings from weather balloons in poor countries and guess what? More warming. I have to tell you--these global warming zealots really know how to fix a fight.
Here's a new one. A former big-shot in the radical environmental group Greenpeace was interviewed by the BBC, one of the revelations that he made about the group is, they were lying about the melting of Greenland Ice:
Lies Revealed — Greenpeace Leader Admits Arctic Ice Exaggeration by Phelim McAleer Ann McElhinney
The outgoing leader of Greenpeace has admitted his organization’s recent claim that the Arctic Ice will disappear by 2030 was “a mistake.” Greenpeace made the claim in a July 15 press release entitled “Urgent Action Needed As Arctic Ice Melts,” which said there will be an ice-free Arctic by 2030 because of global warming.
Under close questioning by BBC reporter Stephen Sackur on the “Hardtalk” program, Gerd Leipold, the retiring leader of Greenpeace, said the claim was wrong.
“I don’t think it will be melting by 2030. … That may have been a mistake,” he said.
Sackur said the claim was inaccurate on two fronts, pointing out that the Arctic ice is a mass of 1.6 million square kilometers with a thickness of 3 km in the middle, and that it had survived much warmer periods in history than the present.
The BBC reporter accused Leipold and Greenpeace of releasing “misleading information” and using “exaggeration and alarmism.”
Leipold’s admission that Greenpeace issued misleading information is a major embarrassment to the organization, which often has been accused of alarmism but has always insisted that it applies full scientific rigor in its global-warming pronouncements.
Although he admitted Greenpeace had released inaccurate but alarming information, Leipold defended the organization’s practice of “emotionalizing issues” in order to bring the public around to its way of thinking and alter public opinion.
Leipold said later in the BBC interview that there is an urgent need for the suppression of economic growth in the United States and around the world. He said annual growth rates of 3 percent to 8 percent cannot continue without serious consequences for the climate.
“We will definitely have to move to a different concept of growth. … The lifestyle of the rich in the world is not a sustainable model,” Leipold said. “If you take the lifestyle, its cost on the environment, and you multiply it with the billions of people and an increasing world population, you come up with numbers which are truly scary.”