posted on June 7, 2007 02:34:13 PM new
15-Year-Old Byrnes Outsmarts NASA’s Global Warming Alarmist James Hansen
On May 18, NewsBusters introduced you to Kristen Byrnes, the fabulous fifteen-year-old from Maine who had torn apart many of the myths purported by the Global Warmingist-in-Chief, soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore, in his schlockumentary “An Inconvenient Truth.”
Now, the Precocious Ponderer from Portland is taking on the scientist that Gore relied on for much of his misinformation, James Hansen of NASA.
In her recent report entitled “Houston, We Have a Problem,” Byrnes identified a serious concern with this so-called scientist that many anthropogenic global warming skeptics have been addressing for years (emphasis added throughout):
James Hansen seems to have a busy life for someone from Iowa. But the real question seems to be is whether or not Hansen is too busy to realize what he is actually saying to the pubic.
As Hansen attempts to seduce, exaggerate, and alarm the public, some people (like me) attempt to inform the public of the reality of global warming, its impacts, and now, the truth behind James Hansen.
Next, Byrnes took on the myth Hansen likes to purport that he is politically independent:
Hansen claims that he is an “independent”, but he seems to be the only person who believes it. Readers may already be aware of this, but if not… James Hansen was granted a quarter of a million dollars from the Heinz Environment Award a.k.a. U. S. Senator and former Presidential Candidate John Kerry’s wife’s foundation. You know the old saying; “nothing in politics is free.” So my first question is: what did he do to get the quarter of a million dollars? Was it the price for switching his political standing from “independent” to democratic when he later endorsed John Kerry for President? Was it payment for interpreting his department’s data in a way that would benefit his political friends?
More evidence of his connections to the Democratic Party was his endorsement of Al Gore’s presidential campaign in 2000. James Hansen was also a science advisor to Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth.
As kids say these days, “Oh SNAP!”
Marvelously, she was just getting warmed up:
James Hansen is a scientist who admittedly uses scare tactics to convince the public that global warming will be “potentially disastrous”. Consider this statement from Hansen in his own document called “Can We Defuse the Global Warming Time Bomb?” [published in the journal Natural Science] in August of 2003.
Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as "synfuels," shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate forcing scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions. Scenarios that accurately fit recent and near-future observations have the best chance of bringing all of the important players into the discussion, and they also are what is needed for the purpose of providing policy-makers the most effective and efficient options to stop global warming.
Fascinating, wouldn't you agree? What Hansen wrote in 2003 was that he used to advocate lying to the public and policy makers to get them to act. Yet, we should believe his prognostications now because he’s decided it’s suddenly important to be truthful.
Right.
To demonstrate how Hansen clearly is still operating from his prior modus operandi regarding the need to exaggerate to impact the debate, Byrnes pointed out the following deliciously inconvenient truth:
It is important to understand that global warming has been measured in tenths of degrees, .77 degrees Celsius in the past 100 years. There has been a great deal of controversy about the accuracy of the temperature data, mainly the bias of temperature data due to urban heat island effect. This controversy has lead many to focus on rural temperature stations. Rural stations are intended to represent the cool breezy countryside, small towns, farms, trees and grass.
In recent weeks, researchers have been visiting these temperature stations. What they noticed was that there are serious problems with the quality of these temperature stations. They noticed that many of these temperature stations were located next to concrete buildings, near hot exhausts of air conditioning units, attached to metal towers and poles, surrounded by driveways and above gravel.
How delicious. And, here’s the excruciatingly painful punch line:
The photos of these temperature stations are not just a few of many; they are the first few dozen that have been visited. About 80% of the temperature stations that have been visited and photographed have serious quality problems. This brings up some more questions: How many tenths of a degree will temperatures rise when the thermometer is near the hot exhaust of an AC unit? Or how about when it is located above gravel or near a paved road or driveway? How many tenths of a degree will the temperature rise when the thermometer is above pavement and surrounded by buildings (no wind)? And in one case, as documented by the photograph below, how many tenths of a degree will the temperature rise when the caretaker of the facility burns trash in a metal barrel just 5 feet away from the temperature station?
For those interested, more pictures of these stations can be found here.
Now, putting this is some perspective, given the position and location of some of these stations, wouldn’t this be a fabulous thing for investigative journalists to be reporting? Can’t you just imagine a segment about this on “60 Minutes,” “20/20,” or “Dateline?” Why do you think that hasn’t happened?
Or, is it the job of fifteen-year-olds to point out that which adults find too inconvenient?
Brava, Kris. Brava!
Fascinating, wouldn't you agree? What Hansen wrote in 2003 was that he used to advocate lying to the public and policy makers to get them to act. Yet, we should believe his prognostications now because he’s decided it’s suddenly important to be truthful.
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.George S. Patton
[ edited by Bear1949 on Jun 7, 2007 11:17 PM ]
posted on June 7, 2007 03:08:43 PM new
Pictures, once again say more than a 1000 words. lol
Thank heaven we still have intelligent young people with minds...who don't just 'believe' anything because some liberals says it's so.
Wonder if he was homeschooled?
-----------------------------------
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on June 7, 2007 04:05:34 PM new
bear, my burn barrel doesn't have a smokestack on it, does yours? Hmmm....This is clearly an evil plot to locate barbecues and burn barrels close to climate monitoring stations in order to falsely make it look like the planet is getting warmer so the liberals can take us over and keep us from burning up as much fuel as we want to anytime we want. Thank god for folks like you and that teenager for alerting us to this godless wicked conspiracy.
Now since it's clear that the planet isn't really getting warmer, I'm going to stop listening to those reports about the polar bears who are drowning because they don't have any sea ice to stand on and go fire up the barbecue. Think I'll start up all the trucks and let em idle too, just because I can. Boy howdy, I've done thanked you twice today for pulling the blinders off my eyes!
posted on June 7, 2007 07:08:17 PM new
Bear doesn't believe Hansen because he "was granted a quarter of a million dollars from the Heinz Environment Award". However when there is a scientist who has received grants from oil companies and then does a study to debunk "global heatin" he has no problem believing the scientist.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on June 7, 2007 08:26:53 PM new
"Thank heaven we still have intelligent young people with minds...who don't just 'believe' anything because some liberals says it's so.
Wonder if he was homeschooled"
1. It isn't "liberals" who say weather change is a problem. The large majority of the world's scientists believe it is a problem. Rarely do they reveal their political leanings when writing scientific papers.
2. He is a she--the kid's name is Kristen. Unless her parents have a warped sense of humor, Kristen is a female name.
posted on June 7, 2007 08:31:10 PM new
"LOL....don't have ice to stand on????
So ALL bears are dying because liberals have convinced some nuts that these bears can't easily swim to solid ice? lol lol"
No, it is not all bears. POLAR BEARS are the ones who sit on ice floes. Although they are capable of swimming 50 or even 100 miles, the ice is getting further and further apart and causing them extreme difficulty and danger. Glad you find that amusing.
posted on June 7, 2007 08:39:13 PM new
I know the thought of learning anything is really really scary for SOME but if they can get past the big words in the following they MAY learn a thing or two
Muffled against the bitter artic cold by thick white fur and layers of fat, the polar bear lives and hunts in the snowbound lands and ice flows surrounding the North Pole. A strong swimmer and a lone predator, it is at home ice flows, which may carry it far from its original locality.
The polar bear is found on the arctic coasts and islands of the five countries around the North Pole, the United States (Alaska), Canada, Denmark (Greenland), Norway and Russia. It is the only species that still lives throughout its original range, with an estimated 20,000 still in the wild.
However, even in the seemingly pristine Arctic environment, polar bears are threatened by the spread of hormone-disrupting chemicals and global warming. This affects the polar ice edge ecosystem, the habitat of walrus, seals and penguins, as well as bears.
Global warming could already be having a negative impact on polar bears. In Canada's Hudson Bay (see map), numbers have been declining according to a study by Canadian Wildlife Services. Ice on the bay is melting an average of three weeks earlier than in the mid-1970s. This forces polar bears to retreat further inland before they have been able to replenish their reserves of fat by feeding on seal pups, which live on the ice.
The polar bears in the Hudson Bay are unique in the Arctic because they fast for six to eight months of hibernation and rely on winter hunting for survival. Longer ice-free periods during the artic summer leave polar bears stranded onshore for longer periods. The delay in freeze-up causes polar bears to lose critical fat reserves affecting reproduction and the ability of pregnant females to produce enough milk for their cubs. Scientists can already document a 15 percent drop in birth rates.
The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) works with governments to designate specially protected areas for wildlife around the world. In 1973, Canada, the U.S., Denmark, Norway and the former U.S.S.R. signed the International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears and their Habitat. The goal is to protect ecosystems of the bears, particularly their denning and feeding areas and migration routes. The agreement bans hunting from aircraft and powerboats. However, polar bears are still at risk from hunting and from disturbance to their habitat from oil exploration.
In the far north of Russia, another United Nations agency, the UN Development Programme (UNDP), works with local communities to protect areas where polar bears live. People are involved in better management of the eco-systems that polar bears and other species depend on for their survival. Indigenous peoples hunt the polar bear all year around, but since they use traditional methods, the numbers killed are not a threat to its survival.
UNEP and another UN agency, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) set up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to assess the impact of climate change. The Artic was found to be extremely vulnerable, more so than any other area on earth.
As part of the global effort to protect the planetâs biodiversity, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) administers one of the worldâs largest conservation agreements÷the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, known as CITES. Adopted in 1973, it became international law two years later.
More than 150 governments have ratified the treaty, which offers varying protection to more than 35,000 species of animals and plants, depending on their condition in the wild and the effect that international trade may have on them. CITES bans international commercial trade in species threatened with extinction, such as cheetahs, tigers, the great apes, many tortoises and birds of prey. It also protects other species, which are not threatened, but may be at serious risk unless international trade is strictly regulated.
posted on June 7, 2007 11:15:22 PM new
Since dingotree is hell bent on side tracking the subject of this thread away from NASA’s Global Warming Alarmist James Hansen:
Australian TV Exposes 'Stranded Polar Bear' Global Warming Hoax
Posted by Noel Sheppard on April 6, 2007 - 12:05.
Remember that wonderful picture of stranded polar bears on an ice floe that were used by folks like soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore to demonstrate how dire the man-made global warming issue is?
Well, ABC television in Australia, on a show called “Media Watch,” recently debunked the entire issue (video available here, h/t NB member dscott).
It turns out -- as NewBuster Jake Gontesky reported on March 20 -- the picture was taken in August, “when every year the fringes of the Arctic ice cap melt regardless of the wider effects of global warming.”
The photographer, Australian marine biology student Amanda Byrd, didn’t think the bears were in any jeopardy:
They did not appear to be in danger…I did not see the bears get on the ice, and I did not see them get off. I cannot say either way if they were stranded or not.
Denis Simard of Environment Canada agreed:
You have to keep in mind that the bears are not in danger at all. This is a perfect picture for climate change…you have the impression they are in the middle of the ocean and they are going to die...But they were not that far from the coast, and it was possible for them to swim...They are still alive and having fun.
How delicious. Think this kind of broadcast would ever happen in America?
What follows is a full transcript of this segment. Furthermore, here are the e-mail questions answered by the photographer who took the picture. And, here is the full transcript of the interview “Media Watch” did with The Sunday Telegraph’s Neil Breen regarding this matter.
Those stranded polar bears on the shrinking Arctic ice - victims of global warming - certainly tugged at the heart-strings.
That photo was published not only in the Sunday Telegraph.
It made it onto the front page of the New York Times.
And the International Herald Tribune.
It also ran in London's Daily Mail, The Times of London and Canada's Ottawa Citizen - and that's just to name a few.
All used it as evidence of global warming and the imminent demise of the polar bear.
But the photo wasn't current. It was two and a half years old.
And it wasn't snapped by Canadian environmentalists.
It was taken by an Australian marine biology student on a field trip.
And in what month did she take it?
“The time of year was August, summer.”
— Email from Amanda Byrd to Media Watch
Summer, when every year the fringes of the Arctic ice cap melt regardless of the wider effects of global warming.
So were the polar bears stranded?
“They did not appear to be in danger…I did not see the bears get on the ice, and I did not see them get off. I cannot say either way if they were stranded or not.”
— Email from Amanda Byrd to Media Watch
And they didn't appear stranded to Denis Simard of Environment Canada.
He told Canada's National Post.
You have to keep in mind that the bears are not in danger at all. This is a perfect picture for climate change…you have the impression they are in the middle of the ocean and they are going to die...But they were not that far from the coast, and it was possible for them to swim...They are still alive and having fun.
A survey of the animals' numbers in Canada's eastern Arctic has revealed that they are thriving, not declining, because of mankind's interference in the environment.
In the Davis Strait area, a 140,000-square kilometre region, the polar bear population has grown from 850 in the mid-1980s to 2,100 today.
"There aren't just a few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more bears," said Mitch Taylor, a polar bear biologist who has spent 20 years studying the animals.
His findings back the claims of Inuit hunters who have long claimed that they were seeing more bears.
Polar bear experts said that numbers had increased not because of climate change but due to the efforts of conservationists.
The battle to ban the hunting of Harp seal pups has meant the seal population has soared - boosting the bears' food supply.
At the same time, fewer seal hunters are around to hunt bears.
— The National Post (Canada), Gore pays for photo after Canada didn't, 23rd March, 2007
Polar bears are good swimmers. So how did all this come about?
Photographer Amanda Byrd gave her photo to fellow cruiser, Dan Crosbie - to have a look.
“Dan Crosbie gave the image to the Canadian Ice Service, who gave the image to Environment Canada, who distributed the image to 7 media agencies including AP.”
— Email from Amanda Byrd to Media Watch
Associated Press released the photo two and a half years after it was taken, on the day the United Nations released its major global warming report.
That's where Sydney's Sunday Telegraph got the photo, running it with a story taken from the Daily Mail as Neil Breen explains.
…the photograph represents polar bears standing on ice that’s melting. Now obviously there’s a disputed account of when that was taken now, and maybe it was taken in the Alaskan Summer when you would naturally expect ice to melt but at the time it was sent to us, Associated Press in their caption to us told us that the picture was taken of melting ice caps and to do with global warming and that it was sent to them by a Canadian ice authority and we had no reason to question it.
— Statement from Neil Breen (Editor of the Sunday Telegraph) to Media Watch
But Amanda Byrd didn't think her photo necessarily described whether global warming is occurring.
I take neither stand, I simply took the photos...If I released the image myself, it would have been as a striking image. Nothing more.
— Email from Amanda Byrd to Media Watch
That's not how Al Gore saw it.
He used it in a presentation on man made global warming.
"Their habitat is melting... beautiful animals, literally being forced off the planet," Mr. Gore said, with the photo on the screen behind him. "They're in trouble, got nowhere else to go."
Audience members let out gasps of sympathy…
— The National Post (Canada), Gore pays for photo after Canada didn't, 23rd March, 2007
Well that's because they're bears… and at a distance, they're rather cute.
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.George S. Patton
[ edited by Bear1949 on Jun 7, 2007 11:17 PM ]
posted on June 8, 2007 12:53:00 AM new
What you refuse to acknowledge, CC, is there are ALSO scientists who disagree that humans have any fault in the 'warming'. LOL
The ones you're listening to are probably the ones who 30 years ago were fighting to avoid 'the ice age'. They SWORE we were going to ruin everything because of global cooling.
That's the problem.....IF all were in agreement that humans were causing this....there would NOT be such strong disagreement.
But as it is.....there is NO SOLID proof humans have any thing to do with it. And it's SO minute anyway.
kristin being a girl...makes no difference...it's her MIND that can easily make a FOOL of ol' gore. LOL
And I asked if he/she was home schooled because then I KNOW the liberal indoctrination didn't keep her from learning so much at such a young age.
All the smart ones were usually homeschooled....kept aways from the liberals who teach everything except the three "R's".....and are more worried about indoctrinating them with sexual issues. LOL With home schooling....their minds stay on learning - increasing their knowledge to get ahead in our society.
[ edited by Linda_K on Jun 8, 2007 12:58 AM ]
posted on June 8, 2007 06:45:35 AM new
The point of my post is that you are assigning the idea of global warming to liberals, when (the majority of) scientists agree that there are problems. Political philosophy has nothing to do with it. I am sure you will find scientists of all political philosophies who believe this is a real danger. I am sure you will find some liberal scientists who feel it is not.
As regards to your home schooling vs. public school, your paranoia is showing.
posted on June 8, 2007 11:14:26 AM new
One CAN assign "the crisis of global warming" to liberals. The fact that global warming exists is a fact, the problem is:
1) How much is humanity responsible for
2) How much "fixing" is tolerable.
Unfortunately greenies are among the most stupid of humans and follow the "sounds good, must be true" theorem to the max. (See mingo).
You get the chants of "hurricanes=global warning" even when you point out that core sample show no major anomalies in Hurricanes over thousands of years (in fact we are in a "mild" hurricane era now.)
You get the cries to spend BILLIONS on further regulating cars when this has had quantum leaps in improvement. It takes 8-10 years to update the country's car fleet through attrition and even then the percentage due to vehicles is very small compared to the #1 source of emissions: power plants to make electricity. But suggest you tackle this emission leader with nuclear power as many countries are doing, and any good greenie goes screaming into the night. All the better to dream of electric cars (where do they get the juice??. Those same dirty power plants)
Then you have the proponents for ethanol or hydrogen, which when you examine the ENTIRE process offers nothing because the background processes are highly energy INTENSIVE.
The McDonalds owner burns the vegetable oil in his Volkswagen, so we get "biodiesel", the problem being not everybody owns a McDonalds and growing stuff just for biodiesel is not feasible.
The answer to these problems has to be better then "they gotta fix dat" BEFORE you start.
posted on June 8, 2007 02:33:28 PM new
desquirrel--You make some good points. I believe that there are things we can do to improve on energy guzzling, but I am not fanatical about it. Hybrid cars are fine, solar energy is fine, trying not to wreck the environment, endanger living things with pollution--all admirable. Ethanol and biodiesel don't sound feasible, but doesn't mean we can't come up with other types of fuel.
posted on June 8, 2007 03:08:04 PM new
The answer is you allow a broad range of things based on the practicality. Hybrids are dumb fashion statements that greenies buy to impress their friends. The total cost is more than a conventional car w/o the unknowns. But they would be fine in fleet use in cities where other factors come in to play (stop and go, etc, etc). Ease restrictions on vehicles so the guy that DOES own a McDonalds can easily license his oil burner, but silly subsidies, no.
Large parts of the world have this figured out already. Besides nuclear power, high tech diesels are everywhere. Easy to produce fuel, burns cleaner, but does not pass the current laws in every state. Logical tax laws. You don't ban the lady from carrying herself and a baby to the foodstore in an Expredition. You just make the registration fees for an 8000 lb vehicle such that she might decide a CRV would make more sense.
Scientific and engineering matters need real study followed by rational courses of action rather than politicians pandering to imbeciles who can barely tie their shoes or whose favorite movie star has a quaint opinion.
