It appears that the statements I made have to do with how one interprets being “a colleague of Mr. Hansenâ??s at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration”

Someone being a colleague of Hansen does not mean Hansen must have said something. Asserting that it does is just a lie.

You probably also think that astronomers who say an X million tonne meteorite hitting the earth is enough to wipe out civilization are saying that it will likely happen soon. That is also a lie. I can see you have a penchant for lying.

This also so should be of some interest to a foaming at the mouth, agw alarmist for the state that you now live in, MN:
Max. temp[there were two occasions when this temp. was reached] 114 degrees F. at Beardsley, July 29, 1917 & Moorhead on July 6, 1936. Now for the one that you will find hard to contend with since in your mind we are BURNING UP:
-60 degrees F., February 2, 1996 Near Tower. I would be willing to bet you what ever you want to wager that the night this record was set there was no cloud cover what so ever and this is always the rule with extreme cold conditions, no cloud cover to hold any heat. I doubt that you have ever given any thought to why desert areas can be up over 100 degrees in the day time and close to freeing at night, again no cloud cover and no humidity which is basically the same for extremely cold days/nights. Just so I don’t get the usual “pulling out of my rear end” BS, look it up:.http://climate.umn.edu/doc/historical/extremes.htm>

You present your stupid little scenario about Uncle Roy and Great Aunt Tilly that tells no one one thing about this allegation that you make: “Spencer and Braswell’s paper is actually a pretty good example of academic fraud.” All your scenario did was to tell anyone dumb enough to read it that you don’t know one thing about this subject and just because there is information that contradicts your equally stupid and unfounded belief that the “demon” of CO2 being the main driver of something as complex as the earth’s climate, it should not be believed. Some of your commenters say that there is no “chaos theory” when they can’t tell you what the climate or weather will be even two days from now with any degree of accuracy.

I think you should consider disregarding your pride and go to a Harvard drop out, Microsoft’s Bill Gates, and see if you can get a grant from him to study why the Efe Pygmies in the Ituri Forest, of Zaire that still defecate in the forest have a higher incidence of malaria than their fellow residence of Zaire that live in urban areas. One must keep in mind how much the incidence of malaria has climbed since the book written by Rachel Carson, “Silent Spring” limited the use of DDT but this leads to maybe one of the only true statements that I’ve ever heard your hero, Al Gore ever make. He said that what got him interested in environmentalism was when his mother read the book “Silent Spring” to him as a child. Al would have been 14 years old when the book came out.

The following quote is directed at the panel of UN “scientist” regarding this issue: “In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual”. –Galileo

“Perhaps the key point discovered by Smith was that by 1990, NOAA had deleted from its datasets all but 1,500 of the 6,000 thermometers in service around the globe.
Now, 75% represents quite a drop in sampling population, particularly considering that these stations provide the readings used to compile both the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) and United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) datasets.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_cru_was_but_the_ti.html
Yet as disturbing as the number of dropped stations was, it is the nature of NOAAâ??s â??selection biasâ? that Smith found infinitely more troubling.
It seems that stations placed in historically cooler, rural areas of higher latitude and elevation were scrapped from the data series in favor of more urban locales at lower latitudes and elevations. Consequently, post-1990 readings have been biased to the warm side not only by selective geographic location, but also by the anthropogenic heating influence of a phenomenon known as the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHI).
For example, Canadaâ??s reporting stations dropped from 496 in 1989 to 44 in 1991, with the percentage of stations at lower elevations tripling while the numbers of those at higher elevations dropped to one. Thatâ??s right: As Smith wrote in his blog, they left â??one thermometer for everything north of LAT 65.â? And that one resides in a place called Eureka, which has been described as â??The Garden Spot of the Arcticâ? due to its unusually moderate summers.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_cru_was_but_the_ti.html

“It is interesting to note that, even though carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth to exist, there is precious little of it in Earthâ??s atmosphere. As of 2008, only 39 out of every 100,000 molecules of air were CO2, and it will take mankindâ??s CO2 emissions 5 more years to increase that number by 1, to 40.”
<http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/>

I think that a blind person would have a better chance of experiencing honesty and the truth if involved in a high stakes game of scrabble with a band of Gypsies than what we will ever realize coming from James Hansen. It does seem that, in most respects, that the alarmist try to remain blind to what the truth is if it doesn’t fit into their ignorant preconceived idea of what their “truth” is

â??Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct; nor was any item of news, or any expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to remain on record. All history was a palimpsest, scraped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as was necessary.â? George Orwell

“The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement” — Karl Popper I am about to quit this site because I don’t seem to be increasing in any knowledge of anything because of this exercise.

James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who argues global warming could be catastrophic, said NASA staffers denied his request to do a National Public Radio interview because they didn’t want his message to get out.

But Republicans told him the hundreds of other interviews he did belie his broad claim he was being silenced.

“We have over 1,400 opportunities that you’ve availed yourself to, and yet you call it, you know, being stifled,” said Rep. Darrell Issa, California Republican.

Mr. Hansen responded: “For the sake of theâ?¦”
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6343558/Climate-scientist-sees-cover-up.html

Earth has COOLED since Hansenâ??s Dire Climate Warning in 1988 – According to Meteorologist Joe Dâ??Aleo
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=b6a8baa3-802a-23ad-4650-cb6a01303a65

Washington Times: Scientist Hansen who alleged Bush administration muzzled him — did 1,400 on-the-job media interviews â?? March 20, 2007 
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=b6a8baa3-802a-23ad-4650-cb6a01303a65>
“Hansen Received $250,000 from partisan Heinz Foundation & Endorsed Dem. John Kerry for Pres. in 2004 – EPW Report on Hansen – July 11, 2006”

Skeptical Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer, Formerly of NASA, Reveals Being Muzzled â?? June 3, 2008
“Well, I had the same pressure as a NASA employee during the Clinton-Gore years, because NASA management and the Clinton/Gore administration knew that I was skeptical that mankind’s CO2 emissions were the main cause of global warming. I was even told not to give my views during congressional testimony, and so I purposely dodged a question, under oath, when it arose. But I didn’t complain about it like Hansen has. NASA is an executive branch agency and the President was, ultimately, my boss (and is, ultimately, Hansen’s boss). So, because of the restrictions on what I could and couldn’t do or say, I finally just resigned from NASA and went to work for the university here in Huntsville.”
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=b6a8baa3-802a-23ad-4650-cb6a01303a65>
It would appear that Dr. Spencer found it better to just move on while Hansen is still in his same position.

â??The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,â? Spencer said. â??There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.â?

It seems that what actually takes place is to be condemned as a heresy by the alarmist, to include Greg, in favor of what their computer models predict, strange “science” going on in the heads of these alarmist. It seems to matter not that the NASA Terra satellite data is consistent with the long term NOAA and NASA data that shows that humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing like the alarmist models predicted and if that doesn’t happen then some need to kill the messenger and in this case it is Dr. Spencer. It seems that Dr. Spencer’s report shows that the climate is actually far less effected by CO2 and that the natural changing in the placement and quantity of clouds; there are clear days and there are cloudy days and some just in between, there is solar radiation, difference in how much heat is being lost from the oceans and too many other complex factors to accurately predict which part of the earth’s climate is caused by anthropogenic green house gas such as CO2 that makes up a paltry .038% of the atmosphere and is one and one half time heavier than air.
It is said that there is an increase in CO2 of from 280ppm to 392ppm[just have to love how precise some think that this measurement is]; but, placed in the proper perspective and that is that one part per million is equal to one inch in sixteen miles and that these 112 additional ppm are spread out over this 16 miles in different one inch segments.
At 392 parts per million, CO2 is a minor constituent of earth’s atmosphere– less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth’s current atmosphere is CO2 impoverished. Please explain how this CO2 is going to act like a pane of glass in a green house when as the various spheres that compose the earth’s atmosphere increase in altitude they obviously increase in area and when was the last time you were able to “trap” anything using a gas?

“In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earthâ??s atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earthâ??s atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.”

â??There are simply too many variables to reliably gauge the right number for that,â? Spencer said. â??The main finding from this research is that there is no solution to the problem of measuring atmospheric feedback, due mostly to our inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in our observations.â?

It appears that data for surface temps for this experiment came from the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Great Britain. I wonder how accurate this information is.

It appears that the statements I made have to do with how one interprets being “a colleague of Mr. Hansenâ??s at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration” and developing his “chilling conclusions by resorting in part to a new computer program developed by Mr. Hansen that studied clouds above Venus.” You go ahead and interpret it any way you want but try to limit your feeling that you have the right to label someone a liar over this. While giving some consideration to that, fill me in on the predictions that Hansen has made that have proven to be correct, it will not be a long explanation, I assure you. I see so much hypocrisy in the Alarmist ranks that it is humorous, such as the poster boy for the cause that has no scientific credentials at all,Al Gore, after predicting rapid and devastating sea level raise buys a rather expensive home on the beach in California.

I realize this is not about Gore but how could his name not come up when one considers fraud and lies?
His home in TN: “A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated by gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not in a northern or Midwestern “snow belt,” either. It’s in the South.”

Then we have house #2
“Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university, this house incorporates every “green” feature current home construction can provide. The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on arid high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes 25% of the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers and shrubs native to the area blend the property into the surrounding rural landscape.”

House #2 is George Bush’s home in Crawford Texas and this is the same Bush that Hansen said was trying to muzzle him.

“This refers to the fact that radiative forcing by CO2, over a wide range around current levels, is proportional to the logarithm of its concentration.” Is this another way of saying that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere doesn’t matter?

I have discussed this topic enough with you, think what you want & I shall do the same.

[…] it is strange, to say the least, that Spencer chose to publish in “Remote Sensing”

[…]

[…] Spencer’s article is unique in that it’s about the use of information returned by satellite.

[…]

This paper is waaaay out of the norm for “Remote Sensing.”

I wonder what the reviewers are like at “Remote Sensing?” Well versed in climate science, do you suppose?

Frankly, CharlieH, I suspect you of dishonesty: that you are repeating the same straw-man ad hominem arguments so often used by warmist intellectual hooligans. With that caveat, I’ll address your argument as though it’s honest.

There has been an on-going effort to prevent publication of any article that questions the current orthodox doctrine WRT “global warming”. For instance, see Bias in the Peer Review Process: A Cautionary and Personal Account by Ross McKitrick, in Michaels, Patrick J., 2011: Climate Coup: Global Warmingâ??s Invasion of Our Government and Our Lives. Cato Institute. ISBN: 978-1-935308447.

Of course, you’ll probably dismiss (and denigrate) this based on who (McK) and where (Cato) it comes from, but by using this catch-22, you’ll simply be proving my suspicions regarding your honesty.

AK

Chris O’Neill: I guess you do not know what quotation marks mean. For your information, they mean that what is quoted was said by someone else;

For instance here is a quotation of John Swallow:

“We shouldn’t forget James Hansen that was predicting global cooling back in the 1970’s”

therefore, take the time to explain how I lied to you.

I’ve already quoted your lie. Hansen made no such prediction in any of the material you cited. Hansen’s colleagues writing a paper about the effects of hypothetical large increases in CO2 and aerosols is not a prediction and is not even a statement by Hansen.

“An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 ° K.”

Where is the word “predict” in the above statement?

“It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.”

This refers to the fact that radiative forcing by CO2, over a wide range around current levels, is proportional to the logarithm of its concentration.

I agree that fraud is a bit much but it is strange, to say the least, that Spencer chose to publish in “Remote Sensing” and now claims that this paper “refutes” Andrew Dressler’s recent paper and that this paper is all about climate science.

Go look at “Remote Sensing,” most of the articles are about teasing information out of imaging: how to do it better, how to do it reliably, how to improve it, how to get new information by leveraging existing imagine data channels. Spencer’s article is unique in that it’s about the use of information returned by satellite.

This paper is waaaay out of the norm for “Remote Sensing.”

I wonder what the reviewers are like at “Remote Sensing?” Well versed in climate science, do you suppose?