Early Out the Gate with Gloom and Doom

A key scientist who pushes the global warming alarm button regularly is NASA's James Hansen. He specializes in the-end-is-nigh predictions. Here's a key bit from an interesting article in Salon magazine published in 2001:

Extreme weather means more terrifying hurricanes and tornadoes and fires than we usually see. But what can we expect such conditions to do to our daily life?

While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, "If what you're saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?" He looked for a while and was quiet and didn't say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, "Well, there will be more traffic." I, of course, didn't think he heard the question right. Then he explained, "The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won't be there. The trees in the median strip will change." Then he said, "There will be more police cars." Why? "Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up."

And so far, over the last 10 years, we've had 10 of the hottest years on record.

Didn't he also say that restaurants would have signs in their windows that read, "Water by request only."

Under the greenhouse effect, extreme weather increases. Depending on where you are in terms of the hydrological cycle, you get more of whatever you're prone to get. New York can get droughts, the droughts can get more severe and you'll have signs in restaurants saying "Water by request only."

When did he say this will happen?

Within 20 or 30 years. And remember we had this conversation in 1988 or 1989.

Does he still believe these things?

Yes, he still believes everything. I talked to him a few months ago and he said he wouldn't change anything that he said then.

Notice these important facts:

1. To the best of my knowledge the West Side Highway in NYC is not under water, no restaurants are taping their windows because of high winds, and the same birds are living there as have lived there for the last 10,000 years. So he's 3 for 3 in getting his predictions wrong. And despite being wrong, he stands firm in 2001 saying he wouldn't change anything that he said then. Indeed, James Hansen has escalated his rhetoric and now uses radical tactics of blocading coal mines and getting arrested for it. Usually people who become committed activist have passed beyond the stage of rational discourse and are now fanatics unwilling to test their ideas.


2. He was wrong then and I'd bet dollars to donuts he's wrong now, but he won't admit any mistakes. The sure sign of a fanatic.


3. He has a 20+ year track record for being wrong. Is this the kind of guy that people should be looking to for advice about climate change?

But it is funny. Those who question the fear mongering of runaway global warming are the ones who are held up to ridicule as being impervious to fact. While those who are wrong and are proud of being wrong and continue to be wrong are held up as paragons of thoughtfulness and scientific honesty. Yep... life is stranger than fiction.

The global warming crowd presents itself as the only level-headed rational group when it comes to discussing climate. But here is a report that polled scientsts and found that 17% dissent from the IPCC view as either attributing too much influence to human contributions to warming or because the underlying science is too uncertain to nail down the conclusions that IPCC draws. There are also 17% who dissent from the IPCC for being too soft on the real doom-and-gloom scenarios that they believe are at hand. And roughly 66% accept the IPCC as a reasonable assessment. There isn't unanimity. And in the climate of today, it takes a strong person willing to risk their career to stand up and be counted in the 17% camp dissenting from the IPCC's conclusions for being too alarming. On the other hand, those in the 17% who are radical and sneer as the IPCC as a weak-kneed response to an imminent catastrophe, generally get kudos and are put on a pedestal. They run no risk of losing their academic career.