my thesis has been we should be spending the billions wasted on fake science so far and actually spending on things which could help our fisheries and our water supplies and food production and air quality. which is why I said if only. if only we were spending agw billions on real solutions.
If they spend it on tech which works to create cheaper cleaner energy no. If they spend in on "scientists doing studies to find links between co2 warming and white privilege..yes.
They aren't doing the second because they are already convinced there is a link and spending trillions on a green future.
The night before the day that would make him famous, James E. Hansen listened to a baseball game on the radio. But his mind kept wandering: What would he say to Congress the next day to convey that humans were endangering the planet? He had long been trying to raise the alarm without success, and so had other scientists. But then, on June 23, 1988 — 30 years ago Saturday — a Colorado senator named Tim Wirth convened yet another hearing on the topic. Dr. Hansen was one of several scientists on the witness list. Few people had ever heard of him, nor of the obscure NASA unit that he headed. He and a small group of colleagues studied the Earth’s climate, working in a suite of offices above the Manhattan diner that “Seinfeld” would later make famous. He had conducted rigorous studies of historical temperatures, concluding that the planet was warming sharply. He had helped to pioneer computer modeling of the climate, and the results predicted further warming if people kept pouring greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. One of Dr. Hansen’s scenarios, Scenario B, has turned out to be a reasonably close match for fossil-fuel emissions as they actually occurred. Yet we now know Scenario B predicted too much global warming, by something like 30 percent. Two reasons for that stand out. One is that Dr. Hansen had assumed a continued increase in certain refrigerant gases that warm the climate. Those gases were ultimately brought under control by a global treaty, the Montreal Protocol — proof that scientific warnings, if taken seriously, can be acted upon at a worldwide scale. The bigger problem was that the computers he was using in the 1980s could not operate fast enough to give a realistic picture of the upper atmosphere; as a result, his model was most likely overestimating the Earth’s sensitivity to emissions. In the years since, computer modeling of the climate, though hardly perfect, has improved. So while his temperature forecast was not flawless, in a larger sense, Dr. Hansen’s 1988 warning has turned out to be entirely on target. As emissions have soared, the planet has warmed relentlessly, just as he said it would; 1988 is not even in the top 20 warmest years now. Every year of this century has been hotter. The ocean is rising, as Dr. Hansen predicted, and the pace seems to be accelerating. The great ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are dumping ever-rising volumes of water into the sea. Coastal flooding is increasing rapidly in the United States. The Arctic Ocean ice cap has shrunk drastically. If his warning in 1988 had been met with a national policy to reduce emissions, other countries might have followed, and the world would be in much better shape. But within a few years after he raised the alarm, fossil-fuel interests and libertarian ideologues began financing a campaign of lies about climate research. The issue bogged down in Congress, and to this day that body has taken no action remotely commensurate with the threat. Dr. Hansen retired from NASA in 2013, but at age 77, he feels his work is not done. Today, from an office at Columbia University, he spends his time fighting the government he once served. He is an expert witness for a lawsuit that young people have filed in Oregon against the federal government, contending that its failure to tackle climate change is a threat to their constitutional rights of life and liberty. His granddaughter, Sophie Kivlehan, is one of the plaintiffs in the case, which has gotten much farther than many legal experts thought it would. The case may go to trial later this year. Prophets of impending calamity are rarely thanked for their efforts, especially when they turn out to be right. But Dr. Hansen did receive a form of thanks recently, sharing half a of a $1.3 million prize for his attempts to warn the public about the risks of climate change. The congressional failure to respond to his warning might be seen now as a harbinger of the political crisis that has since engulfed the United States. How can Congress tackle global warming if it lacks the capacity to solve far smaller problems? Lately, Dr. Hansen has been thinking about the connection between the political crisis and the climate crisis. He is a strong proponent of a new system of voting, called ranked choice, that has been adopted in many other countries and a few parts of the United States, with the goal of recreating a political center. “It’s very hard to see us fixing the climate,” Dr. Hansen said, “until we fix our democracy.” https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/23/opinion/sunday/james-e-hansen-climate-global-warming.html
You mean the fake science that every expert believes is true and none deny it? That fake science? WTF is wrong with you?
Special report: A 30-year alarm on the reality of climate change Three decades have passed since then-NASA scientist James Hansen testified before the Senate Energy committee and alerted the country to the arrival of global warming. Data: NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies; Graphic: Harry Stevens/Axios Why it matters: The predictions of the world's leading climate scientists have come true, with dire consequence for the planet. In the 30-year period prior to Hansen’s testimony, the Earth’s surface was, on average, less than 0.2°F warmer than the 20th-century average. In the 30 years since, the planet’s surface has, on average, undergone a six-fold temperature increase. Hansen's temperature projections weren't exactly on target, since he projected a slightly higher amount of warming than what has occurred, but about two-dozen climate scientists told Axios that overall, his main conclusions were right. In his June 23, 1988 testimony, Hansen made three key points: The Earth has gotten warmer. So warm, in fact, that the temperature trend was almost certainly due to the greenhouse effect, which is enhanced by emissions of gases like carbon dioxide and methane from burning fossil fuels. As a result, summer heat waves and other extreme weather events will become more common. "The greenhouse effect has been detected, and it is changing our climate now,” Hansen said. When he spoke, 1988 was on track to become the hottest year of all-time. Since then, that record has been broken six more times – in 1990, 1998, 2010, 2014, 2015 and 2016. In an interview with the Guardian this week, Hansen gave a bleak assessment of the last thirty years. “All we’ve done is agree there’s a problem,” he said. “We haven’t acknowledged what is required to solve it.” Be smart: Uncertainty is often cited as a reason for not addressing climate change, but the longer we go without addressing it, the harder it will be to cut emissions and avert major impacts. As Andrea Dutton, a climate scientist at the University of Florida, told Axios: "The true debate lies in the solutions and in mobilizing the social and political will to act upon our knowledge. Deciding not to act is a choice itself, and one that we cannot correct later. The time to act is always now. Because the longer we wait, the worse the outcomes will be." About the graphic: The spinning globes compare the average temperature of the Earth's surface during the 30-year periods before and after Hansen's testimony, relative to the average surface temperature from 1901–2000. The data used to create the graphic was downloaded from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The land surface temperature data is from a GISS analysis, while the ocean temperature data comes from NOAA. The smoothing radius was set to 1,200 kilometers. Take a Deep Dive on the issue of climate change: Where climate change will hit the U.S. hardest. Cheat sheet: How climate change affects our weather. Climate change is here to stay, so deal with it. How big corporations are — and aren't — fighting global warming. 5 transformative energy technologies to watch. An energy and climate glossary for Trump (and everyone). The political divide over climate science. A Trump-supporting Texas city runs on 100% renewable energy. https://www.axios.com/how-much-eart...ied-b6f8fdb4-484e-477f-b8b6-6ee320994dc0.html
please note... global warming nut cases are only going to be focused on very recently instrument data... which is continuously being adjusted to show more recent warming. So when you see leftist hysteria understand that they are acting like the last 100 years or of of instrument data... is somehow capable of telling you something about historical temperatures. What you would really need to do is compare proxy data with proxy data... this is what you find. We are still in a range... and on a long term basis in the low part of the range and lot part of co2.