This seems like a good idea, and I’ll be happy to dedicate a page to it if readers help fill in.
WUWT reader Charles Harrison uses the new submit story feature (see header menu) to ask this:
I would like to have a personal collection of AGW quotations to use in presentations, etc. Things like no more snow, the latest proposal to tattoo skeptics, the need to bring about the end of industrial civilization, etc.
I think this would be fun and useful and maybe Anthony could make a spot for it on the reference page. If nothing else, I would like to be sure I have correct attributions when I use these quotes.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
OK. Not sure you quite got it. The road that was the subject of Hansen’s remark no longer exists – so reproducing his now obsolete prediction is redundant. Clearly we should ignore all the thousands of words he has published in the literature in favour of an offhand remark to a journalist about a now nonexistent carriageway ….
I’m sitting hhere enjoying seeing Philip Clarke trying to back and fill.☺
The scientific understanding of climate change is now
sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It
is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they
can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term
reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions.
The National Academies of Science of Japan, Russia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, the UK Royal Society and the US NAS. http://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact .
UK House of Commons Science & Technology Committee http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387i.pdf
We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit
Oxburgh Panel http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387i.pdf
On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.
The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf
Petitioners say that emails disclosed from CRU provide evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate data. The media coverage after the emails were released was based on email statements quoted out of context and on unsubstantiated theories of conspiracy. The CRU emails do not show either that the science is flawed or that the scientific process has been compromised. EPA carefully reviewed the CRU emails and found no indication of improper data manipulation or misrepresentation of results.
US EPA ‘Myths vs Facts.’ http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/myths-facts.html
No. It may be “moot”, but it cannot be “redundant” unless he made it repeatedly, and it each time someone listed it here. That could be redundant.
But it is not even moot. Since the original road was at X height, the question then becomes – has the Sea Level risen X+? since the prediction by Hansen? The answer is clearly no, it has not. It has been 20 years (but not 30 as some sources state he gave the outer range for), so the quote is still relevant, not moot.
Philip Clarke: nope, the west side hiway is still there. 9a, or 12 ave, take your pick. Hansen can still see it from his office.
http://maps.google.com/maps?oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=goddard+institute+for+space+studies+NY&fb=1&gl=us&hq=goddard+institute+for+space+studies+NY&hnear=goddard+institute+for+space+studies+NY&cid=0,0,2672757636436746148&ei=69fvTaeZPMG28QPF3rCaBw&sa=X&oi=local_result&ct=image&resnum=1&ved=0CB0QnwIwAA
Philip Clarke: Oddly, though, the West Side highway is still about 3 meters above water.
And the birds are the same.
And the trees are the same.
There is no tape on the windows.
And crime has gone down.
Philip Clarke: your
Naomi Oreskes surveys the literature
Tell you what. Maybe things have changed in 7 years. Or maybe not. I will bet you $10,000 to the charity of your choice, that I can find a couple of peer reviewed papers that dispute the orthodoxy. But you lose, you give 10,000 to MSF.
Deal?
Philip Clarke: C’mon. Fess up. You saw the word “flood” in that reference to the west side, and didn’t read anything else, did you?
Just admit your error and move on.
The existence of a strong and positive water-vapor feedback means that projected business-as-usual greenhouse gas emissions over the next century are virtually guaranteed to produce warming of several degrees Celsius. The only way that will not happen is if a strong, negative, and currently unknown feedback is discovered somewhere in our climate system.
Dessler et al 2008 http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/229/Dessler_et_al_2008b.pdf
The water vapour feedback has been observed, measured, is in line with the model predictions, and is dangerous.
The portion of the road Hansen referred to, at 114th street, is still there. Only the elevated portion of the roadway, from lower Manhattan up to 72nd street, was rebuilt. This was implied right at the start of the second link above, although the implication wouldn’t have been clear to someone who hadn’t lived in NYC. (But such a person shouldn’t have made assumptions about what it did imply.)
Incidentally, I thought I read somewhere that this interview with Hansen had been published in New York magazine in 1988. If so, a researcher should try to dig it up, to see if he actually said 40 years, or 20.
Oh come on Phil, we all know the Muir Russell and Oxburgh inquiries were a sham. They were not independent inquiries. Rather, they were guided and overseen by John Beddington the UK Govt Chief Scientist. The following email from ‘John to Ron’ that talks about playing a ‘blinder’ exposed these enquiries for the whitewashes they really were (and is my contribution to the classic AGW quotes on this thread):
” Dear Ron, much appreciated the hard work put into the review, general view is a blinder played. As we discussed at HoL, clearly the drinks are on me!
Best wishes, John”
BTW, as I’m sure you know, supposedly ‘independent’ Lord Oxburgh (Ron) is chairman of Falck Renewables, a large wind firm, whose profitability is dependent on government subsidies of wind energy
The following excerpt from the brilliant Steven McIntyre’s ‘Climate Audit’ sums it all up rather succinctly:
“Information obtained through FOI shows that John Beddington, the UK Government Chief Scientist was in direct contact with both UEA officials and even individual panelists, making sure, among other thing, that individual panelists were ‘warmed up”. Contrary to the UK Government’s claim that the panels were independent, one email from a UEA official says that they will keep Beddington “in the loop” and “seek his advice”. Contrary to the Government’s claims, the Muir Russell and Oxburgh panels were not “carried out independently” and the Government had an important role in “informing how these reviews were carried out””
Hey Phil,
From your first link:
But since CRU is joined at the hip with UEA, I would agree its reputation remains intact.
(Zoom ahead to 2:45 if you’re in a hurry.)
Here are two rather amusing quotes written by Joe Romm in an email to me:
1. “The Arctic will be virtually ice free within your lifetime, almost certainly within two decades and probably within one.”
2. “Please do tell your kids you were one of the ones who helped convince the world not to act in time to prevent what they are going to suffer through.”
I think I’m gonna hold him to the ‘ice free’ quote. I’ll have to review the situation in ten years time and then get back to Ol’ Joe for a progress report 😉
Smears and innuendo do not a case make. John Beddington congratulates Ron Oxburgh on a job well done. This is evidence of a conspiracy? Really? Here is the list of committee and panel members who considered the evidence and came to the conclusions above:-
Mr Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)(Chair)
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)
Mr Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)
Mr Ian Cawsey (Labour, Brigg & Goole)
Mrs Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)
Dr Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West & Abingdon)
Dr Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)
Mr Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)
Dr Doug Naysmith (Labour, Bristol North West)
Dr Bob Spink (Independent, Castle Point)
Ian Stewart (Labour, Eccles)
Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)
Dr Desmond Turner (Labour, Brighton Kemptown)
Mr Rob Wilson (Conservative, Reading East)
Prof Ron Oxburgh FRS (Lord Oxburgh of Liverpool)
Prof Huw Davies, ETH Zürich
Prof Kerry Emanuel, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Prof Lisa Graumlich, University of Arizona.
Prof David Hand FBA, Imperial College, London.
Prof Herbert Huppert FRS, University of Cambridge
Prof Michael Kelly FRS, University of Cambridge
Sir Muir Russell
Professor Geoffrey Boulton
Professor Peter Clarke
David Eyton
Professor James Norton
Then there was the Penn State enquiry and the EPA decision.
Each and every one of them willing to sacrifice their political and scientific credibility and reputations in the service of the conspiracy, which extends to the highest levels of academia and politics in the US and UK, because ‘we all know’ that Ron had a drink with John.
Really?
Look, if you want to ‘prove’ Hansen is wrong, feel free to take issue with his academic work. Analyse his results, reproduce his methods, submit a comment or a rebuttal to a journal and subject it to peer-review. Knock yourself out.
Fact is, his comment to the journalist has been distorted. He was talking about a scenario where CO2 has doubled, or 40 years had elapsed, as the journalist concerned, Bob Reiss, reports ..
“I went back to my book and re-read the interview I had with you. I am embarrassed to say that although
the book text is correct, in remembering our original conversation, during a casual phone interview with a Salon
magazine reporter in 2001 I was off in years. What I asked you originally at your office window was for a prediction
of what Broadway would look like in 40 years, not 20. But when I spoke to the Salon reporter 10 years later –
probably because I’d been watching the predictions come true, I remembered it as a 20 year question
We should discard the academic work, not to mention the book, and disparage Hansen solely because of the faulty recollection of a conversation he had with a journalist reproduced in an online magazine.
Are you serious?
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110126_SingingInTheRain.pdf (footnote)
Speaking of “thorough” investigations conducted by those who have a vested interest in the outcome, here’s one that oddly seems relevant.
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news;_ylt=AmU53Rvk6eRhjMW160lo6k45nYcB?slug=dw-wetzel_why_osu_case_is_worse_than_usc_060811
How could such a shoddy investigation be conducted at a Big Ten school?
Could there be any other examples?
Oh well, I guess if it ever did happen in climate science, it’s such an unimportant field (unlike big time college football), no one would notice.
I will bet you $10,000 to the charity of your choice, that I can find a couple of peer reviewed papers that dispute the orthodoxy.
No deal. I am aware of maybe a handful of papers that challenge some aspect of the concensus. This is wholly to the good. Science progresses by means of such challenges, and they will stand or fall on their merit.
Now, if you were a policymaker, looking at a concensus of scientific conclusion supported by oh, about a thousand mutually-supporting studies, versus 5 or 6 maverick papers, which way would you jump?
“The choice of scientists is sure to be the subject of discussion, and experience would suggest that it is impossible to find a group of eminent scientists to look at this issue who are acceptable to every interest group which has expressed a view in the last few months. Similarly it is unlikely that a group of people who have the necessary experience to assess the science, but have formed no view of their own on global warming, could be found”
Oxburgh is indeed chairman of a renewable energy firm, and he was previously a Director of Shell Oil. Anyone explain why one is relevant and the other not?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3814607.stm
This should get you going:
http://climatequotes.com/
http://green-agenda.com/
http://tinyurl.com/6oqu3m
http://www.changeclimate.org/quotes/
Phlilip Clarke: your
Now, if you were a policymaker, looking at a concensus of scientific conclusion supported by oh, about a thousand mutually-supporting studies, versus 5 or 6 maverick papers, which way would you jump?
I follow the data. For every paper that supports AGW, I can post one that does not.
And, as I have stated, and numerous others, the section of road that was flooded, and replaced, was the elevated section. Not only above sea level, but also above ground level.
Admit your error and move on.
Philip Clarke:
Oxburgh is indeed chairman of a renewable energy firm, and he was previously a Director of Shell Oil. Anyone explain why one is relevant and the other not?
“Previously” is past tense. He is currently chairman of a renewable energy company, and thus propagation of CAGW is to his financial interests.
See the difference?
Phil, my old china,
Do you reall think playing a ‘blinder’ is the right tone to be used for such a crucial enquiry? I don’t know which country you come from, but if you live in the UK the phrase ‘playing a blinder’ implies a skilful act of clever manipulation i.e. to ‘blindside’ the opposition.
So what if Oxburgh once worked with Shell? He’s obviously jumped ship to windfarms
as he realises that’s where the real money can be made with all those government subidies. Whichever way you try to spin it, Oxburgh currently has a vested interest in the promotion of AGW.
Sorry everyone, Phil seems to have led me away from classic quotes, so I’ll shut up!
No. Played a blinder is UK slang for an exception performance, esp. sporting.
http://www.wordreference.com/definition/blinder
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/blinder
The EPA report is subject to judicial review. Is the US justice system in on the conspiracy, then?
Philip Clarke: Ah, I see how it works. When something you say is shown to be wrong, you simply ignore it.
While this may be, for you, a perfectly valid internal coping strategy, it does tend to lessen your external credibility.