You quote that Scientist named Hansen a lot, and believe 100% without a doubt everything he says..... But I have a question for you.
During the past almost 30 years, Mr. Hansen has been making Global warming/Climate change predictions over and over, and not a single one has come true or even close to being true. So, my question is... how can you follow, quote and believe someone, who, for almost 3 decades has been wrong on everything he has predicted?
I don't quote him a lot at all. I think that was the one quote that had his name in it. And I don't believe everything he says, I believe the thousands of climate scientists around the world that agree with what he says.
And he hasn't been wrong about everything... we already went through your example which you lied about what he actually said.
This is how conservatives debate. There are over 1200 climate scientists apart of the IPCC (and thousands of others not apart of the IPCC), yet you focus on trying to discredit an individual scientist in some kind of logical fallacy approach to defend your position. It's ridiculous.
It's like Sheriff Joe trying to make Al Gore out to be some centerpiece in why people believe in Global Warming. Very clownish.
You guys are going to kill all the cute Giant Pandas out there... happy now???
----------------------------------
[h=1]Global warming expected to drastically reduce giant panda habitat[/h]
This picture shows six month old giant panda cub Long Long eating bamboo in an enclosure in Chimelong Safari Park in Guangzhou, China. STR/AFP/Getty Images
Giant pandas, already under threat from poaching, illegal logging and development, could see their remaining habitat shrink dramatically in the coming decades due to climate change.
A study in Biological Conservation released this month found that upwards of 71 percent of the panda's habitat in China could be lost by 2070 and the remaining terrain will become "more fragmented and isolated."
Already reduced to 1 percent of their historic range, giant pandas are limited to six mountain ranges in China and are almost wholly dependent on bamboo for food. Their numbers -- thanks to conservation efforts -- have risen from 1,114 in the 1980s to 1,596. But given their slow rate of reproduction and continued threats from development, the researchers from China and Rutgers University warned that a warmer climate could nullify recent gains.
"The population is thought to be vulnerable to the increasingly warmer and drier climate that is expected to occur in this century," the researchers wrote. "Climate change may reduce significantly both the area of the giant panda habitats and food supplies in panda reserves, jeopardizing their effectiveness to safeguard giant panda populations in the future."
With little doubt that temperatures will rise due to growing carbon emissions, researchers suggest that emergency measures be considered to save the panda.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/global-warming-expected-to-drastically-reduce-giant-panda-habitat/
----------------------------------
[h=1]Global warming expected to drastically reduce giant panda habitat[/h]
This picture shows six month old giant panda cub Long Long eating bamboo in an enclosure in Chimelong Safari Park in Guangzhou, China. STR/AFP/Getty Images
Giant pandas, already under threat from poaching, illegal logging and development, could see their remaining habitat shrink dramatically in the coming decades due to climate change.
A study in Biological Conservation released this month found that upwards of 71 percent of the panda's habitat in China could be lost by 2070 and the remaining terrain will become "more fragmented and isolated."
Already reduced to 1 percent of their historic range, giant pandas are limited to six mountain ranges in China and are almost wholly dependent on bamboo for food. Their numbers -- thanks to conservation efforts -- have risen from 1,114 in the 1980s to 1,596. But given their slow rate of reproduction and continued threats from development, the researchers from China and Rutgers University warned that a warmer climate could nullify recent gains.
"The population is thought to be vulnerable to the increasingly warmer and drier climate that is expected to occur in this century," the researchers wrote. "Climate change may reduce significantly both the area of the giant panda habitats and food supplies in panda reserves, jeopardizing their effectiveness to safeguard giant panda populations in the future."
With little doubt that temperatures will rise due to growing carbon emissions, researchers suggest that emergency measures be considered to save the panda.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/global-warming-expected-to-drastically-reduce-giant-panda-habitat/
You guys are going to kill all the cute Giant Pandas out there... happy now???
----------------------------------
[h=1]Global warming expected to drastically reduce giant panda habitat[/h]
This picture shows six month old giant panda cub Long Long eating bamboo in an enclosure in Chimelong Safari Park in Guangzhou, China. STR/AFP/Getty Images
Giant pandas, already under threat from poaching, illegal logging and development, could see their remaining habitat shrink dramatically in the coming decades due to climate change.
A study in Biological Conservation released this month found that upwards of 71 percent of the panda's habitat in China could be lost by 2070 and the remaining terrain will become "more fragmented and isolated."
Already reduced to 1 percent of their historic range, giant pandas are limited to six mountain ranges in China and are almost wholly dependent on bamboo for food. Their numbers -- thanks to conservation efforts -- have risen from 1,114 in the 1980s to 1,596. But given their slow rate of reproduction and continued threats from development, the researchers from China and Rutgers University warned that a warmer climate could nullify recent gains.
"The population is thought to be vulnerable to the increasingly warmer and drier climate that is expected to occur in this century," the researchers wrote. "Climate change may reduce significantly both the area of the giant panda habitats and food supplies in panda reserves, jeopardizing their effectiveness to safeguard giant panda populations in the future."
With little doubt that temperatures will rise due to growing carbon emissions, researchers suggest that emergency measures be considered to save the panda.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/global-warming-expected-to-drastically-reduce-giant-panda-habitat/
Kind of like how there would be no more polar bears in a few years... remember that prediction years ago?
Go these "Scientists/alarmists" ever get a prediction right?
They always get away with their failed predictions cause they throw the words "May" and "Could" into their predictions.
UPDATE: Thanks to a tip from Willis Eschenbach, there’s some developing news in that story from Dr. James Hansen. The Salon interviewee and book author, Rob Reiss that I quoted, now admits he somehow conflated 40 years with 20 years, and concedes that Dr. Hansen actually said 40 years for his prediction. However, as the newest analysis shows, it doesn’t make any difference, and we still aren’t seeing the magnitude of sea level rise predicted, now 23 years into it.
See the relevant excerpt below:
“
Michaels also has the facts wrong about a 1988 interview of me by Bob Reiss, in which Reiss asked me to speculate on changes that might happen in New York City in 40 years assuming CO2 doubled in amount. Michaels has it as 20 years, not 40 years, with no mention of doubled CO2. Reiss verified this fact to me, but he later sent the message:
“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.“
See the relevant excerpt below:
“
Michaels also has the facts wrong about a 1988 interview of me by Bob Reiss, in which Reiss asked me to speculate on changes that might happen in New York City in 40 years assuming CO2 doubled in amount. Michaels has it as 20 years, not 40 years, with no mention of doubled CO2. Reiss verified this fact to me, but he later sent the message:
“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.“
