Climate Change | Energy | Sustainability | Environment | Transportation | Policy | Buildings

Scientist Jim Hansen Talks Climate Change

More videos from this partner:


  • Info
  • Bio
  • Chapters
  • Preview
  • Download
  • Zoom In
There are 9 comments on this program

Please or register to post a comment.
Previous FORAtv comments:
Stephen Pare Avatar
Stephen Pare
Posted: 10.11.10, 04:05 AM
Quote: Originally Posted by wscparks 30 years of satellite temperatures shows no real change What an astonishing claim! On the contrary, the satellite record shows the same long-term trend as surface measurements and ocean measurements - rapid warming.
rspawn Avatar
Posted: 10.11.09, 09:00 AM
Quote: Originally Posted by mvanveen If these models are no good, how can you, as a scientist, find a solid basis for your findings? The basis for findings is research (that has been done in the past) - the models are for predicting the future. What we do know is that reality is worse than the models have predicted so far, and that's a pretty solid basis for predicting disaster.
wscparks Avatar
Posted: 09.28.09, 12:44 AM
30 years of satellite temperatures shows no real change And as other comments computer models are used to lies to us Politicians and bureaucrats have their own agendas e.g. the Australian ABC radio or TV never has the fare debate of both sides about CO2 or climate change
fabthegerm Avatar
Posted: 07.08.09, 03:30 PM
@superSpok2009: 1. As Jim Hansen stated, there are almost no doubts concerning men's role in climate change among the scientific community at all (anymore) - that's part of what he called the "gap" between public and scientific knowledge. (For further reading: ) 2. At no point the IPCC (e.g.) states that life is not possible when CO²-level rises. At no point. CO² actually works as a natural fertilizer. All that is being said is that climate changes too quickly for some currently existing ecosystems to adapt adequatly. @terrysabo: In fact, there have never been fewer scientists expressing doubts concerning the fundamental science behind climate change. And with regard to the common "global warming stopped"-argument: FTA: "Short term trends are not significant indicators of climate but rather show short term variability within the long term climate trend." There is a fundamental difference between weather and climate.
superSpok2009 Avatar
Posted: 06.19.09, 06:04 PM
I thought this interview would contain useful information regarding many questions I have had about climate change. If only he had just talked about the clear doubts about man's true role in the matter. I would have also liked the discussion regarding the previous history of climate change, specifically regarding the CO2 being much higher levels in the past during times in which life over all has flourished.
terrysabo Avatar
Posted: 06.17.09, 12:12 PM
What would be enough proof to show that the climate change that is being talked about here is only weather cycles? Polar caps have increased in size tremendously in the last two years! Now we are being told that the cold winter was due to global warning. Why isn't this issue being debated by the science community as a whole. There are more scientist saying that gobal warning isn't true. Why are these lies about gobal warning still allowed to be stated as facts? Why not have both sides of this issue debated?
nextprevious Avatar
Posted: 06.08.09, 03:28 PM
Mvanveen makes a good point.
mvanveen Avatar
Posted: 06.08.09, 12:41 PM
In the last minute he talks about climate models that are too sluggish. If these models are no good, how can you, as a scientist, find a solid basis for your findings? Of course you can suggest inductions from isolated cases, but how can you apply scenarios in an open and dynamic climate system while scenarios are only valid in fixed and closed systems that are characterized by scripts? I understand computer models are closed systems with scripts, but if these are no good...
dleviwing Avatar
Posted: 06.05.09, 03:40 PM
Where is the data that demonstrates this opinion?

Advertisement ticker