The scientist widely known as the “Father of Global Warming” has admitted for the first time that data used to promote his climate change theory was false and fradulently manipulated by Al Gore to suit an agenda.
In 1986 the former NASA scientist, James Hansen, testified to Congress during a hearing on global warming organized by then-Congressman Al Gore to produce scientific models based on a number of different scenarios that could impact the planet.
According to Hansen, Al Gore took the data provided in a “worst-case scenario” and intentionally twisted it, rebranding it as “Global Warming,” making tens of millions of dollars in the process.
The model was titled “Scenario B” and was one of many provided to Congress by Hansen, however it left out significant factors meaning it didn’t reflect real-world conditions. This didn’t stop Al Gore and climate alarmists using the data to mislead millions of people all over the world.
However a new study that compares real-world data to the original Scenario B model — finding no correlation — has received Hansen’s backing, with the “Father of global warming” admitting he is “devastated” by the way his data has been used by climate alarmists.
Real World data shows “the science is not settled”
The dire climate prediction that was taken from Hansen’s data model “significantly overstates the warming” observed in the real world since the 1980s, according to the new analysis.
Western Journal reports: Economist Ross McKitrick and climate scientist John Christy found observed warming trends match the low end of what Hansen told Congress during a hearing on global warming organized by then-Congressman Al Gore.
“Climate modelers will object that this explanation doesn’t fit the theories about climate change,” the two wrote.
“But those were the theories Hansen used, and they don’t fit the data.
“The bottom line is, climate science as encoded in the models is far from settled.”
Cato Institute climate scientists Patrick Michaels and Ryan Maue wrote that “surface temperatures are behaving as if we had capped 18 years ago the carbon-dioxide emissions responsible for the enhanced greenhouse effect.”
“But we didn’t. And it isn’t just Mr. Hansen who got it wrong,” Michaels and Maue wrote in The Wall Street Journal in June.
The WSJ op-ed set off a fierce debate over the accuracy of Hansen’s predictions.
Several media reports interviewing climate scientists claimed Hansen’s predictions — issued in 1988 — were pretty much correct.
Hansen’s dire global warming predictions turned 30 this year, sparking fawning media coverage of their accuracy.
The so-called “godfather” of global warming even told The Associated Press “I don’t want to be right in that sense.”
Some scientists moved the goalposts and argued even though Hansen’s temperature predictions were off, he got the radiative forcing from greenhouse gas emissions correct.
In summary, Hansen's model got the relationship between increasing greenhouse gases (and other climate forcings) and global warming dead-accurate. What he didn't get right (and what no one could reasonably expect to get right) is how emissions would change in the future. 8/8
— Zeke Hausfather (@hausfath) June 22, 2018
However, McKitrick and Christy’s analysis takes into account such objections, pointing out that Hansen’s prediction of carbon dioxide emissions was actually close to what was observed — there just wasn’t much warming.
It turns out Hansen’s worst-case scenario projection of global warming, known as Scenario B, only takes carbon dioxide emissions into account, but still showed too much warming, McKitrick and Christy wrote.
“What really matters is the trend over the forecast interval, and this is where the problems become visible,” McKitrick and Christy wrote.
Hansen’s conclusion, they wrote, “significantly overstates the warming.”