Michaels actions were deliberate and dishonest.

Yes, deliberate and dishonest.  And unfortunate for the truth.

Invent a clever saying, and your name will live forever! -- Anonymous

Both Michaels.

I think the argument I read once (on SciGuy) was that even if this graph is right Hansen was going all over Washington with a different graph only showing the worst case scenario. Only at this  testimony did he produce the full version.

In other words Hansen is supposed to be a liar too cowardly to lie at a Congressional testimony and therefore the fact that he was right on the mark with his prediction is irrelevant. Or something like it. I'm still to really comprehend the thinking these people use.

Hi MarkUK,

Ok, I see what they are saying.  Hansen is too cowardly to lie to a Senate hearing, whereas Patrick Michaels isn't!  So we obviously should put our trust more in Michaels...or something.

"What if this weren't a hypothetical question?" -- unknown

>> He lied by omission >>
Classic establishment tactics

Hansen is from NASA

I wonder what was the make up of what he termed "emissions".

This point may be the most critical point in his estimations.

zarkov,

instead of making sinister insunuations, why don't you just click the references and find out?  Hansen's papers and the GISS climate models address all of the major climate forcings: CO2, CH4, NO2, ozone (stratosperic and tropospheric), solar irradiance, volcanic SO2, anthro aerosols, albedo changes and many others.

"What if this weren't a hypothetical question?" -- unknown

I could see BOTH men lying, especially while trapsing about Washington. When in Rome... Although lying is wrong, it doesn't make their science wrong.

From the 1988 Congressional record (EMPHASIS MINE):

Hansen: "We have considered several scenarios because there are uncertainties in the exact trace gas growth in the past and especially in the future.  We have considered cases ranging from BUSINESS AS USUAL, WHICH IS SCENARIO A, to draconian emission cuts, scenario C, which would totally eliminate net trace gas growth by the year 2000."

He certainly opened himself up for the interpretation that he preferred scenerio A, given the low probability there would be any emissions changes.

There is no longer the need to chart Hansen's predictions, even his retroactively preferred Scenario B, against observed temperatures conveniently ending in 1998.  It is now 2008, and none of Hansen's scenarios have been accurate for ten years.  He is now warning us about a potential SIX degree upward move.  Perhaps, just perhaps, the man has an agenda.