Hansen’s famous 1988 testimony
Someone sent me the link (here)
Climate Progress
The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics
- ABOUT CLIMATE PROGRESS
-
Subscribe
RSS - 2079 Readers
-
Buy the Book
-
Most Popular Posts
- The cruel offshore-drilling hoax, Part 1
- Is 450 ppm (or less) politically possible? Part 2: The Solution
- The deniers are winning, especially with the GOP
- Peak Oil? Bring it on!
- Absolute MUST Read IPCC Report: Debate over, further delay fatal, action not costly
- The Best of Climate Progress -- 2006
- Top 10 global warming stories of 2007
- How do we really know humans are causing global warming?*
-
Recognition
Climate Progress selected as one of Time Magazine's Fifteen Favorite Websites for the Environment -
Categories
- Best PPTs (1)
- Climate Progress (382)
- Economics (95)
- Extreme Weather (134)
- Humor (105)
- international (67)
- media (162)
- offsets (33)
- Politics (504)
- Science (226)
- Solutions (398)
-
News from ClimateArk.org
- Is our taste for Sunday roast killing the planet?
- UN says eat less meat to curb global warming
- Is Global Warming Worsening Hurricanes?
- Australia: Qld tree-clearing causing animals' death
- United Kingdom: Butterflies fight losing battle with climate change
- Australia: No time to lose on climate change
- 45-nation group OKs landmark US-India nuke deal
-
Archives
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
Clean Energy Links
Links
June 25th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Discover Magazine has up an interview with Revkin, and his reflection upon writing a piece after Hansen’s testimony in ‘88. Oddly enough, Revkin’s work from ‘88 is spot on. And his interview is the typical delayer Revkin we have come to know and love. That is, he states that the doubts concerning the reality of AGW are only minor nuances, yet he only writes and speaks about the doubts. I like to say the he balances the pro and cons of AGW bases on word count, not the weight of evidence. I guess I just can’t take anyone seriously when he or she claims that some areas of the world will become more temperate and have a longer growing season. Well, I’m sure that will be some consolation to those that have died, are refugees, or who have otherwise had their lives turned upside-down as a result of climate change.