I'm just commenting on this last statement: "the big proof that this is not a scientific study is that it uses the word dangerous as part of its title. what is so dangerous about the temperature rising in one year. how do they determine what is a dangerous level. its pure political hype."
You don't need proof that it's not a scientific study (though you're right about the emotionally charged word); because it's obviously a news article. It's about scientific studies, but it's the news person who says 'dangerous.' Oops, I see Hansen used the word first. Well maybe he does have an agenda or bias, but still my point is that there is data from scientific studies in this article. Do you consider it ALL pure political hype just because Hansen says "evidence implies" we're "close to dangerous levels...of pollution."
The article isn't proof of anything, but I don't see it as totally worthless either. But if I was to pick something to critique, it'd be the .2C rise refered to. Someone, (not involved with the study?) says a 1C rise would be the 1Myr. record, so my critique would be: is .2C "dangerously close" to one whole degree C. --or words to that effect.
Actually, the more I read that article, the more I wonder if Hansen even knew about the other information quoted by Roback or the reporters comment(?) about 1C being highest in 1Myr.
