NASA’s Jim Hansen calls for energy company execs to be put on trial

http://www.blog.thesietch.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/james_hansen.jpg
He’s got the whoooole woorld in his hands…

This troubling news from the Guardian, UK

“James Hansen, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer.

Hansen will use the symbolically charged 20th anniversary of his groundbreaking speech to the US Congress – in which he was among the first to sound the alarm over the reality of global warming – to argue that radical steps need to be taken immediately if the “perfect storm” of irreversible climate change is not to become inevitable.

Speaking before Congress again, he will accuse the chief executive officers of companies such as ExxonMobil and Peabody Energy of being fully aware of the disinformation about climate change they are spreading.”

complete story

I suspect he’ll be calling for the jailing of bloggers like myself next. I think Mr. Hansen has lost all sense of reason, and his last shred of credibility.

UPDATE: Apparently Mr. Hansen has made the claims above on live radio on the Dian Rehm show this morning, audio files of the interview will be up shortly here:

http://wamu.org/programs/dr/08/06/23.php#20635

When the audio file is up, I’ll post a direct link.

AUDIO CLIPS NOW AVAILABLE:

Listen to this segment

Joe D’Aleo created this graph this morning:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/HANSEN_AND_CONGRESS.jpg
click for a larger image.
Satellite measured global temperature trend from the University of Alabama, Huntsville show sthat it is cooler now than when he made his testimony in 1988.

UPDATE2: See the reader poll on this issue here

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate_change, Politics, Science. Bookmark the permalink.

279 Responses to NASA’s Jim Hansen calls for energy company execs to be put on trial

  1. Leon Brozyna says:

    The scary thing is ~ he will be seriously listened to.

  2. Joel Black says:

    I sincerely hope that he and all his cohorts sue or even file criminal charges against the individuals he is accusing. Trials require facts, not modeled guesses. He has lost his mind.

  3. Dishman says:

    So, let me get this straight…

    An employee of the US government is calling for prosecutions based on the content of speech by private individuals.

    I thought all government employees had a legal obligation to uphold the Constitution.

    That earns at least one call to NASA

  4. Spam says:

    Indeed.

    He does remind me of the inquisition persecuting Galileo for daring to suggest that the earth revolves around the sun.

    Not strictly because of lack of evidence for either side, but more for his views of suitable punishment for those that hold a disenting view.

  5. statePoet1775 says:

    Bring on the cold! Right now the lunatics seem far more dangerous.

  6. crosspatch says:

    Why is someone like this anywhere near a science operation? It is quite obvious he has an agenda that he is more interested in furthering than he is interested in doing any real climate science. It really is sad and frustrating to be wasting the taxpayers’ money on a position that could be filled by someone who might do some real groundbreaking science with all those resources at their disposal.

  7. Mark Andrew says:

    If any oil company executive can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to deliberately promote misleading information on climate change they should be jailed. This might be a rather hard thing to prove.

    If any green activist can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to deliberately promote misleading information to support increased fuel taxes they should also be jailed.

  8. Pofarmer says:

    He’s gonna be really unhappy when Steve Mcintyre gets finished demolishing his code..
    .
    How does anybody get this full of themselves?

  9. B.C. says:

    If any green activist can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to deliberately promote misleading information to support increased fuel taxes they should also be jailed.

    Grand Inquisitor Hansen & The Great Goreacle™ had better get to a prison tailor to be fitted for their orange jumpsuits, PDQ. Their falsified, er, “adjusted” data is enough to put them in chains for several Solar Cycles. ;-)

  10. Dishman says:

    Mark Andrew, I disagree.

    Free Speech is a fundamental part of our freedom.

    At most, Hansen should be relieved of his position for breaching his constitutional duties.

  11. Timo van Druten says:

    Let’s first listen what he has to say, before making any preliminary judgements.

    It’s about the facts and not about assumptions. Let’s not make the same mistakes he probably makes.

    Listen to what he has to say, check and analyse the facts and only than judge his credibility.

  12. Pingback: Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler » Speaking Of Torquemada…

  13. doug w says:

    While an employee does not take the oath to preserve and protect the Constitution, the politicians who hire and can also fire directors of government research institutes certain;y do.

    Hansen and the other Gore environmental appointees from the 1990’s should have been fired in January 2001. What was Bush thinking?

  14. BUCKO36 says:

    The Al Gore, AGW crowd has become the equvalent of late 1700’s England crowd. Taxation without “Justifcation”.
    Our Liberial enforced (Dumb down education system) has put the fate of this Country in the hands of a bunch of totally “Uninformed/Misinformed” voters.
    “Minutemen” unite, and save this Great Country from the Liberial “Socialistic” forces within, that are now bent on destroying this great Country.
    God/Science Save Us all!!!

    “Give Me Liberty of Give me Death. Our Freedom of Speech and Socialistic Education system has Failed Us.

  15. Evan Jones says:

    He’s finally gone ’round the twist. (Or maybe this is just the outward exponent of it.)

    ‘Specially after the Suzuki disgrace. Even Gore (somehow) manages not to sail quite off the edge of his flat earth.

    D’you think maybe he’s embroiled in internal GISS office politics, considering NASA went and spilled the beans by admitting that the PDO had flipped and GW was on sabbatical? Just had to lash out?

    The poor dear. We mustn’t scoff too loud; it isn’t kind to poke fun at the disabled.

  16. Evan Jones says:

    I sincerely hope that he and all his cohorts sue or even file criminal charges against the individuals he is accusing.

    I’m not a praying man, but for this I will make an exception.

  17. Patrick Henry says:

    A crime against humanity would be to lose our oil supply for a month. Hundreds of millions would starve and billions would die in wars. Society would collapse.

    CO2 is simply the latest mechanism to seize power and subjugate the masses. If it weren’t for Hansen, no one would even think or talk about CO2. It has no impact on our lives.

  18. David Gladstone says:

    Van Druten, what the hell are you talking about, “…let’s listen to what he has to say, let’s wait and see, blah blah..”, we have 10 years of him making false statements. he’s been spouting lies about a fictional global warming that doesn’t exist. This is no time to be mealy-mouthed about it. He’s also in violation of NASA policy in regard to getting involved in reccomending one policy over another, he’s a civil servant, who isn’t obeying his superiors, he should be cashiered immediately. This is nothing less than an attempt to institute a Macchiavellian behavior modification from above. This guy is a dangerous fanatic and he will be addressing Congress tomorrow; I worked on Capitol Hill as a Congressional intern and I can tell you their ignorance of much of what they sign and support, in the aggregate is astonishing. I have little hope that anyone will put this bozo in his place. But, I do wonder who will challenge this delusional idiot by suing him for libel or at least call his sanity into question.

  19. Greg Smith says:

    The link to a Reuters article on sea temperatures published in Nature shows how scientific these guys are. If the data doesn’t fit the model, change the data! Where is peer review when you need it?

    http://africa.reuters.com/top/news/usnBAN946269.html

    I’m an Australian too I’m ashamed to say

    Greg Smith

  20. I had heard that Dr. Hansen received a grant and legal support from a liberal foundation to establish and promote a scientific basis for global warming. Does anyone know if this is true and, if true, did it occur prior to his original speech to Congress?

    Has Dr. Hansen offered up an explanation for the sudden reversion to the mean of temps since early 2007? He still comments about how the (early 2007) anomaly was remarkable, though he makes it sound as if it were true for the entire year which, as we all know, was not the case.

  21. Mister Jones says:

    Suzuki made a similar foolish statement about jailing political leaders who didn’t believe in Anthropogenic climate change in February I believe. On the other hand, there was a recent poll in the English Observer that suggested around two thirds of the population did not beileve in the man made Climate change postulation.

  22. Paulus says:

    No, I think Hansen is quite right, although he doesn’t go nearly far enough.

    I think offenders, rather than being jailed, should be “fired”, in a literal sense.

    To give offenders a fair trial before being found guilty they could be investigated by an independent body run by the UN, called lets say, the “Inquisitional Panel on Climate Change”. This could be made up of well respected, independent, individuals who could be relied on to come to the correct decision, such as Hansen, Gore, and that guy who writes that blog. “Hansen’s Poodle”, I think his name is.

  23. Chris says:

    I encourage all to read the complete story. Hansen attacks democracy for not working. Really? Did you ever think that maybe you are on the losing end of a failed proposition and that democracy IS working? Get a life, loser. Gore and Hansen have more that one thing in common – they’re both snippy.

  24. Chris says:

    Hansen fiddles while the world temperature dives beneath the 1979-1998 average (see WUWT resource page).

  25. Brad Peterson says:

    Other people: We don’t fully believe James Hansen’s view of global warming.
    James Hansen: I am a scientist! I welcome all points of view! Now put these doubters on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature!

    That’s not science. It’s blind hatred and activism. It’s embarrassing to America and to any science in general. The man needs to be fired.

  26. Starwise says:

    This is a classic example of psychological projection.

    In psychology, psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism in which one attributes one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions to others.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

  27. Richard says:

    Is he raising his own profile because Al Gore got all the kudos?

  28. Kosmos says:

    I think that Hansen quite know that he’s loosing the agw argument now , so he’s going for desperate mesures…

    But in my opinion the one to blame was Gore, trying to “close the deal” a little earlier than suppose with is famous “science settle” argument…!

    K.

  29. Stan Jones says:

    Could this not be good news though?

    When AIT went before the courts in the UK, it was ripped to shreds.

    If Hansen resorts to the law courts, he and his theories will also be exposed for what they are. He’s treading on thin ice here, you might say.

  30. You know Hansen was the fellow who claimed censorship in 2006 by NASA officials who wanted to review his statements before he went out there and made them.

    Well, I guess someone at NASA has decided the right course of action is to hand him all the rope he can use to hang himself–cause the guy is clearly a nutbar.

  31. christopher elves says:

    I think Mr Hansen should be encouraged to take any and all skeptics to court – It’s the one place where he and his theories will be held to ultimate factual test, stripped of influence from a hysterical green movement and an apologist media which ceased to be anything more than advocacy some time ago.

    If he doesn’t hold good on this threat then perhaps he and Mr Gore should be taken to court for fraud. It seems to me that Mr Hansen’s fanatical rantings left the arena of scientific veracity a long time ago.

    In the meantime Giss measurements move ever further into the realms of fantasy……..

  32. Tom says:

    “…democracy is not working the way it’s intended to work”.

    Heard that one before; “1984” anyone?

  33. Neil says:

    The jailing of oil company executives is to be followed by the public burning of skeptic books and all skeptics will have to wear an identifying insignia! Where have we seen this before?

  34. John A says:

    I don’t say this lightly but there have been lots of statements by James Hansen in the past two years that are the products of a mentally unstable mind. The man even has the gall to criticise fossil fuel producers while daily making an 85+ mile one way commute.

    He reminds me rather strongly of the behavior of Trofim Lysenko given from contemporaneous reports.

    If the US Congress goes Democratic in the next couple of years, then I guarantee that they will get rapidly tired of James Hansen and his retirement will be assured.

  35. troy says:

    “It’s about the facts and not about assumptions. Let’s not make the same mistakes he probably makes.”

    I’m with Timo.

  36. Timo van Druten says:

    David Gladstone,

    Don’t misunderstand me; I am probably of the same opinion as you. But I first like to hear what he will say, before jumping to conclusions. You have to be prudent and consistent; let’s first have the facts straight (let´s hear what he has to say) and hold our breath for another day.

    Let´s also keep in mind that this article is phony or misleading.

  37. Phillip Bratby says:

    Is there no way he can be retired due to old age? Or suffering from delusion grandeur? Or dementia? The trouble is that, like all dictators, he’s afraid that once he’s gone and the keys to the cupboard are passed on, his minions may not be scared to reveal the truth anymore and all the skeletons may be revealed. He doesn’t morph into Robert Mugabe at night, does he?

  38. Carsten Arnholm, Norway says:

    Is there any opposition at all to Hansen’s views within NASA?

  39. Onar Åm says:

    This fits very well with my forthcoming book called “The Climate Trial: in defense of humanity.” It is only available in Norwegian at the moment, but hopefully it will be out in America this year.

  40. just Cait says:

    He needs to put the white coat on, not the one scienctists wear, that other jacket.
    Seriously, is there no way to get him out of NASA? He’s really destroying their reputation.

  41. Peter Hearnden says:

    Amazing thread.

    90%+ of replies condemn ‘Hansen’ yet…he hasn’t even said what he’s supposed to have ‘said’ yet.

  42. Caleb says:

    If anyone disagrees with him, Hansen will burst into tears, suck his thumb, and claim he is a martyr.

    However what is a martyr? From Wikipedia: ” The term martyr (Greek μάρτυς martys “witness”) initially signified a witness in the forensic sense, a person called to bear witness in legal proceedings…” and, “In the context of church history, from the time of the persecution of early Christians in the Roman Empire, being a martyr indicates a person who is killed for maintaining his or her religious belief…”

    Hansen has been given every oportunity to testify. He has been given huge amounts of money to find corroberating evidence to back up his claims. Everyone has bent over backwards to be fair.

    What he really wants to do is to deny others the right to question his claims. Therefore he in truth wants to make martyrs of everyone who questions his testimony and offers differing testimony.

    This makes him more dangerous than a sulking child. He is like a person who bursts into tears, sucks his thumb, and then pulls out a gun.

    Contact your congressman and ask for his removal.

  43. Aileni Noyle says:

    The Guardian is a co-conspirator in the AGW scam – it doesn’t matter what you say to them, they will not listen. The New Scientist is as bad – worse – they should know better. And talking of prosecuting CEOs – what about Gore, Hansen’s guru. Did he say something about false information going into school text books?

  44. Mike says:

    Greg Smith put it as “If the data doesn’t fit the model, change the data!”, but I felt I should check.

    The article says :
    ” Fellow report author John Church said he had long been suspicious about the historical data because it did not match results from computer models of the world’s climate and oceans.

    “We’ve realigned the observations and as a result the models agree with the observations much better than previously,” said Church, a senior research scientist with the climate centre.

    “And so by comparing many XBT observations with research ship observations in a statistical way, you can estimate what the errors associated with the XBTs are.”

    There it is, in black and white, clear as day, in your face, bold as brass – the data has been adjusted to match the models.

    How do these people get away with it???

    I’m Australian too, so please don’t blame Australia for this!! (NB. Al Gore and James Hansen aren’t Australian…..)

  45. Oldjim says:

    Re the paper http://africa.reuters.com/top/news/usnBAN946269.html it isn’t as bad as it sounds.
    Looking at the review of it over on Real Climate http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/06/ocean-heat-content-revisions/ the new graph actually removes an anomaly in the 1970/90 period and now shows a slightly slower rate of increase from 1985 onwards

  46. Barbee Butts says:

    What is it about this AGW (American Global Warming) crowd that drives them to the brink of insanity? It’s not just this guy, we have Al Gore, most of Congress and, sadly, BOTH of our Presidential candidates foaming at the mouth. Some compare them to religious fanatics. I, for one, am terrified of their ilk.

  47. Pierre Gosselin says:

    “I suspect he’ll be calling for the jailing of bloggers like myself next.”

    When Obama is elected and Gore becomes Climate Czar, don’t be surprised if men in black pop into your home late one night. These guys are far more dangerous then you hope. AIT shows to what extent they are willing to go.
    Be prepared to recant everyting you’ve posted here.

    In general Hansen is calling anyone with a different opinion a criminal. I think the oil execs ought to go after him for libel.

  48. Pierre Gosselin says:

    In German we’d say this guy has got Dachschaden, i.e a leaky roof.
    He’s definitely a few cans short of a 6-pack.

  49. Pierre Gosselin says:

    Mister Jones
    points squarely to what has sparked Hansen’s newest outburst.
    Despite the years of headlines, glossy photos of the upcoming Armegeddon, broad scientific “consensus”, climate change summits and “scientific” reports, a majority of Britons still doubt AGW. The campaign has failed.
    Us deniers are getting under his skin and now, seeing he’s losing the battle, he thinks he can get his way by throwing a tantrum, and threatening to get his big brother to make us shut up if we don’t stop it.
    It’s indeed high time to turn up the global heat on this pathetic charade.

    I hope the other websites and conservative, American media outlets will join Anthony in exposing this childish tantrum.

  50. Between this and the earth quakes caused by global warming I think it is fair to say that global warming has officially jumped the shark.

  51. Pierre Gosselin says:

    LOL!
    How much closer are we to Hansen’s climate Armegeddon since his famous 1988 spreech?

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1988

    I rest my case. Thank you.

  52. MattN says:

    Joe McCarthy’s critical flaw was he didn’t know when to shut up. Hansen is following the same pattern.

  53. Pierre Gosselin says:

    HILARIOUS!
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1988

    Global GISS temperature anomaly in 1988: + 0.50°C
    Global GISS temperature anomaly in 2008: + 0.35°C

    0.15°C COOLER today !!

    Hansen’s own graph shows it’s cooler today then when he made his idiot speech in 88!!!!

    Can anyone possibly find a way to make an ass and laughing stock of oneself any faster and more effectively than that?

  54. Pierre Gosselin says:

    LOL!
    He’s contradicted by his own bleeping data!!!!

  55. Tom Bruno says:

    Hansen has staked his entire legacy on AGW. He senses he is about to be ground under by the his own models not performing as advertised. This could be his last attempt to save himself for the history books. Unfortunately, as stated previously, the dumbest folks in the crowd are the ones who have been elected to govern us.

    “A little rebellion now and then…is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government. Thomas Jefferson, Letter to James Madison, 1787″

    Do I smell tea in the harbor?

  56. Pingback: Niche Modeling » Greenhouse Thermodynamics and GCMs

  57. Mike Bryant says:

    Sounds like Hitler in the bunker. He calls for the destruction of his enemies, while he commits professional suicide.

    A Scientist??? HAHAHA

  58. Ric Werme says:

    The quoted text says “will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial….” Had he said he would file suit, then the pretrial discovery process would force him to open up all his data and procedures behind his claims.

    Assuming the government doesn’t file charges (congress is more inclined to make new laws), then perhaps 350.org or Gore’s group would. That would make it somewhat more difficult to gain access, especially if Hansen doesn’t testify.

    Of course, scientific policy and the Freedom of Information Act should make all this moot.

    I think I can find a little time to send notes to my congresscritters this morning.

  59. Bill says:

    James Hansen is a federal employee subject to the Hatch Act, which prohibits people from political activities while in a duty status, i.e., when working or in a capacity that indicates he is representing the government. If he made this speech in that capacity (where he talks about going after specific politicians during this election cycle) , then I don’t see how he could possibly not be in violation of that Act.

    I’m a federal employee and the Hatch Act is taken VERY seriously, especially in Presidential Election years. It is one of the few things that can cause you to lose your job. If I were to have made a similar speech I would no doubt be standing in front of my General Counsel trying to explain why I shouldn’t lose my job, but Hansen (“Look, Look, I’m being repressed”) is apparently special.

  60. Robert Ray says:

    The transition from pocket protector geek to C02 superstar appears to have inflated his ego a bit (ok, more than a bit)

  61. Basil says:

    This has all the marks of nothing more than a publicity stunt, but one which it seems that he’s daring the current administration to fire him. IANAL, so I have to ask, under what statute could oil execs be tried for “crimes against humanity and nature?” I wonder if he isn’t hoping to be fired so that Obama can use that as an election issue, and imagine that he’ll be given a position of even greater glory and honor in an Obama administration? If I were a member of Congress and had this jackass spouting this stuff under oath, in a hearing before a committee I belonged to, I’d ask him what I just asked, about under what statute he imagines this could be done, so as to reveal it as nothing more than a publicity stunt.

  62. Ric Werme says:

    Oh – another thing for anyone considering writing a politician. Consider sending http://wermenh.com/climate/science.html as background material. I designed it to be as neutral as I could and simple enough to just concentrate on key hypotheses that friends, journalists, teachers, and politicians can understand. (And also a few scientists who’ve forgotten what scientific method is and why it’s important.)

    It’s not the sort of page that people who need to read it will stumble across, so I appreciate any help in passing it out.

  63. Frank K. says:

    Unfortunately, this is only Hansen’s most recent outrageous statement. His most repulsive statement (in my opinion) was made last year in testemony to the Iowa Utilities Board (in opposition, of course, to the construction of a new coal-fired power plant):

    “… If we cannot stop the building of more coal-fired power plants, those coal trains will be death trains – no less gruesome than if they were boxcars headed to crematoria, loaded with uncountable irreplaceable species …”

    To even make a suggestion that the supposed loss of animal species due to global warming was equivalent to the holocaust was beyond the pale for me. I lost ** all ** respect for him after that…

    Frank

  64. Gary says:

    I suspect a lot of this is posturing (see SLAPP suits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation), but large portions probably lie in the psychological projection and hubris categories. Should it go that far, the defense will have an opportunity to subpoena lots of so-far hidden things such as the GISTEMP code and special agreements that let a public employee perhaps illegally and certainly unethically do political work on the job. “Pride goes before a fall, and a haughty spirit before destruction.” We may be seeing a re-enactment of a Greek tragedy here.

  65. Bruce Cobb says:

    James Hansen is the one guilty of spreading lies, and should be brought up on crimes against humanity, and on being a traitor. Let the Grand Inquisitor himself be stripped of his job and put in jail.

  66. John Stover says:

    A couple of comments on the legal and policy status of US government employees:

    All US government employees take the oath of office which includes “protecting and defending the constitution of the United States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic.”

    In earlier years US government employees were deemed to be acting as “agents of the government” and we immune from law suits in their private capacity. Changes in the last ten years have removed that “sovereign authority” defense and any US government employee can now be sued in their private capacity. Hence why I had to privately obtain at my own expense suitable insurance for myself when I was a senior government official. That personal liability possibility certainly weighed upon my mind when I was making decisions regarding public policy that could result in litigation against me.

    Finally, I am astonished that the NASA permits him, as their employee, to make all of these statements to the public since he by doing so he is effectively making policy and potentially committing the US government to courses of action. That is why you are generally enjoined from making any statements to the public without submitting them to legal counsel and approval through the public affairs office. I think any reasonable defense attorney could clearly prove that Hansen was “communicating a threat” and “attempting to influence private behavior through the color of the office.” Those are both extremely serious charges and very difficult to defend yourself against when you have made public comments to that effect.

    Lastly, the most serious legal jeporady that he is setting himself up for is for violation of the law known as the “Anti-deficiency Act.” That is essentially where a government employee has committed the government to a policy that requires the expenditure of money for which no legal appropriation or obligation has been approved. For instance, you tell a company or an individual to do something that requires them to spend money and when they attempt to bill the government for the cost they find out that the government employee who ordered/asked them to do that didn’t have authority to do so. That means the government employee could be required by a court to personally pay for their expenditures made in good faith. It is likely that several billion dollars in remediation expenditures that he would have to personally reimburse would certainly get his attention.

    Very interesting actions on his part. If he were an employee in my department we would be having some very serious discussions with him in my office with my legal advisor present and an attorney at the Justice Department standing by to file charges against him.

    Cheers

  67. Bob Moss says:

    Hansen’s latest estimate for the climate sensitivity to CO2 of 6 degrees celsius is as far from the IPCC consensus of 3 degrees as the view that the sensitivity is zero. Yet he wants criminal charges against those holding the latter view.

    I doubt that he appreciates the irony.

  68. Bill Illis says:

    Here’s a link to Hansen’s infamous 1988 paper which he used to back-up his Congressional testimony and the only real paper from the global warming world which makes any kind of temperature prediction that can be tested.

    The graph on page 9347 (it is a short paper not 9,000 pages long) shows the three Scenarios and the resulting temperature predictions. GHG Forcings ended up between Scenario B and C but the actual temps are well below his model predictions. Add in the latest drop in temps over the past year and he is way off.

    http://runningpast.com/images/hansen_1988_chart.gif

    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf

  69. Bill Bowie says:

    It is frightening that Hansen has still has any credibility. He still hasn’t explained how his “hockeystick” fails to show the Medieval Warm Period.

    Whilst I feel that politics and science should be kept separate, it is worrying that false propoganda about AGW may cause our Governments to divert resources into meaningless costly policies at the expense of proper use of our taxes. The worst hit will of course be the poor. Already we see signs that biofuels induce inreases in the cost of basic foods.

  70. Scott says:

    The problem is that he has invested his whole life in global warming. He sees the cooling that is going on and believes it is temporary. Any belief otherwise would repudiate his whole life. As more and more people doubt the “true religion”, the more desperate he becomes.

    The fact that he controls both the models and the measurements that validate the models makes him suspect. So does the fact that he founded the whole religion. He is a loose cannon at NASA, apparently subject to no control whatsoever. He should have been fired long ago.

  71. timprosser says:

    This guy Hansen does seem to have gone a bit off the deep end, but, given enough rope, such people will hang themselves eventually. Nutty bureaucrats like Hansen are unfortunately inevitable.
    Of course, the knee-jerk Gore bashers are ALSO distracted from the real issues – overuse of energy combined with rampant population growth.

    Interesting note on projection bias, though. George W. and the Republicans have been the most excellent models of projection bias. I guess Hansen has learned from his superiors.

    I do wonder who benefits from all this misdirection around climate change. If you follow the money, it’s those who make money from oil, followed by coal, etc. (A rise in cost of one commodity also pulls up the substitutes.)
    Good luck to us all. We do need to keep level heads and stick to the science. I applaud Anthony for that.
    (www.timprosserfuturing.wordpress.com)

  72. swampie says:

    I’m wondering about Mr. Hansen’s finances now myself. I’m wondering who is paying him to falsify the data and demand the immediate arrest of oil company execs?

  73. Robert Wood says:

    Ah, show trials to distract the public.

    He knows, you know; this is his last desparate attempt; the game is up.

  74. Robert Wood says:

    Timo, this man has no credibility. Unfortuantely, he still has an audience.

  75. lucia says:

    Does anyone have a link to the transcript?

  76. terry says:

    For someone being censored, he sure does make a lot of noise.

    The guy’s nuts.

  77. steven mosher says:

    I’ve slogged through Gisstemp fortran. That code is crime against humanity.

    REPLY: Ditto that – it’s like a silly string sculpture, Anthony

  78. Robert Wood says:

    I’ve seen references to a report from September 2007 that Soros, through the OSI, gave Hansen $720,000. Can anyone provide a reference to the actual report. It appeared in IBD and LGF.

  79. BarryW says:

    Hansen is like a cult leader that has predicted the end of the world by a certain date. If the date passes and nothing happens he has a real problem. With the flat temps he has to do something to distract the masses from the fact that the world is still here in spite of his prediction.

  80. David Segesta says:

    Bring it on. In court the facts will be brought out. But I suspect Hansen will never do this. He knows he won’t win. Its just a publicity stunt to get the warmers fired up.

  81. DAV says:

    Joe Black

    I sincerely hope that he and all his cohorts sue or even file criminal charges against the individuals he is accusing. Trials require facts, not modeled guesses.

    Tell that to the makers of Vioxx. Merck is winning appeals but no longer markets Vioxx. Or tell it to anyone who has had the misfortune of going to trial in Madison County. It’s bad enough the issue might be taken to the polls for settlement. The last thing anyone should want is to subject it to vagaries of the trial process — and that includes Hansen. I assume this is hyperbolic rhetoric from Hansen.

    Hansen and the other Gore environmental appointees from the 1990’s should have been fired in January 2001.

    Perhaps he should have. Unfortunately, the tide is going the other way today and Hansen might actually get his day in court.

  82. Jim Watson says:

    It’s tragic to watch Science do to itself in just a few years what even the Church couldn’t accomplish in 500 years.

  83. DAV says:

    Anthony,
    THIS MAY BE A DUPLICATE. WHEN I POSTED IT THE FIRST TIME IT SEEMED TO VANISH

    Joe Black

    I sincerely hope that he and all his cohorts sue or even file criminal charges against the individuals he is accusing. Trials require facts, not modeled guesses.

    Tell that to the makers of Vioxx. Merck is winning appeals but no longer markets Vioxx. Or tell it to anyone who has had the misfortune of going to trial in Madison County. It’s bad enough the issue might be taken to the polls for settlement. The last thing anyone should want is to subject it to vagaries of the trial process — and that includes Hansen. I assume this is hyperbolic rhetoric from Hansen.

    Hansen and the other Gore environmental appointees from the 1990’s should have been fired in January 2001.

    Perhaps he should have. Unfortunately, the tide is going the other way today and Hansen might actually get his day in court.

  84. leebert says:

    Hansen’s both a gov’t employee and a researcher @ Columbia Univ. under the aegis of the Goddard Inst. He’s been pushing political activism w/in his clique of Columbia acolytes there for years, calling for anti-coal litmuses for political candidates, etc.

    There seems to be a viral “Gaia Syndrome” within the ranks of the AGWers. It reminds me of Robert Kennedy Jr.’s wild rantings about the skeptics being guilty of treason. Are these statements real, or are they just more agitprop to galvanize the susceptible? It seems so weird!

    And what’s peculiar about such angry statements is that the energy companies’ endorsement of directly “skeptic” organizations has largely abated, so what would this be all about? This goes so far over the top, it’s like we’re watching a zealot’s messianic throwing down of the gauntlet, daring the Bush Admin. to embark on a martyring purge of the dissidents.

    After the Keenlyside bombshell I would’ve thought that the AGWers would’ve seen a less bleak scenario in the offing, but instead it appears that the pious feel even more threatened by the skeptics.

    Such fighting words lead to even more acrimony between the belligerents, not less. Even were I to take their “masking” arguments at face value with global aerosols and solar dimming making for -0.18 degr/decade, there’s no reason for such outrageous talk and this will only galvanize the skeptic opposition against the AGWers even more.

    What about Pielke, Spencer, Singer, Carter, Christy, Lindzen, Patterson and many other fine researchers who’ve had the temerity to ask for better evidence, citing problems in the AGW liturgy? Lindzen makes the salient point that if we toss out the ’98 el Nino outlier the temperature trend is flat back to 1997. Why shouldn’t anyone have reservations before we underwrite a low-carbon crash program then? Climate rationalists and moderates will see this as an attempt to impugn them as well.

    No, this isn’t fluff, this is dangerous stuff in that it’s an obvious attempt to intimidate researchers in the field. Somehow I don’t think the skeptics will back down but will lash back like angry bees. This is why science needs to stay apolitical and Hansen risks ruining the Earth Sciences by further politicizing them.

    Well, let’s see what he really says, but I don’t expect anything different from Hansen than what’s reported in the Guardian.

  85. floodguy says:

    Not only is Hansen a climate scientist, apparently in his spare-time he has gained an expertise in electric power grid expansion. Hansen is also going to tell Congress just how they should built the new grid!

    “He wants to see a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants, coupled with the creation of a huge grid of low-loss electric power lines buried under ground and spread across America, in order to give wind and solar power a chance of competing”

    Wow, this guy brain must be huge.

    Firstly, forget climate about for a second. With that shell wrapped around energy policy removed, its plain to see that a revolution has already been undertaken without making climate the focal point. Most of industry is compelled to revolutionize how energy is obtained, delivered and consumed, for the simply reason energy independence and security must be increased well beyond today’s standards. Throw in the simple moral reasoning tied to long-term economical reasons for the consumer, adds to the push, with the green no-carbon argument notwithstanding.

  86. James Chamberlain says:

    I agree with John Coleman on this. A real, good court case is what AGW alarmism needs. Once brought to court, with BOTH sides showing their data for the debate, it will be obvious how much of the alarmist agenda just comes from anecdotal evidence and the like.

  87. tarpon says:

    The hoaxers are on the run. Hate it when that happens, the rhetoric always gets shrill, the accusations harsh. But maybe we should put the hoaxers in jail?

    We should look into Hansen’s funding — Who is behind the global warming hoax, “pay more in taxes and government will pretend to control the weather” — And specifically who benefits. Government scientists are on the verge of becoming the most un-trusted group there is, behind the US Congress. Government scientists have certainly gone from honest broker of fact, to the first suspect in faking the facts, it only takes one before all are suspect.

    I see this current Environmental Marxism push coming crashing down. It’s been 20 years since Hansen first started the global warming hysteria, the world is still here, clucking along. I wonder, is peak warm really defined as the levels achieved in the Interglacial periods and the rest just degrees of cold? It would seem so, and breaking that pattern is not going to be easy, even for mankind.

  88. Francois says:

    I’m tired of this analogy with the tobacco industry. It’s completely different. The tobacco industry was not found guilty of “spreading doubt”. That is not a crime, it’s free speech. They were found guilty of hiding scientific results showing how nasty their product was. But in any case, it was clear enough to anyone with a brain that smoking was not good for your health. And it was everybody’s choice to quit smoking or not, and involved only their own health. If you keep smoking because you believe the tobacco companies, you’re a fool, but the world is full of them. Not much we can do about that.

    Now, the oil industry isn’t hiding anything. As far as I know, they don’t control the temperature records. They don’t hold a patent on the use of principal components in statistical analysis. And, I’ll ask: who is hiding something? Who is twisting the data? Who is publishing flawed studies?

    Who should be sued?

  89. pablo an ex pat says:

    The fanaticism of these single agenda people is truly scary. The science isn’t settled, not even close, but they want to take actions that could hurl human civilization off the cliff in pursuit of their goals.

    We are already seeing evidence of the effects of their type of thinking with the problems resultant from the conversion of food to fuel. We need to stop that immediately and use all available means to increase our energy supply, we also need to start building powerplants, both Nuclear and Fossil fueled.

    There will be casualties if we do not challenge these people and insist on a change of course. If they prevail unchecked the outlook for human life on this planet has the distinct probability of being unpalatable.

  90. Hakan Bergman says:

    December 6 1941, Red Army starts it counter attack on third reich
    forces at Moscow outskirts .
    December 11 1941, Adolf Hitler declares war on USA, just to show
    how untroubled he is.

  91. McGrats says:

    It’s such a shame the Lamestream Media has ever let themselves sink to such low levels as to even consider printing this trash. But since the media’s lost most credibility, most readership, and most of their advertising dollars, they have to accept chicken feed wherever they find it.

    It’s also a shame that eight years of USA Republican Party “leadership” only showed they can’t lead, that they’re the same greedy bastards as the Pandercrats, and that for the most part, they don’t have a clue about one issue or another. The Republicans could have brought Hansen to his knees by demanding he disclose how he manipulates the data, but they didn’t. Instead, these pathetic nitwits folded their tents and let Hansen off the hook.

    Bush, Hastard, and Friesch destroyed the Republican Party in such a manner I doubt if we’ll ever see it resurge again in our lifetimes. Their stupidity, pandering, and greed has let down America with the loudest thud I’ve ever witnessed.

    And as far as Hansen is concerned, we must continue unraveling our climate and educate the public on its reality as opposed to the fear mongering generated by the hansenites. That’s the only way we can put the likes of Hansen out of business.

    Jack Koenig, Editor
    The Mysterious Climate Project
    http://www.climateclinic.com

  92. Evan Jones says:

    Hansen attacks democracy for not working.

    He has obviously been reading Shearman and Smith, “The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy”, which seriously recommends rule “by experts and not by those who seek power”.

    In which case he will, with the greatest of reluctance, force himself, most unwillingly, to step to the fore.

  93. Raven says:

    Hold it folks. As much as I despise the man the article does not quote Hansen calling for people to be jailed. It is reporting a rumour that will likely never become true even if it had some basis in fact.

  94. MarkW says:

    “Hansen attacks democracy for not working.”

    This is a common feature amongst elitists. They are always complaining that messy democracy rarely comes up with the right answer. With the right answer being defined as what ever the elitists believes today.

    This is why politicians of this stripe like it when courts overrule the democratic process to impose the “correct” solution upon the ignorant masses.

  95. statePoet1775 says:

    Jim Hansen,

    Go ahead and build that 150′ scaffold for your enemies. And please don’t read “Esther” in the meantime. Poetic justice is a fine thing.

  96. James says:

    Hansen was on the Diane Rehm show this morning for one hour and called for trials for crimes against humanity for people opposing his position regarding AGW. He also blamed AGW for the recent floods and California fires. He predicted sea level rise of several feet due to sheet ice melting. I urge posting of a transcript online, it was hair raising.

  97. steven mosher says:

    another thought. hansen believes that people should be put on trial for spreading doubt. It’s a crime. How about the crime of spreading fear?
    One could argue that creating fear is more dangerous that creating doubt.

  98. Tamara says:

    He is accusing them of “high crimes against … nature.” The legal definition of which being, well, intimate relationships with animals? Or has he established a new form of government whose charter is “For the environment, by environmentalists, against corporations.” I don’t seem to remember that our Constitution grants Congress this power.

  99. jaysomething says:

    This should be lockup in Bellevue

  100. Larry Todd says:

    Since Hansen’s main backer Soros is a commodies futures trader and a certain commody has increase greatly maybe we need a RICO, SEC, and fraud investigations of him. We can throw in Al Gore as undeclared lobbyist and SEC violations for promoting carbon credits he is heavily invested in. I think a fine for Soros/Hansen in order of $100/per barrels produced in 2008 say 15,643.285 barrels of oil per day*$100 per barrel*365 days per year or $856,469,826.375.00

  101. Richard says:

    I like the part where George Soros gave him $720,000 reasons to change from global cooling to global warming.
    http://www.topix.com/news/global-warming/2007/09/nasa-scientist-james-hansen-receives-george-soros-money
    What a jerk!

  102. Pamela Gray says:

    BUCK036 said, “Our Liberial (sic) enforced (Dumb down education system) has put the fate of this Country in the hands of a bunch of totally “Uninformed/Misinformed” voters.”

    You and Hanson seem to be made of the same cloth. Blanket blame statements are the stock and trade of talkative AGW’s who spend time publicizing their beliefs instead of blindly (the only way to do it) investigating cause and effect theories.

  103. Gary Plyler says:

    I am just glad that Dr. Hansen is in his late 60’s. He should be retiring soon. Then perhaps a change at NASA GISS will be possible.

  104. Richard deSousa says:

    Hansen’s gone totally insane.

  105. Lloyd Graves says:

    I just sent an email to NASA as follows:
    Why is this person allowed to spew his anti science venom while being an employee of the government? Ten of thousands of thoughtful true scientists and well researched lay persons do not accept the agenda driven CO2 dogma. I can’t speak for everybody but I and vast numbers of others I communicate with are not in any way affilliated with “big oil”.
    What we seek is open inquiry of science issues and falsifiable results, not silencing of those with an opposing view.
    Hanson is a disgrace to NASA and to true scientists and seekers of knowledge everywhere.

    FIRE this lunatic, Lloyd Graves

    “http://www.nasa.gov/about/contact/ask_nasa_form.html”

  106. statePoet1775 says:

    “You and Hanson seem to be made of the same cloth. ” Pam Gray

    Pam, you still don’t get freedom, do you? Why do we need a government school system? Its purpose is not to educate but to indoctrinate.

    A rule of thumb:
    Good ideas do not have to be enforced on others; bad ideas should not be.

    We now have a situation where a mad scientist may wreck the world’s economy which just might lead to a world war as the Great Depression led to WWII.

    My dear sister Pam,
    with locks flowing red,
    has bats in her attic
    but science in her head.

    My dear sister Pam,
    my fondness no sham.
    I wish you quite well.
    May your head not now swell.

  107. McGrats says:

    In spite of liars like hansen and gore, the public isn’t buying into their trash.

    According to another article in the Guardian published on 6-22-08 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/22/climatechange.carbonemissions ) most Britons doubt cause of climate change.

    After spending hundreds of millions of dollars brainwashing Brittons, the vast majority are still not convinced that climate change is caused by humans – and many others believe scientists are exaggerating the problem, according to an exclusive poll for The Observer.

    Jack Koenig, Editor
    The Mysterious Climate Project
    http://www.climateclinic.com

  108. PPV says:

    This also means that Hansen is calling for the jailing of scientists like Richard Lindzen etc.

    It`s time for the scientists like Lindzen and the other 30,000 who signed the recent Oregon petition to stand up and defend their freedom.

    It`s time to fight fire with fire – time to call for criminal charges against Hansen and the media that peddled his lies.

    REPLY: He hasn’t used the word “jail” but rather “trials”.

  109. old gasser says:

    Let’s put NASA chiefs on trial for murdering Grissom, White, and Chafee by using pure Oxygen in a capsule stuffed with miles of electrical circuits. Another trial for Apollo 13, when NASA cut corners by hurriedly boiling an O2 tank dry after a prior launchpad test run. The tank’s internal heater system wasn’t designed for continuous operation, or the higher voltage from the launchpad umbilical. That’s why the tank, with a stuck thermostat, later became a ticking bomb when mens’ lives were at stake. Criminal negligence, for sure. Then there’s the Challenger deaths, victims of NASA’s kowtowing to the Greens. The original design was for a safe one-piece booster, but NASA quickly switched to a dangerous segmented one, so that they could avoid digging a booster recovery canal in the fetid swamp of the Everglades. Dodging a Green eco-lawsuit was considered more important than safety. Someone should have had NASA in court over that one. The most recent murders also are a result of putting Green before human lives. Our brilliant chemists can’t use their full arsenal of foam products, because NASA is worried that the re-entry burnup smoke may be toxic. The tank sheds worse than a Lhasa-Apso in June, because they won’t use tough insulators. NASA lights the candle, anyway. Someone should sue them for not making safety paramount. Each accident was preventable, and the result of NASA bigwig’s arrogance, period. I’ve lived through all of these events, most of it pre-internet, and highly politicized sites like Wikipedia certainly will have a different, sanitized view. Too bad. For a guy like Hansen, we’re all just a bunch of Laikas, the Russian space-pooch that was sent on a one-way ride.

  110. Richard deSousa says:

    MattN: Joe McCarthy wasn’t entirely wrong. Read (Google) the Venona Papers, archives from the defunct Soviet Union.

  111. Russ R. says:

    Well if there is too much “free speech”, and democracy is failing to provide the required result, the answer is obvious.
    Burn a witch.
    That gives the believers an “revenge indulgence”, and an additional reason to stay in the fold.
    It also puts the fear of penalty into any that don’t believe, or might be skeptical.

    This is not “rocket science”. Too bad that is the business NASA is supposed to be in.

  112. sojourndaze says:

    If you are short on reading time, a quick primer on GW can be found in John Coleman’s comments presented to the San Diego Chamber of Commerce:

  113. sojourndaze says:

    Sorry… link didn’t post…
    Global Warming and the Price of a Gallon of Gas:
    http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/19842304.html

  114. Patrick Henry says:

    Hansen has been targeting universities and young people in general, because they are easier to convince that prior to 1988 there wasn’t any bad weather. Their lack of historical perspective makes them easy targets for predators.

    Congress on the other hand is made up of older people who have no excuse. None of them have read Steinbeck, have read about the Galveston Hurricane, or remember the droughts in China which killed tens of millions in the 1960s?

  115. swampie says:

    He actually said that ‘global warming’ caused the flooding in the midwest? I was blaming THAT on incredibly stupid reporters.

    Old Gasser, I’ve also thought that Jim Hansen on his ecological jihad is responsible for the deaths of the shuttle astronauts.

  116. MattN says:

    “MattN: Joe McCarthy wasn’t entirely wrong. Read (Google) the Venona Papers, archives from the defunct Soviet Union.”

    No, but when he started pointing his finger at the US Army, public opinion dramatically and drastically turned against him. He may have rooted out a commie or two, but overall he did far more harm than good.

    Is this much different?

  117. Gary Gulrud says:

    Will no one rid Us of this troublesome bureaucrat?

  118. Pamela Gray says:

    All I am saying is that to blame the current crop of political talking head GW scientists and their theoretical beliefs on public schools, or democrats, or liberals, or environmentalists, or “cold mother” syndrome, or lack of a strong father-figure, is the same argument type used to blame a rising temperature change on AGW. You stand in the same debate stream as the Gore-inspired GW’s by using that kind of rhetoric.

    As to the above comment on freedom, my comments have nothing to do with freedom. Trust me, I get freedom. My comments have to do with debate format. By counterpunching blanket statements with blanket statements, both sides fail in debate technique and lead the audience away from informative discussion.

    The same critique can be made for those who have written a “call to arms” statement. In my opinion, that kind of statement also detracts from educated and informed debate.

    For those who use tongue-in-cheek rhetoric, my complements. That is a favorite essay device of mine as well. However, there is a style difference clearly seen/heard between tongue-in-cheek and hubris. So far, I have seen both. The former keeps the discussion pleasant, the later, dulls it.

  119. swampie says:

    Oooooh, I just heard for myself (the Dian Rehm show) that the contrarians are given some sort of “prominence” by “oil companies”, but there’s no real debate. I just want to know where my prominence from the oil companies is.

    I’m listening to it and just shaking my head in amazement.

  120. Jeff B. says:

    James Hansen is exhibit A for the death spasms of a dying ideology. Same with his buddy Al Gore. The reason for statements like Hansen’s, and $300 Million Ad campaigns is that they are losing.

    The public has made their own empirical calculations. We can see the cold. We can see that damage of the Ethanol Craze. And we can see the ultimate motives of statist control that won’t do anything to lower CO2, as if that was even a desirable.

    Trials for deniers? Ever heard of a little thing called the Constitution? Hansen and Gore are flailing their way to laughable obsolescence. Get the popcorn and watch the entertainment.

  121. swampie says:

    You are all a bunch of contrarian data cherrypickers per Hansen and NOT real scientists.

  122. allencic says:

    What bothers me most about Hansen and his followers (including Al Gore) is that NOT A SINGLE ONE OF HIS HORROR PREDICTIONS he made twenty years ago has come true! None! Zip! Nada! Why does he even have a shred of crediblilty? Except for the fact that most members of Congress are unbelievably stupid when it comes to any kind of science why would they give Hansen a minute of their time. Oh, I know, because most are lawyers,(like Obama) and everyone knows that if you’ve been to Law School you know everything about everything. God help us and save us from these dopes.

  123. leebert says:

    I listened to the first 30 minutes of the show. He had his Congressional testimony redacted 17 years ago. Is this all he has to show? Give me a freakin’ break!

    Talk about a martyr complex!!!

  124. Evan Jones says:

    sadly, BOTH of our Presidential candidates foaming at the mouth.

    McCain is beginning to come around on all sorts of issues regarding AGW. And he has always expressed unwillingness to sacrifice the economy over the issue.

    So, he’s not great, but he could be a lot worse. The alternative is terrible.

  125. swampie says:

    Per Jim Hansen, oil industries are making big profits and they don’t want to see that disturbed. They support a small number of fringe scientists that say things directly contrary to what the scientific community* is proving. They even influence what goes out in the media. He is laughing at the very idea of “confusing” the public** by having a contrarian even appear to debate with him.

    *global warming true believers

    **Stupid public.

  126. swampie says:

    At the end, where he said that NEXT YEAR, the new administration will have to make changes to reduce CO2 to below 350 ppm, was kind of creepy.

    Guess we’ll all be sentenced to the (low CO2) gulag.

  127. Pierre Gosselin says:

    Darn,
    D’Aleo beat me to it.
    I thought I was the first to point out that 1988 global temp at the time of Hansen’s testimony was higher than today’s.

    Pierre Gosselin (04:35:28) :

  128. Evan Jones says:

    rampant population growth.

    Check out birthrates from 1990 as compared with today. You will probably be surprised (if not shocked). The only reason population is rising at its current rate is increased life expectancy. The whole equation is shaping up into a classic S-curve.

    besides, there is a huge amount more “elbow room” in a city today with 8 million people in it than 100 years ago when the same city had 1 million and nonetheless there was–intensely–more overcrowding.

    I live in an 1886 slum designed for 16 people. It is illegal to occupy it with more than 5 today.

  129. statePoet1775 says:

    “By counterpunching blanket statements with blanket statements, both sides fail in debate technique and lead the audience away from informative discussion.” Pam Gray

    Pam,

    There is room for those who concentrate on the forest as well as those who concentrate on the trees. I appreciate your viewpoint on the trees.

    Unfortunately, scientists on the AGW side have dragged in government. Losers often drag in government because they and their ideas cannot survive in a free market. The solution: reduce government to its minimum size so it won’t be so dangerous when the loonies are in charge.

    There is also the problem that the loonies can come up with scare scenarios faster than cool dispassionate science can refute them. A properly educated public is essential.

    There are more dimensions to this problem than just science.

    Thanks for the opportunity to get another poem past Anthony.

    The eggs have been scrambled.
    The crow has been stewed.
    The guests are arriving
    to get their just due.

    One day, many may try to recant
    but will they give back
    those government grants?

  130. anna v says:

    Evan Jones,

    Try to think positive, otherwise you in the US will be between the devil and the deep blue sea: war ad infinitum which will collapse the economy or collapsed economy from AGW measures.

    Politicians are weather vanes. If public opinion shifts against AGW, they will also shift. Let hope for snow in september.

  131. MarkW says:

    Many in the Democratic party have been quite vocal in their desire to resurect the so called “Fairness Doctrine”. It’s a short step from regulating what one can say on a video or audio transmission (It’s been many years since a majority of people actually listened to broadcast vs. cable TV) to the regulating of what you can say on the internet.

  132. Gary Hladik says:

    An earlier poster pointed out that “the oil companies” no longer fund AGW skepticism to any great extent. Since their capitulation obviously hasn’t bought them any consideration from the Goreleone Family, perhaps now they’ll consider fighting back?

  133. WT says:

    You may be right that the oil industry is not causing the global warming but it’s causing a lot more other troubles. Oil is just really a big mess, isn’t it! And that they can make a lot of money of it, other clean energy resources are withheld and restrained from public use. Btw, wind farms and water power plants are not much better. There are so many other ways to operate a motor but the automotive industry still uses oil for their engines. And politics does nothing, because the powerful people leading the countries are too much involved in this.

  134. W F Lenihan says:

    Falsely accusing a person or entity of committing a crime is libel per se. The injured party needs only prove damages because liability is established as a matter of law. This is the law of virtually every state.

    It is past time for all who have been smeared to sue Hansen/Gore for libel. Martyrdom will become them.

  135. el Vaquero says:

    Richard deSousa & MattN: Tailgunner Joe McCarthy was far from wrong, he made some mistakes but he was 100% right about the massive infiltration of the Federal Government during & after the FDR Admin! If you don’t think this is true just read (Google) ‘Blacklisted by History the Untold Story of Joe McCarthy’ by Stanton Evans who used the Venona Papers, the FBI and National archives to fully document his history of the history of the Soviet/Red infiltration of many of our Policy making offices!!! It is very, very disturbing and resulted in Mao in China, Tito in Yugoslavia and a Communist run Eastern Europe!

  136. Evan Jones says:

    There will be casualties if we do not challenge these people and insist on a change of course.

    Too late. There have been many casualties.

  137. MarkW says:

    timposser writes:

    “overuse of energy combined with rampant population growth”

    speaking of projection.

    I can’t see any over use of energy or rampant population growth.

  138. SteveSadlov says:

    He’s creating a “hostile environment” and should incur a class action suit for harassment. Seriously. Sue him.

  139. Smokey says:

    Hansen receives $250,000 from Teresa Heinz Kerry.

    George Soros gives $720,000 to James Hansen.

    As a taxpayer, I resent the implications.

  140. Bob B says:

    Anthony, here is a very nice graph from climate skeptic with Hansens’ original climate projection with satellite measurements superimposed on the graph:

    http://climate-skeptic.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/06/23/hansencheck.gif

    The real data was below what Hansen suggested if we stop all GHG emissions—-he was not even close!

  141. MarkW says:

    Pamela,

    So you doubt that liberals have dumbed down public education?

  142. Mark says:

    Hey Chris (23:24:13),

    Where does Hansen attack democracy? Can you post the link?

    Thanks,
    Mark

  143. MarkW says:

    If the public schools still taught hard science, logic and reading comprehension, passing of garbage like AGW would be a lot harder.

    I find it very instructive that when polled regarding their opinions of their own ability, American school students placed tops in the world.
    When actual tests were given, they placed near the bottom.

    Many teachers these days feel that it much more important for a student to feel good about him or herself, than it is to actually know something about the world.

    It isn’t the conservatives who are insisting on the elimination of valedictorians at graduation ceremonies, because it might make those who didn’t excel feel bad.

    It isn’t the conservatives who want to give pass/fail grades instead of letter or numeric scores, because those who don’t get top scores might feel bad about themselves.

    It wasn’t the conservatives who started inventing phoney majors like “women’s studies”.

    It hasn’t been conservative professors who have been using their class time to rant against the perceived evils of the day, instead of actually teaching the subject they have been hired to teach.

  144. Peter says:

    “He wants to see a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants, coupled with the creation of a huge grid of low-loss electric power lines buried under ground and spread across America, in order to give wind and solar power a chance of competing”

    The guy is absolutely clueless! He’s evidently never heard of Ohm’s Law, otherwise he wouldn’t be sprouting drivel such as, “low-loss electric power lines buried under ground” Talk about an oxymoron!

  145. Pierre Gosselin says:

    anna v
    Now you’re speaking my language!
    Precisely why we need a Dalton Minimum.

  146. MarkW says:

    Oil is a big mess???

    Not that I can observe.

    What are these magical “clean energy” sources that are being with held from the public?

    You’ve already ruled out wind and hydro. You can’t seriously be proposing solar?

    So what is it.

    Finally, do you honestly believe that if the public demanded it, the auto companies would not produce this mythical “clean” car that you are so convinced could be made?

  147. Bill Marsh says:

    Bob B,

    That was scenario C (stop all GHG). Which FAR is this graph from?

  148. MarkW says:

    It’s virtually impossible to prove liable against a public figure these days.
    The courts have seen to that.
    Any figure in the public eye is considered a “public figure” as far as the law is considered. So that would include CEO’s of any major company.

  149. MarkW says:

    He’s creating a “hostile environment” …

    That would only work for CEO’s who are women or minorities.

  150. sonicfrog says:

    ♫ The Inquistion, what a show
    The Inquistion, here we go
    We know you’re wishing
    That we’d go away
    But the Inquistion’s here and it’s here to stay
    The Inquistion, oh boy
    The Inquistion, what a joy
    The Inquistion, oy oy… ♫

  151. MarkW says:

    That photo at the top of the article.
    Somebody needs to photoshop a bishop’s hat on Hansen and a pastoral scene behind him.

  152. AEGeneral says:

    I agree with John Coleman on this. A real, good court case is what AGW alarmism needs. Once brought to court, with BOTH sides showing their data for the debate, it will be obvious how much of the alarmist agenda just comes from anecdotal evidence and the like. – James Chamberlain

    I’m still in favor of someone exploring the idea of suing Mann for release of his codes he used in the “hockey-stick graph.”

    Get those codes, and you may have all you need to prove fraud in a court of law — which is probably why he’s chosen to withhold them. I can’t imagine any other rational explanation as to why he won’t release them.

    Reliance & damages can be proven, misrepresentation of a material fact is already present. There’s only one other element left to prove: either intent or reckless disregard for the truth.

  153. statePoet1775 says:

    ‘ “Pamela, So you doubt that liberals have dumbed down public education?” ‘ MarkW

    I will defend liberals here. They often try to clean up the messes our government backed banking cartel causes. Both liberals and conservatives (and, of course, us know-it-all libertarians) should agree that stealing is wrong. This is precisely what your local banker does when he creates money out of thin-air and loans it out.
    When the banksters are finally dealt with then there will be far less disagreement between honest people on all sides.

  154. Bill P says:

    “…he was among the first to sound the alarm over the reality of global warming… er cooling … er warming…”

    Hanson’s modeling of atmospheric data from Venus in 1971(http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/173/3992/138), and responsibility for the resultant claims of an impending “catastrophic ice age” on earth were big news then, and should be equally big news now in light of this latest vitriol.

    It strikes me as fair that every time this scientist utters the words “global warming”, he be forced to explain why his models and predictions now are any more credible than they were 38 years ago.

  155. Daniel Lee Taylor says:

    After reading this story I immediately wrote my Congressman asking that he look into this and work towards Hansen’s dismissal from NASA. It is NOT appropriate for a NASA employee to advocate any policy which violates the First Amendment.

    Please do the same! You can find and write your House Representative at:
    https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml

    You can find and write your Senators at:
    http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

    Here’s the letter I sent to Dana Rohrabacher. (I don’t know if it’s worth sending this to Feinstein or Boxer.)

    James Hansen, head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, is publicly calling for the arrest and trial of energy company executive officers for “…actively spreading doubt about global warming…”

    It is absolutely unacceptable for a government employee, especially one of Hansen’s stature, to publicly advocate for any law, policy, or position which amounts to the abridgment of our First Amendment rights. When James Hansen speaks on a matter related to his job, the media and the people interpret his opinion as the official position of NASA. He has misrepresented NASA and, by attaching such a controversial legal opinion to the NASA name, smeared NASA’s image. Many in the public, especially outside the U.S., will now believe that it’s official NASA policy to limit and violate the First Amendment.

    James Hansen has a right to say what he wants, but I do not believe it is appropriate for him to use his privileges as a NASA employee to advocate for policies which are against our very Constitution. I am writing to ask you to look into his behavior, and to seek his dismissal from NASA.

    Thank you for your time and consideration.

  156. Bill P says:

    Trying again, the link to the Science Magazine abstract of the impending catastrophic ice age:

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/173/3992/138

    Do people call this to Hansen’s attention in his public appearances?

  157. Brent Matich says:

    We have David Suzuki and you have this tool. Complete buffoons!

    A.K.A Brent in Calgary

  158. MarkW says:

    I’m not a banker, or even related to one.

    But the notion that fractional reserve banking is the equivalent of stealing is about as far out there as one can get. That’s from one Libertarian to another.

  159. Stan says:

    How not to measure temperature at http://palousitics.blogspot.com/2008/06/purposeful-manipulation-of-temperature.html

    “One day the Gazette-Times told of a minimum temperature about 15 degrees Fahrenheit, whereas the radio station at the Marys River bridge into Avery Park reported much colder, a “minus” reading, which agreed with home thermometers of some readers. Inquiring about locations, I learned the the “official” minimum came from the shelter atop the steam-heated agricultural building on campus. Moreover, the professor moved the instruments to the greenhouses to the west in the summers when he worked there. What poor practice!”

  160. Pingback: Common Sense and Wonder » First They Came for the Oil Executives…

  161. statePoet1775 says:

    MarkW,

    Happy to meet you! There are never enough of us. Fractional reserve banking is theft via inflation but it is also the CAUSE of the business cycle. The Mystery of Banking by Murray N. Rothbard makes it very clear. It can be downloaded for free from Mises.org at:

    http://www.mises.org/Books/mysteryofbanking.pdf

    (fractional-reserve) banking in a nutshell

    “What do bankers do?”

    Well, they take your money and lend it out
    then make some more and lend it too.

    “Make some more!? Surely you jest;
    t’ would take a printing press!”

    Au contraire mon freir,
    they make it from thin-air.

    “They make it from thin-air!?
    But that’s dishonest, absurd!”

    Yes, hence the Fed Reserve.

  162. David Gladstone says:

    T. Van Druten;

    There is absolutely no need to wait on what he says- his quotes are already in print. What does it take to wake you up?! A bomb? Hansen’s lies and falsehoods haven’t changed an iota in 10 years. It’s time for you to do the research and see what he’s already said and done. None of us need wait another nanosecond to make a proper judgment.

  163. Evan Jones says:

    Politicians are weather vanes. If public opinion shifts against AGW, they will also shift. Let hope for snow in september.

    Thanks, anna, I know. (We’ve been ’round the block twice or once and seen it happen.) Very often the darkest hour is just before the dawn. If the PDO shift holds, things should quiet down. I’d hate it if it took a major minimum to blow those weather vanes back in a reasonable direction, though.

    OTOH, the news out of England is encouraging! (Maybe the French farmers could get involved. I haven’t seen the streets of Paris run with avocados in years . . .)

  164. Evan Jones says:

    You may be right that the oil industry is not causing the global warming but it’s causing a lot more other troubles

    And what about all the good it causes?

    The IC engine is the engine that moves the world. It is one of the great triumphs and liberators of mankind. If we woke up tomorrow and were somehow without it, the resulting suffering would be staggering, unimaginable (unless you’ve read the unabated misery that is human history before Big Oil).

    Besides, the IC engine SAVED the environment. (Consider what it replaced!)

    Maybe tomorrow some genius will come up with something better. That would be just neato. In the meantime we ought to be profoundly grateful for what we have.

  165. Jeff Alberts says:

    20 years and he’s still got a combover.

    Idiot.

  166. Evan Jones says:

    So you doubt that liberals have dumbed down public education?

    It’s all a matter of what’s important.

    Well, okay, the kiddies don’t know the times table, but they have mastered the field of flavored condoms. And in tolerance class they have successfully learned to refer to everybody (and everything) they want to insult as “gay”.

    I, for one, can only regard this as an impressive achievement.

    All we used to learn in school was useless stuff like what states border on Ohio and why Van Buren failed of reelection. (And the use of the subjunctive!)

  167. alexjc38 says:

    Re the quirky Mr Hansen:

    “Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad. ”

    (Anonymous ancient proverb, wrongly attributed to Euripides.)

  168. crosspatch says:

    I suppose what bothers me most about all this is the vitriol directed at the energy companies. If climate is changing and energy used for heating/cooling is a large segment of usage, I am going to want to know what the climate is likely to do so that my production mix will match demand in the future.

    If climate is warming, there might be more demand for natural gas during peak periods of increased electricity demand. If climate is cooling, I might need to produce more heating oil. So an industry that sees a great portion of it’s product being used for heating and cooling would be incompetent if it DIDN’T research climate change.

    I fail to see how it would be in the interest of the energy companies to falsely state the direction of climate change. Either way they are going to make more money and they would stand to gain nothing at all from missing the direction of change.

    All of this angst on the part of Hansen seems to be aimed at the oil companies being evil in wanting to avoid additional government regulation because they aren’t arriving at the same conclusion as Hansen. That would tend to point to the real purpose of the “global warming” scare as being a “hook” to use to gain popular support for regulating the energy industry. He seems to be more concerned about the energy companies avoiding regulation than he is about actual climate change.

    Government stands a good chance of going broke when the boomers retire and owning the energy supply is a great way to assure cash flow.

  169. Chris says:

    Mark,

    I opened the Guardian link above:

    “The problem is not political will, it’s the alligator shoes – the lobbyists. It’s the fact that money talks in Washington, and that democracy is not working the way it’s intended to work.”

    Okay, Hansen is not attacking democracy per se, but he is attacking how democracy works in America. Hey, everyone is for democracy until the people doen’t share your opinion. Then, somehow democracy isn’t as wonderful as one first thought. That was my point. As you can see, I was posting late last night.

  170. xulutime says:

    This dork was the chicken little of the 1970’s who cried we were heading for a Global Ice Age.
    Now it’s the opposite.
    Anyone who thinks contrary to him or Heidi Cullen from the Weather Channel are subjected to Joseph McCarthy style tactics and they threaten to run them out on a rail.
    I think they all have lost the cheese off their crackers.

  171. BUCKO36 says:

    Well, I just listened to the whole “51 minutes” of Hansen on NPR and I am still a “diehard” AGW “skeptic”. Why wasn’t that “clown” fired on 1/19/2001?

    Note to Pamela Gray: Fortunately, I got my “public education” in the 50’s, when schools were still teaching the 3R’s instead of PC BS. I know there are still many good teachers in this country, and you sound like as though you are probably one of them. I, however, strongly believe that things have changed “drastically for the worse” in our public education system and Universities. Political Correctness now rules. I know teachers who were fired for bucking the system. IMHO!!

  172. floodguy says:

    If Hansen expect to make such bold claims about the climate and beyond (justice against AGW-believer and electric power-grid proposals), his damn government position should be term limited or appointed like most upper level cabinet officials.

    This isn’t right. The energy industry is already responding to market pressures. American ingenuity = idea’s and those ideas which achieve market profitability = solutions, not political will.

    Political will gave us an over-emphasis on coal-fired generation borne out of the 1970s, and now we have too much pollution. Political will gave us a moratorium on the exploration and refinement production on light sweet crude during the 80’s thru today, and we now we have $4 gasoline.

    God save us!

  173. floodguy says:

    If Hansen expects to make such bold claims about the climate and beyond (justice against AGW and electric power-grid proposals), his government position should be term-limited or appointed similar to most upper level cabinet officials.

    This isn’t right. The energy industry is already responding to market pressures. American ingenuity = idea’s and those ideas which achieve market profitability = solutions, not political will.

    Political will gave us an over-emphasis on coal-fired generation borne out of the 1970s energy policy, and now we have too much pollution. Political will gave us a moratorium on the exploration and refinement production of light sweet crude during the 80’s thru today, and we now we have $4 gasoline.

    God save us!

  174. Raven says:

    Anthony may wish to kill the off topic threads but here is a brief response to:

    “Fractional reserve banking is theft via inflation but it is also the CAUSE of the business cycle”

    Banks do not make money for free since they must create a liability to match any loan they create. i.e. if a bank creates a loan for 100K that money has to go somewhere when it is spent and whoever gets it will demand that the bank pay interest on the 100K. This means that banks only make money on the difference between the interest they pay and the interest they receive. They do not make a profit equal to the amount of the loan despite what some might say.

  175. Evan Jones says:

    BTW, Pamela, I taught in the NYC public school system.

    I was wildly popular among both kids and teachers. I took extra time and tutored some of the kids. It was appalling what they did not know. I just tried to open their eyes a little and show them what they could shoot for.

    The teachers were not so hot. They were okay at keeping order, but just plain old didn’t know that much.

    When I took the LAST tests (i.e., tests for teachers), I could see why.

    They were politically correct–I guess–but they were such lamebrain twaddle it was hard to tell. Anyone who couldn’t pass those dumbed down pieces of krud doesn’t deserve a middle school diploma.

  176. tsfiles says:

    The man deserves a padded room. To even compare the outright falsehoods of the tobacco industry to global warming, I mean, “climate change” is utterly absurd.

  177. Ric Werme says:

    174 comments, oh what the heck, I’ll post this here instead of a newer thread.

    Off topic – sort of. Given:

    1) If you’ve read this far in this thread you need a break.
    2) George Carlin died this week.

    Go watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbFD4NC60EA – the science isn’t perfect, some of the arguments are flawed, but just remember it’s for amusement purposes only.

  178. Mike Bryant says:

    hansen from radio interview. “Within five years the Arctic ice will be completely melted. Now the sea ice is very important because if it… i mean WHEN it melts…”

    HAHAHA even Crazy Jim hansen doesn’t believe his OWN lies…

  179. Richard deSousa says:

    MattN: Read my post again. I said McCarthy wasn’t “entirely” wrong. Your response seems to indicate I said he was “entirely” right. It’s ironic McCarthy’s name is still dragged through the mud by the liberal press and leftists despite the unearthing of the Venona Papers.

  180. henry says:

    Pofarmer (21:39:14) said:

    “How does anybody get this full of themselves?”

    Richard (23:43:49) said:

    “Is he raising his own profile because Al Gore got all the kudos?”

    I think you’re beginning to see the tip of the iceberg (metaphorically speaking).

    Hansen has put his life into GISS, which for a while, was the ONLY chart. Now there’s 4, and his is the outlier.

    Hansen sees his work being used by others, and Gore gets the Nobel.

    Hansen sees his codes and data under serious attack, and the nasty truth is being uncovered.

    He may even begin to see his own mortality (at least his NASA job), and realize that history won’t be too kind to him. So he’s got to start SOMETHING, and soon.

    There’s an election coming up, and maybe, just MAYBE, his side won’t win. A change of administration, a change of leader at NASA, someone who may hire their OWN scientists and friends.

    Between now and November, he’ll start getting more and more strange. I predict his comments will get so wild by mid-October, that NEITHER party will want his support. Then comes the implosion…

  181. Chance Metz says:

    i sure hope show the next thing he will be saying is we all should be sent to the moon because we are ruining Earth and that is the only way to stop the earth from melting.

  182. Jim Arndt says:

    Well Anthony Foxnews finally picked it up
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,370521,00.html

    REPLY: Cool, thanks

  183. statePoet1775 says:

    “They do not make a profit equal to the amount of the loan despite what some might say.” Raven

    Raven,

    I never said this. The banks make money from the interest they collect from the loans they make with money-from-nothing. With a 10% reserve requirement, if I deposit $100 in cash into a bank, up to $1000 can be created in new money by the banking system as a whole. This is called the money-multiplier effect. The whole process is detailed minutely in The Mystery Of Banking by Murray N. Rothbard for free at: http://www.mises.org/Books/mysteryofbanking.pdf

    The history of banking is quite revealing. It makes obvious that fractional reserve banking originated when bankers found they could cheat and get away with it most of the time. Governments have supported it because the banks would use some of the newly created money to buy government bonds. The Bank Of England, for instance, financed Charles II after its foundation in 1694.

  184. Evan Jones says:

    Hansen as McCarthy. An interesting comparison. Both are (were) obnoxious, for whatever that’s worth, which isn’t much.

    It’s ironic McCarthy’s name is still dragged through the mud by the liberal press and leftists despite the unearthing of the Venona Papers.

    Well, my mother was tight with the Browder brothers. She was a good friend of Earl (head of the Communist Party, USA) and wife, and dated brother Bill. (She also spit in the eye of HUAC, but that’s another story.) So I didn’t need outside education about the Communist threat. I heard about that firsthand.

    And, yes, it was a real threat. (And the State Dept. was a snakepit.)

    She repudiated the Party (unlike her sister, who gamely stuck it out till the end) and actually voted for Nixon (in ’72) and Reagan (in ’84). (And, yes, she knew about Nixon in the ’50s!)

    I have so far resisted applying for her FBI file. Besides, I only know one of her pseudonyms.

    As for the Press, they never quite got over having to admit that not only Alger Hiss was guilty as charged, but was a fully fledged, paid Soviet agent. It’s like a family embarrassment they don’t like to talk about. (Of course neither the Hiss case nor HUAC had anything directly to do with McCarthy; he was senate.)

    So I must confess to mixed feelings regarding Tailgunner Joe.

  185. sunsettommy says:

    I am so happy that Jimmy is on the rampage with his delusions.He is supposed to be the “godfather” of the AGW ideology.Now that it is obviously wrong.He is lashing out from the corner of his office.To try rallying his dwindling band of dog eared egg sucking alarmists.Who for so long spreaded outlandish alarmism that compelled ignorant government officials in many nations to make panicky laws and treaties.To fight a bogeyman called AGW.

    What better way to show that a basket case is running on empty.What better way to show that AGW alarmism is dying out as a credible hypothesis.What better way to show how far off the mark he is on temperature predictions.What better way to show that the subsequent 20 years.That he never learned that the 1988 speech was debunked by history that followed it.

    What better way to open peoples eyes to read and hear from a man who is supposed to be Director of a wing of the NASA space agency.Only to learn that he is spaced out.

  186. doug w says:

    Ed Markey, D-Mass., say, “Dr. Hansen was right. Twenty years later, we recognize him as a climate prophet.”

    I thought the democrats believed in the separation of church and state? I guess the religion of AGW is exempt.

  187. Mike H. says:

    New from NASA!

    REPLY: Wow, our tax dollars at work

  188. bitebybyte says:

    Calling Hansen a “nutbar”, accusing him of violating the U.S. Constitution, and otherwise trying to defile his character creates distraction from his main point — Big Oil has been telling lies via the think tanks they fund to influence public opinion and diminish our perception of the threats posed to human existence by human-caused Global Climate Change. His lawsuit could pressure Big Oil to move more quickly in researching and developing alternative fuels and energy sources. Of course, Big Oil could have chosen to show some leadership and future-vision of its own by taking steps toward worldwide energy transition. Instead they chose to spend some of those potential R&D funds to Bush/Cheney 2000 and 2004, a variety of think tanks spreading their junk science, and getting their money’s worth when the Bush Administration said America’s energy policy “for the future” would rely even more on Same Old Coal, Same Old Oil and Same Old Plutonium. I’d say the Hansen vs. Big Oil suit would have been more useful in spurring on energy transition around 2002. A good friend of mine inside the beltway says Republicans are going to lose big time come November because they have jacked so many things up and America is sick of their extreme devotion to ideology in spite of the common good. Starting in January 2009, the “work” of this lawsuit will be better performed by strategic transition-driving policies of our Federal Government.

  189. Evan Jones says:

    bitebybyte:

    His lawsuit

    Be careful what you wish for.

    Of course, Big Oil could have chosen to show some leadership and future-vision of its own by taking steps toward worldwide energy transition.

    Of course it’s no one’s damn business what “leadership” “Big Oil” shows so long as it stays within the law. Individual corporations are responsible only to the law and to their voting shareholders.

    We call that one “freedom”.

    If you think it’s so easy to come up with an alternate solution, be my guest. That’s your freedom. There are some pretty bright bulbs working on it as we speak. And I bet you it will be one of them that turns the trick, not some damn government agency.

    Big Oil has been telling lies via the think tanks they fund to influence public opinion and diminish our perception of the threats posed to human existence by human-caused Global Climate Change.

    You want to compare the funding from both sides? Both the amounts and the stink attached? I don’t think you want to go there!

    Those think tanks you decry reveal their data and methods–like real grown-up scientists. Unlike alchemists like Hansen who conceal data and methods, and therefore only play scientist on TV.

    Who knows? Hansen could be right. (Though I doubt it. His own predictions since 1988 make quite a monkey out of him.) But unless he reveals his FULL data and methods, whatever he’s doing, right or wrong, ain’t science–by definition.

  190. Marc says:

    “bitebybyte” says… “Of course, Big Oil could have chosen to show some leadership and future-vision of its own by taking steps toward worldwide energy transition.”

    You mean like this. Alternative fuels: “U.S. oil and natural gas companies are developing and/or marketing virtually every alternative fuel, including solar power, wind, geothermal, biofuels and hydrogen power. While they must ensure Americans have the oil and natural gas they will need and demand in the coming years, they are also moving toward a future in which our energy landscape will look much different.”

    And yes “bitebybyte” [edit-implied profane and abusive~jeez] and read the rest rather than getting [snip] over a nutcake being called a nutcake.

    Please stay civil. It’s way less work.~jeez

  191. JamesB says:

    Is this Hansen a sleeper radical envirometalist? The bastard child of the ’60s protest scene and the rabid ’70s & ’80s green movement? Did he decide to try to change the system from the inside, resulting in his position in NASA? Or did he just make some bad investements into Exon, Mobile, Shell or some other oil company and is still trying to ‘get then back’?

    He’s one or the other, with a 90% confidence…

  192. dstealy says:

    Evan Jones (18:18:29) commented on the dumbed down teachers’ tests. I completely agree.

    My wife has been a middle school principal for the past seventeen years. In a conversation with a couple of our teacher friends, one of them mentioned how difficult the California CBEST teacher credential test was for her. On a whim, I decided to take the test, which the state allows 4 hours to complete. I was done in under ninety minutes.

    I was both astonished and embarrassed at how EASY the test is. The math portion was simple arithmetic, about 6th grade level — and it was multiple choice! You could work back from the four possible answers to get the right one, if you couldn’t, for instance, convert a fraction to a decimal [and yes, they allow calculators].

    The other two parts of the test, reading comprehension and writing, were equally easy; write a paragraph, and read a page or two, then answer a multiple choice test on what you’d just read — open book! This is California’s idea of a teachers’ credentialing ‘test.’

    The passing results give between one and four stars. It’s not bragging to say that I got 4 stars all 3 sections of the test; any average person who went only as far as high school in the ’50’s and ’60’s would have easily done as well.

    The surprise is that a significant number of teaching applicants fail one or more parts of the CBEST [once one part of the CBEST is passed, it's good for life, and applicants can retake the failed portion as often as they need to until they finally pass].

    Government education has reached the point where science is akin to astrology, and there are no really wrong answers. No wonder people accept Hansen’s proclamations without question.

  193. MarkW says:

    statepoet,

    Fractional reserve banking does not cause inflation. The fed printing money faster than the growth in the economy does.

  194. cupbeans says:

    Thanks for the audio link I’ll add it on my post too.

    BTW is there any way to contact you via email couldn’t find any contact info and thought to ask for a guest post for the
    http://www.mygreenpeacebuddies.com/blogs
    or even maybe a blogroll link exchange

  195. Ric Werme says:

    bitebybyte (22:13:21) :

    “… Bush Administration said America’s energy policy “for the future” would rely even more on Same Old Coal, Same Old Oil and Same Old Plutonium.”

    Plutonium? If you are referring to nuclear reactors connected to the electric power grid, I believe all of them are fueled with Uranium 235. Plutonium is a waste product. Plutonium is used in breeder reactors, but there are none in America, at least not connected to the grid.

    Don’t forget natural gas, I burn a fair amount of that. Probably more as global cooling intensifies in the coming years.

  196. Ric Werme says:

    I’m impressed at the reach your blog has. I stumbled across http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/1988-2008-climate-then-and-now/ just now and many of the comments reference articles from here and related sites like http://www.woodfortrees.org/ and http://icecap.us/

    As always, keep up the good work.

  197. I think they are more guilty of raising oil prices and controlling supply for profit than manipulating the public on global warmning.

  198. wilbert says:

    ” “Dr. Hansen was right. Twenty years later, we recognize him as a climate prophet.” I corrected the obvious error ” “Dr. Hansen was right. Twenty years later, we recognize him as a climate PROFIT.”

  199. Bruce Cobb says:

    Big Oil has been telling lies via the think tanks they fund to influence public opinion and diminish our perception of the threats posed to human existence by human-caused Global Climate Change.
    Actually, you have it backwards; there is no threat whatsoever posed by so-called “human-caused Global Climate Change” – never was, and never will be, because, like a child’s “bogeyman”, it doesn’t exist. Hansen is a liar, and is proposing putting people on trial for fighting for the truth. That is an outrage which is Orwellian in nature. Make no mistake, Democracy itself is at stake here.

  200. davidcobb says:

    bitebybyte
    Before you start complaining about what private interest have not done, why don’t you complain about what the government hasn’t done.
    1)Streamline regulations removing expensive and transient waivers for utilizing wastes.
    2)Lower CFC designation from “toxic” to “no intentional release” allowing cascading power systems (15 to 25 percent increase in plant efficiency) and low density industial waste heat recovery.
    3)Set a minimum inport price for oil to prevent foreign oil dumping in order to ensure a return on investment capital in alternatives. That would lower the cost of the capital making alternatives more competative.
    Instead all we get is a choice between “tax ‘em blind” and “give speculators you money” through a markets created litterly out of thin air.

  201. Russ R. says:

    Big Oil provides us with energy, at an affordable price. There are $trillions of dollars available for anyone, who can do a better job at providing energy to the world.
    Taking that system apart, and replacing it with a better system, is not going to be done by the government. Providing goods and services at market prices, is not what they do well.
    So here is the bottom line. There are people that rant and rave, and people that produce. Jim Hansen’s rantings, are a distraction to the fact that his “prophecies” have not come true.
    Trying to make Big Oil the bogeyman, is a classic distraction to that “inconvienent truth”.

  202. Pamela Gray says:

    I agree that big oil is not the bogeyman. However, a private company is beholden to its stockholders, and stockholders buy stock only when there is money to be made tomorrow. We are short on investor “make money later” stock buyers and long on “make money now” stock buyers. But even they can’t get a bid in edgewise. Right now, speculators, not stock holders, are trying to make money. That makes prices even higher. Worse, it provides no incentive for oil companies to pump more oil or create new refineries. I believe that there needs to be some regulation on price speculation so that market forces can work. I also believe that we will never see low fuel prices ever again.

  203. statePoet1775 says:

    “Fractional reserve banking does not cause inflation. The fed printing money faster than the growth in the economy does.”

    MarkW,

    Even during those times before the Fed and when the US did not have a central bank, local banks could and did cause inflation by printing more bank notes than they had reserves to back them up with. Sound dishonest? Anyway, when the public got wise there would be bank runs. It was not just because the depositors’ money had been lent out as in “It’s a wonderful life”.
    It was also because money had been created out of nothing with nothing to back it up. There were more outstanding bank notes (or money in checking accounts) than reserves which were supposed to back them up. A form of musical chairs.

    The Fed is the head of the government backed banking cartel. It allows the banks to inflate uniformly which helps prevent bank runs. The Fed can and does cause inflation but your local banker shares in the loot too. That is why banking is so popular, it is a form of legalized counterfeiting. Yet another opportunity for rhyme:

    banksters

    To counterfeit,
    what a silly thing to do!
    It’s a crime;
    you could do time;
    you’d certainly be blue.
    No, become a banker
    if you hanker
    to make money that is new.
    You’ll be respected
    and not rejected
    by the people that you screw.
    It’s theft the same
    but you won’t be blamed
    by those that you undo.
    (And you’ll do no time for your crime sublime.)
    But at the end, can your money bend
    the rules that condemn you?

  204. MarkW says:

    Pamela,

    The idea that companies don’t care about future profits is one often portrayed by those on the left, and those with absolutely no understanding of how business works. (Not that there isn’t a tremendous amount of overlap between the two groups.)

    If your notion was true, then it should be easy to demonstrate that no company, anywhere, engages in R&D. After all, research won’t pay off for many years, and according to you, know company cares about anything past this years profits.

    If you want short term thinking, the place to go is govt. Very few politicians care for anything past the next election.

  205. MarkW says:

    Russ,

    Let me see if I have this straight. You want us to beleive that in order to keep oil cheap, we need to have govt make it expensive?????

    When it makes economic sense to develop alternative sources of energy, the companies will do so. Trying to entice them to develop those sources prior to that point is a waste of money.

    Secondly, if you don’t think speculators play a valueable role in the market, then you haven’t been paying attentions. Speculators smooth out price swings by gambling on what tomorrow’s prices are going to be.

  206. statePoet1775 says:

    “I believe that there needs to be some regulation on price speculation so that market forces can work. ” Pam Gray

    Pam loves freedom,
    within reason, of course.
    And that reason, of course,
    is her’s.

    It don’t rhyme too well, but it reminds me of Mr. Ed.

  207. David_Jay says:

    Pamela (8:32):

    Please explain to me how HIGHER prices do not provide an incentive for pumping more oil and creating new refineries.

    I think an Econ101 class is in order…

  208. Pamela Gray says:

    Good god. Let me say it one more time. Stock buyers, not companies, are interested in short term gains right now, not long term gains. Don’t put words into my mouth I did not say. Companies would love to have investors come on board that are thinking long term steady gain. You think me liberal. You think me wrong.

  209. sonicfrog says:

    Not to be left behind, Koffi Annan has gotten into the game! I guess he just couldn’t stand his life of disgrace and seclusion and had to let the world know he’s still relevant.

  210. Raven says:

    In the bad old days hard currency was scarce and only accessible to the wealthy at high interest rates. The common folk had no access to credit and the economy and freedom suffered as a result. Fractional reserve banking may not be perfect but it is a lot better than the alternatives.

  211. Merovign says:

    I hate to chime in now that things are so far off-topic, but:

    1) Hansen’s Antics, I hope, are a symptom of the realization that the “Fraud Train” is going off the rails, and the attempt to shut down debate has failed. Forced to actually defend their ideas, the core AGW crowd switches to to spittle-flecked attacks because they can’t defend the idea. This could be a really bad year for Soros.

    2) Hansen should definitely be fired. He’s used his position as a government bureaucrat for many years to attack his bosses and campaign politically – not to mention he can’t possibly be spending his work hours wisely and be giving hundreds or thousands of interviews. If nothing else, from what I hear of his code, he should be fired for incompetence.

    3) It will be interesting to see if some major law firms jump on the AGW-lawsuit bandwagon – I doubt it, as it’s becoming more and more obvious they would get their clocks cleaned. It probably won’t (and probably shouldn’t) change public opinion too much, but we can use all the coffin-nails we can get at this point to at least cut off the “funding machine” for AGW and let people obtain funding the same way everyone else does. Some people have pointed out that Bush should have fired more bureaucrats when he came into office, and it’s hard to argue at this point – especially heads of departments.

    4) I was going to tick you guys off for being so hard on Pamela, but in her 8:32 post she literally got 8 of 10 assertions wrong in a single paragraph, so what can I do? Well, maybe 7, one of them was just a pessimistic opinion.

  212. statePoet1775 says:

    “Fractional reserve banking may not be perfect but it is a lot better than the alternatives.” Raven

    It is not just imperfect, it is FRAUDULENT. Plus, it is fraud backed up by the government. Plus it is the cause of the business cycle which can have disastrous results. A little history lesson:

    fractional reserve banking -> Fed -> Roaring 20’s -> Great Depression -> World War II -> 50 million dead

    Just get the government out of money and the free market will do a wonderful job. Ron Paul knows what he is talking about.
    I suggest http://www.mises.org for anyone who wants to learn about sound economics.

  213. Mike Walsh says:

    MarkW It’s a short step from regulating what one can say on a video or audio transmission (It’s been many years since a majority of people actually listened to broadcast vs. cable TV) to the regulating of what you can say on the internet.

    Hm. A shorter step from here to there than you think. Rasmussen circulated a poll almost a year ago that found a sizable portion of the American public was in favor of a new Fairness Doctrine….one that included “websites that offer political commentary”, phrasing so broad that it could include almost anything. 34% in favor of internet application, if you can believe it.

    Many teachers these days feel that it much more important for a student to feel good about him or herself, than it is to actually know something about the world.

    Welcome to the No Child Gets Ahead program.

  214. statePoet1775 says:

    To reason is now treason.
    But who will be tried
    for a cold season?

  215. Russ R. says:

    MarkW,

    My response was aimed at bitebybyte’s attack on Big Oil as the problem, and Jim Hansen was just doing his civic duty, to request that they be muzzled.

    I am not sure what you are implying about government making oil more expensive. I think the root of our problem is government preventing the drilling of oil. So they currently are making it more expensive, and they should stop doing that.

    If we showed the futures market, that more supply would be coming on line, in the future, the speculative bubble would deflate, and prices would decline rapidly.

  216. Steve Moore says:

    I just had the chance to see the transcript of Hansen’s “testimony”. According to him, we have ONE YEAR to make a difference — maybe.

    He’s decided that the maximum atmospheric CO2 content for life is 350 ppm, although he shows nothing to demonstrate how he got that number.

    I’m surprised he didn’t just come out and say, “Come with me if you want to live.”

    The word “megalomaniac” come to mind when I read his stuff.

  217. Pingback: The “Hippocratic Oath” for Scientists « Watts Up With That?

  218. MarkW says:

    Pamela,

    Stock owners are interested in making sure the price of their stock appreciates.

    The only way to do that is for the company to have good income today, and proven prosepects of good income continuing into the future.

    Don’t believe me, check with any actuarial.

  219. MarkW says:

    statePoet emotes:

    fractional reserve banking -> Fed -> Roaring 20’s -> Great Depression -> World War II -> 50 million dead

    —-

    I’ve seen lazy, sloppy thinking in my life, but this takes the cake.

    1) Fractional reserve banking has been around for hundreds of years, perhaps as early as the 1400’s.
    2) There’s fractional reserve banking, and there is the fed. The only relationship is that the Fed regulates banks.
    3) The federal reserves incompetance did lead in part to the roaring 20’s and the great depression, but so did hundreds of other factors.
    4) The great depression was not responsible for WWII. It may have been one factor, but it was a very minor factor.

  220. jeeztheadmin says:

    “Come with me if you want to live.”

    Brilliant.

  221. Steve Moore says:

    I located Hansen’s rationale for 350 ppm.

    The paper is:
    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.1126.pdf

    And supporting material at:
    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.1135.pdf

    Haven’t yet had the chance to wade through it.

  222. Robert says:

    Merovign:
    >2) Hansen should definitely be fired. He’s used his position as a government bureaucrat for many years to attack his bosses and campaign politically – not to mention he can’t possibly be spending his work hours wisely and be giving hundreds or thousands of interviews. If nothing else, from what I hear of his code, he should be fired for incompetence.

    Hmm, I think just the reverse. Don’t get me wrong here. He has done all that you said, but…

    He should not be fired, because he is looking to be fired. That allows him to go full on into martyr mode. Each of his actions has been a step further, and a step harder towards “I dare you to fire me!”

    If fired, he would go on the attack full time, using his credentials “Former Director of NASA GISS” etc, just as powerful, and maybe more so. Claiming BushCo want to shut him up etc.

    So much nicer to ignore him

    Robert

  223. SANDMAN says:

    Hi Everyone!

    This site is so great! Hey, I’m wondering, why does the UAH MSU chart look different than the one at: http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#msu_amsu_trend_map_tlt ?

    The real chart shows tropospheric warming–who got the chart here wrong?

  224. Bruce Cobb says:

    Haven’t yet had the chance to wade through it. Besides hip boots you might also want to don a good gas mask first.

  225. John F. Pittman says:

    Steve Moore

    Read no further than the abstract. You will see that 50 million years ago that a fall from as high as 450 +-100 ppm caused a glaciation. Now if you do not want an iceball, what would you want. I would want a 3 sigma. That would be 750 ppm. He should not be saying we need to go to 1988 levels, we should be going for 2088 levels per simple math of the abstract. Perhaps the details will indicate the abstract was a mistake.

  226. statePoet1775 says:

    MarkW,

    You surprise me. I thought you were a libertarian. I have read your other posts and you seem spot on in most of them. Hopefully, YOU are not lazy so please read The Mystery of Banking by Murray N. Rothbard for free at: http://www.mises.org/Books/mysteryofbanking.pdf

    Rothbard is a very famous libertarian. You are a smart guy but you seem to have a blind spot in this area. But it is no surprise, those who profit from the system like to keep it mysterious. A famous quote:

    “The few who can understand the system will be either so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favours, that there will be no opposition from that class, while, on the other hand, that great body of people, mentally
    incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that Capital derives from the system, will bear its burden without complaint and, perhaps, without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests.” – Rothschild Brothers’ of London communique to associates in New York June 25, 1863

  227. Steve Moore says:

    John F. Pittman,

    I read the abstract and was extremely puzzled by it. The point you raise was one reason.

    I’ve flipped through the “supporting material” and seen a number of references to models. I don’t know how much of it relies on models, but I, for one, certainly wouldn’t use a model for “support”.

    Now that home, I may get the time to dig a bit deeper.

  228. richard Jones says:
  229. SunSword says:

    Yes. Hansen does appear to want to fired. This would let him claim (in highly paid speaking engagements) that he was “speaking truth to power” and the evil “warpublicans” fired him. It would let him step aside from his poorly written programs, his questionable manipulation of the past data sets, and the fact that his “theory” has been falsified by the available evidence (it is cooler today than when he started his “the earth is melting” campaign.)

    So. Don’t fire him. Ignore him. Let the evidence sweep him into the ranks of grumbling conspiracy theorists.

  230. Evan Jones says:

    The real chart shows tropospheric warming–who got the chart here wrong?

    There has been some warming since 1979 (which was the pit of the PDO cool phase). This peaked in 1998. Since 1998 there has been a slight cooling trend.

    As of 2007, the PDO has flipped to a cool phase, presaged by a strong la Nina. We are all eager to see what becomes of this development.

  231. Pingback: links for 2008-06-25 | The 'K' is not silent

  232. Pingback: Reader Poll: James Hansen calls for trials of energy executives, what next? « Watts Up With That?

  233. TG says:

    McCain has cut directly to the cure for this problem.

    Ten years late. Should have been done during GM*s EV-1 era in the early *90s.

    Brazil acted. Their sugar ethanol is 7 times more efficient than our corn juice. Brazil had foresight. We had lobbyists.

    McCain offers 300 Million$ incentive promise.

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/23/campaign.wrap/

    All this debate about GW is a an Al Gorical lobby diversion and so much HOT AIR! = TG

  234. David Duff says:

    I’m late – as usual – but I couldn’t help thinking that given the apocolyptic warnings that the end of the worl is nigh and the evident fact from your graph that the the earth is cooler today than when he made his speech, shouldn’t the authorities consider legal action against Hansen? Isn’t there a law about shouting “Fire” in a crowded theatre?

  235. MarkW says:

    statepoet,

    Just because I think you’re nuts for thinking that fractional banking is recent and the evil, means I’m not a libertarian? Is that your definition of libertarian.
    I’ve read Rothbard, he had many usefull insights, but on many areas he went way off the rails. His dislike of bankers in general was one of these areas.

    Instead of limiting yourself to Rothbard, why don’t you try reading any other economist.

  236. MarkW says:

    I’ve been trying to avoid this, because Anthony isn’t running an economics discussion site. This will be my last comment on this topic. (Unless someone says something so outrageous that I can’t contain myself. Self control has never been one of my strengths.)

    Fractional banking does not create money.

    Let’s create a simple scenario of two people and two banks.
    Person 1 deposits $100 into bank A. The fractional reserve requirements are 10%. So bank A is able to loans $90 to person 2, who deposits that money into bank B.
    Now if you add up the amounts in the bank accounts of persons 1 and 2, it comes to $190. It looks like $90 has been created. It hasn’t. There is still only $100. $10 in the vaults of bank A, and $90 in the vaults of bank B.

    If money had been created, then if person 1 asked to withdraw all $100 dollars from his bank account, he wouldn’t get it. He would only get $10, which all that bank A has in it’s vault.

    The reason why such failures don’t occur is because each bank has lots of customers, and all of their money is pooled in the vault. If one customer makes a large withdrawl (or writes a large check, which is really the same thing), there is enough money in the vault to cover it. The money is then replaced as loans are paid down.

    Rothbard’s mistake, and yours, is thinking that the sum of the bank accounts is money. It’s not. The reason it isn’t, is because it fails to includes debts as well as assets.

    Back to my scenario above.
    Person 1 has a bank account with $100 in it.
    Person 2 has a bank account with $90 in it.
    This analysis is incomplete, because Person 2 also has a debt of $90 to bank A.
    So:
    $100 + $90 -$90 = $100.

    When you do complete accounting, and add in the debts owed as well as the bank account balances, the mystery is fully resolved. No money has been created, just a misconception based on incomplete knowledge of how banking works.

  237. Brendan says:

    Ric Werme (05:19:25) :
    Plutonium is used in some reactors as part of our non-proliferation efforts. We have been paying the ruskies to take their nucs apart and we then mix the plutonium in with uranium as fuel. Its reaction is as good as uranium given the proper mixture. And for bitebybyte – wouldn’t you rather have the plutonium being used up for power and being removed from the bomb making pool? Your devotion to ideology in spite of the common good is showing… What do you have against nuclear? Lets have it… Beyond, of course, nuclear = bombs = evil…. That holds no water at all.

  238. statePoet1775 says:

    MarkW,

    Yes, statistically, fractional reserve banking works most of the time for the reasons you point out. But money IS being created even if it is a loan. Person 1 can spend his $100 dollars and Person 2 can spend his $90. But it gets worse, Person 3 can spend $81, Person 4 can spend $72.90, etc. It adds up to 10 times the original $100 for a 10% reserve.

    Banks cause inflation when they lend money. When it is repaid, deflation results. This is why we have booms and busts.

    I love free market capitalism. The boom-bust cycle gives it a bad name and leads to more socialism. If we end up with more socialism it will be because of the rotten tooth of fractional (read fraudulent) reserve banking. Before central banking was created, bank-runs kept fractional reserve banking in check.

    It is based on both FRAUD and THEFT via inflation. How can it not lead to trouble? Read the history of it and you will see its dishonest roots. It is simply a means of cheating by creating and lending out money.

    This may seem off topic in this blog but a dishonest money system has allowed the growth of government to the point where it literally takes one’s breath away (CO2 is part of our breath, get it?)

    As a libertarian, just the words “government backed cartel” should get your attention. That is why the Fed was created, to head up the banking cartel.

    We can drop this topic. Banking is tedious, too bad it requires any attention at all.

  239. MarkW says:

    Let’s see, I show that loaning money does not create money when it is done the first time. You come back with, yea, well it does the second, or the third, …

    The same equation applies no matter how many times the money is loaned.

    This banking “cartel” exists only in your imagination.

    Banks do not create money, as I demonstrated. The fact that you would prefer to live in your little fantasy world rather than deal with the complexities of reality is your problem. I wash my hands of you.

  240. statePoet1775 says:

    MarkW,

    http://www.lewrockwell.com is the most heavily visited libertarian site. I suggest the articles by Dr. Gary North. http://www.mises.org is also good.

    Things are often made unnecessarily complicated to mask simple truths.

    Where am Pam?
    When she has her say,
    there’s room for much play.
    May she come back today.

  241. statePoet1775 says:

    MarkW,

    A simple example to ease your confusion. Using your example, Person1 withdraws his $100 and Person2 withdraws his $90. They both go to an auction. They both want the same item. Person2 bids up the price higher than what Person1 would have had to pay if a fractional reserve loan had not been made to Person2. Person1 wins the bid but has to pay a higher price.

    Person1 is thus cheated by the inflation caused by fractional reserve banking. When Person2 repays his loan, deflation results which has problems of its own.

  242. TG says:

    Mark W,

    Banking could never be reduced to mere numbers.

    Banking consists of a minimum of cash on hand and a maximum of 99.9% confidence.

    Due to a terrible [im-]balance of trade and petroleum cased inflation in every sector, that 99.9% confidence is slipping badly, however, it has a very long way to go.

    Besides, there are dozens of inflation beating devices now in our monetary system that were not there in 1928, so there is not too much to worry about.

    Bob Lutz, GM*s Volt guru, says ** Global warming is a crock of shit **. [ he*s an ex-marine pilot, owns and flies two surplus fighter jets for fun and collects used cars like Jay Leno. ] , so you just know he*s right. . . eh?

    Time to get real guys. As it stands, looks like LG Chem has the winning Lithium battery for the Chevvy Volt, but stay tuned, that could change in favour of production in the USA or Canada . . . I hope.

    BTW, you are aware of . . .
    Smith electric truck fleets bobbing about London and paying no congestion fees?
    About the electric vehicle mail delivery system in France ensuring business as usual regardless of any gas or diesel shortages?
    Taxies in Paris running on compressed air?
    Taxies in NYCity switching to Ford hybrids?
    Taxies in Chicago switching to hybrids with a shove from the mayor?
    Safeway, Walmart and others changing to Peterbilt hybrid fleets?
    Lots more happening in India, [Tata motors], China, Switzerland, Sweden and the whole EU.

    AutoBlogGreen.com

    This human industry cures REAL problems like Pollution and inflation.

    Volcanoes, meteors and Sun flares have been bouncing global warming up and down since the dawn of time . . . yawn. = TG

  243. Chance Metz says:

    i would hint at natural global warming there?

  244. floreign says:

    I’ve rarely seen a more pointless discussion over a real subject like this one. The only thing I am seeing here is, I’m sorry to say it, but political agenda.

    I believe it’s not fair to condemn the child who has the courage to affirm that the emperor is naked. Likewise, Jim Hansen is not liable for the higher price you are paying at pump. So please give him a hand by cooling yourselves off!

  245. MarkW says:

    poet,

    You admit that you know nothing about how banking works.
    You declare that you have no interest in learning because it’s so complicated.
    You declare that since Rothbard has declared it’s a fraud, it must be.

    Now replace banking with AGW and Rothbard with Hansen.

    No difference. Your both mindless robots following the man who says what you want to hear.

    As to your example of the auction. Are you honestly going to tell me that you are stupid enough to believe that this is an example of inflation?:??????

  246. MarkW says:

    poet,

    Those who think that everything is simple, are usually guilty of being pretty simple themselves.

  247. MarkW says:

    TG,

    Asset inflation is not general inflation. General inflation is caused when the federal reserve inflats the money supply faster than the economy is growing. And that’s the ONLY cause of inflation.

    If you are paying more money for gas, then you have less money with which to buy other things. As a result, you buy less of these other things. The drop in demand for these other things results in a drop in price for them.

    Since there are thousands of other things, the drop in price is thousands of times less (on average). It’s easy to see the rise in the one thing (gas), it’s hard to see the drop in everything else.

  248. MarkW says:

    Is it fair to condemn the child who says the emperor is naked, when in fact the emperor is fully clothed?

  249. Pamela Gray says:

    Mark, thank you for the reasoned explanation on banking. I am just finishing a biography on Alexander Hamilton. He was a key player in the development of national banking when our Republic was in its infancy. Like it or not, it was the vehicle that led us out of the Revolution on to solvency as a nation. Otherwise, our credit would have been in the tank and industrialization put off for many, many, more decades.

    Comment on oil/stock market price as an incentive for development: I don’t think higher prices are an incentive for oil production right now. Oil is a volatile market right now. Currently, price does not stand on dependable reasons. The bubble window of profits is very risky. I would not want to invest in expensive to extract oil if current prices are the result of a bubble. What happens if the bubble breaks (like the stock market bubble did after the Clinton administration), prices fall to more reasonable levels, stocks tank to a level current stock holders will not tolerate, and profits go back to being thin to non-existent for expensive to extract oil?

    IMHO: The only way around this is to provide incentives (both positive and negative, and not just on companies) for companies (oil and any other company that wants to break into the field) to start the process of shale oil recovery and refinement, liquid coal production, nuclear energy, solar and wind where it works, synthetic gas and diesel production, improving exhaust scrubbers that don’t decrease fuel efficiency, etc. Forget a trip to Mars or going to war with some piddly ant country. We do, however, need a “going to the moon” or WWII-like national agenda to ration ourselves, sacrifice for the common goal, drop our political agendas and philosophies to a more common level for a while, live on less for a while, and whatever else is needed to get this country to a state of fuel independence. GW is not the real threat to our nation, nor is it the reason for high oil prices as the pump. Depending on outside sources of fuel is.

    In a very real way, foreign oil is like King George and British rule of old. We need an American Revolution, fought with or without guns, to gain our independence from King Oil.

  250. Evan Jones says:

    Pamela: I agree about the volatility of oil.

    My solution would be to remove all penalties and incentives from ALL forms of energy. I would be the true market would decide better than any given alternative.

    We have been praciticing “energy policy” for the past 30+ years and, as I see it, it has done far more harm than good.

    It’s like cooking rice. The best way to do it is just to let it happen. Opening up the pot is bad enough. Stirring is a total disaster. Just leave it alone!

  251. statePoet1775 says:

    “You declare that since Rothbard has declared it’s a fraud, it must be.” MarkW

    Just read the history of banking and judge for yourself. It clearly went from two forms of honest banking, “deposit” banking and loan banking to the current corrupt system which combines the two.

    But as the current economic crisis shows, something is rotten in our banking system.

    Mark, I guess you will try to blame the Fed for all the banking woes and you would not be far wrong. But your local banker and everyone who benefits off cheap loans at the expense of everyone else is at fault too. This is why the Fed continues to hang on, it has made a lot of people dependent on the loot fractional reserve banking generates.

    We have become a nation of victims and/or victimizers because of a corrupt banking system.

    On the other hand, you and Pam have found common ground. Congratulations :)

  252. BUCKO36 says:

    Evan Jones (09:34:22) :
    I concure 100% with your solution.
    Let the “free market” work!!!!
    This country has been served “Bad Rice” long enough.

  253. statePoet1775 says:

    1) If it moves, tax it.
    2) If it keeps moving, regulate it.
    3) And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
    4) See Pam Gray for further instructions.

    Thanks to Ronald Reagan for 1 -3.

  254. Gary Gulrud says:

    floreign:

    You assume what you wish to prove-that your anologies/metaphors are apt and fair. Should you wish to begin again, we’ll grant a mulligan but you are not permitted to tee-up with the pros.

  255. floreign says:

    Oh, no, I’m cool. I guess I have my own “agenda” to fulfill today.

  256. Evan Jones says:

    This country has been served “Bad Rice” long enough.

    You know, I think I would mind it less if it weren’t for the intense (and costly) efforts to convince us (and the kiddies) that it is good rice.

    dstealy: Like so totally!

    PoetSam: C’mon, give Ronnie baby a break. He cut federal taxes by half and federal revenues were 28% greater after 8 years, even factoring in inflation. (And overall revenues were up a heck of a lot more.)

    He did more for the cause of genuine Liberalism than any president this century. (Though neither liberal nor conservative seems willing to admit it. anna v might possibly understand this!)

  257. statePoet1775 says:

    Evan,

    I was just giving Ronnie credit for quotes 1 – 3, that’s all. I guess I should have used quote marks instead.

    BTW, low taxes are part of the solution but an honest monetary system is another important part.

  258. Pamela Gray says:

    Unfortunately under-regulated industry (of any kind, not just oil) demonstrates its one weakness. China has very lax regulations on small businesses. So much so that in order to import safe products, the US has to step in and provide regulations. Mad cow disease is another case of lax regulations. And the US stepped in to provide the regulations needed to keep consumer products (and the process of making those products) safe. Childhood disease is yet another example. Polio struck poor and rich alike. Without regulations, we would still be dealing with Polio. Mining for gold is another example. The water canons used to blast away the hillside sent pretty nasty stuff into the streams and rivers down below and unnaturally destabilized the otherwise slow eroding process on steep slopes.

    Without regulations, consumers would be at the mercy of companies and stock holders who can afford to steer clear of the environmental damage caused by manufacturing or processing, and can steer clear of potentially unsafe products by getting what they need elsewhere.

    The other end of excessive regulations leads to it’s own set of problems and has its one weakness. Without profits, no one has a job.

    The middle ground is a viable place to be. It is legitimate. It has value. It works. Hansen’s attempt to keep serious discussion and open-mindedness off of his pet theory is similar to anyone here who vehemently espouses one theory over another (be it banking, capitalism and its many forms, or models), reducing the discussion to name-calling, sound bites, and boyish king of the mountain posts.

  259. Evan Jones says:

    PoetSam: Oh, okay. I was slow on the uptake.

  260. Evan Jones says:

    Pamela: Agreed. I am certainly not opposed to all regulation. I strongly support reasonable restraints and obligations such as basic safety, cleanup, truth in labeling and advertising.

    Subsidies are another ball of wax. Ideas should rise and fall on their own.

  261. statePoet1775 says:

    Pam,

    The problem with your middle of the road approach is you would (apparently) be satisfied with a compromise between honest and dishonest. In that regard, you are more European than American. Europeans take corruption for granted for historical reasons. Americans are idealists. When we are right, we are very right and serve as an excellent example to the rest of the world. When we are wrong, we tend to be very wrong, as a trip to the airport will demonstrate.

    Not only do you not have a good grasp of liberty but you don’t have an appreciation for principles either. I have not called you names up to now, but pragmatic Pam seems appropriate.

    In the short run, pragmatism may be necessary. But in the long run, it’s principles that matter.

    Still, you sound like a fine person and I like you but I would not trust you with much power. Your non-principled good intentions would cause much damage.

    I attack fractional reserve banking because it appears to be at the root of many problems, including depressions and wars. I am not alone in this opinion. Since you have read about Hamilton, I suggest you read what his contemporaries said about FRB, particularly Jefferson. But it is a also a no-brainer for me since it is based on fraud and theft (particularly from the poor).

    I reckon though, you’ll be satisfied with the status quo till we are knee deep in another depression and/or world war. How sad that in the 21st century we still have such things.

  262. Pamela Gray says:

    Dear Poet:

    The biographer presented a very balanced view of Hamilton, and included the views of his contemporaries who did not like the banking scheme. The biographer does not write to prove a point of view. The biographer writes to inform. My favorite kind of book.

    You write to prove your point and to paint the opposing view in very negative terms. Many politicians seeking office follow that kind of rhetoric but why use it here? Why not inform me about your opinions like I inform you about mine and dispense with the negative brush strokes you use on opposing opinions? While you may prefer and like such discourse and are entitled to use it, I do not and will not.

    And are we not accusing Hansen of doing this very thing? Painting his opposition in negative terms as a strategy for proving his point of view?

  263. statePoet1775 says:

    Pam,

    I have tried to inform with links to books and examples and famous quotes. I have received ridicule and insults for my patient efforts.
    Your problem with me is that when I am convinced about something I get passionate about it. Sorry, but passion does not equal error. Nor does cold bloodedness equal truth.

    I have not attacked anyone in this blog, it is bad ideas I attack.
    To show you my good intentions a poem:

    bright colors in nature

    Redheads are my bane;
    I loose all my wits;
    I go quite insane.
    It’s not really my fault;
    I’m just a moth,
    drawn to a beautiful flame.

    Still, it stands to good reason
    that red’s not for pleasing
    but to serve as a warning a head.

  264. MarkW says:

    Pamela,

    It’s true that oil prices are volatile, and are currently in a bubble, however, nobody expects the fall when it comes to take prices back to $30/barrel oil, or below.

    Most analysts think the new floor is closer to $50/barrel. And that’s a high enough price to justify lots of new development.

  265. MarkW says:

    poet,

    Your problem is not your passion, it’s that you let your passion for an idea override your critical thinking abilities.

    Yes, you can find a few cranks who think modern banking is a scam. You can also find hundreds of others who will shred the arguments of the cranks like so much holiday confetti.

    Your passion for an idea causes you to read only those authors who agree with the position you want to believe in and ignore all the others.

    That’s why I compared you to an AGW believer, and Rothbard to Hansen.

  266. statePoet1775 says:

    MarkW,

    I’ve thought about this for a long time from every angle. I could probably argue the opposing side better than most bankers. But despite all the fancy arguments and justifications, it turns out to be a sophisticated cheat invented long ago. Since then, it has financed wars, caused insane booms ( the Tulip Craze, etc), caused depressions, transferred wealth from the poor to the rich and resulted in the welfare state to compensate the victims of it.

    Believing what I do, I would have to be a cold-fish indeed to not be passionate.

    But I am willing to listen to reason. Please give me another single culprit that can account for insane booms, depressions, unnecessary wars, the growth in the welfare state and the fact we still have these things in the 21st century.

    The difference between Hansen and me is he wants to restrict liberty; I wish to expand it. Get the government out of the money business. Allow competing currencies as Ron Paul suggests. Eliminate legal tender laws. As for FRB, it is dishonest, but good old fashioned bank runs might keep it in check.

    I am the libertarian in this discussion unless I have misunderstood you.

  267. Pamela Gray says:

    Mark: I agree. At $50, the floor of potential profits from hard to extract oil products, we should see development. I see that some companies are doing just that. But it isn’t a boon in development. And I think the volatility of the market is keeping investors away. How long should we wait? I think temporary measures should be taken to stabilize the market, reduce restrictions, and provide temporary incentives to companies and investors to get the ball rolling a bit faster. All such measures, incentives as well as controls, should be temporary, time limited not result limited, and not up for sunset review when the time comes to end these measures.

    Poet: Your attacks are subtle yet still inflammatory. Saying I would apparently accept dishonest practices and that I am more European instead of American is the stuff of negative campaigning. And by the way, love the last poem, but I’m full. I need a rest.

  268. Evan Jones says:

    Pamela: #B^1

    I consider your input to be valuable.

    Hang in there.

    (And if all else fails, beat it out of the squeeze!)

  269. statePoet1775 says:

    Amen, Evan. Without Pam, this would be a lot less fun.

  270. statePoet1775 says:

    Pam get up,
    and eat your toast,
    and tell us what’s happening
    on the left coast.

  271. Pamela Gray says:

    Let’s see. We are trying to gain back private control from the Government of our forests here in NE Oregon (years ago they were sold to the Feds with a promise of timber revenues – haha). We are trying to prevent city ordinances like event fees and regulations. We are trying to use our water like we used to without interference from conquered nations. You know. Leftist stuff like that.

    geez

  272. statePoet1775 says:

    Pam,

    When you say “conquered nations” are you referring to the previous owners before da white man?

    When I learned about “Manifest Destiny” in school, I really wanted to believe in it since it was very convenient. I always felt uneasy about it though and this was way before political correctness. I had the same problem with “The Monroe Doctrine” too.

    I guess I justified every thing eventually because of the alleged superiority of our culture. I no longer think we are morally superior.

    Any excuse for a rhyme:


    My country used to be

    We used to be a light on a hill
    till we lost patience
    and set out to kill.

  273. Timo van Druten says:

    I understand that he has testified as a private citizen and not as a director of GISS and/or a climate scientist. Therefore, any appeal for his resignation would limit his freedom of speech. As a private citizen he is entitled to freedom of speech just like you and me.

    At the same time he can be ignored. His private opinion is as good or bad as ours. Maybe he has studied atmospheric science, but failed to like to look outside and check whether his computer model(s) do meet reality.

    I am wondering why he is testifying as a private citizen. If I look at the testimony of 1988 it looks like he acted director of GISS. Do rules within NASA no longer allow him and others to testify in a way he did last Monday?

  274. jeeztheadmin says:

    Sigh,

    Freedom of Speech has nothing to do with employment rights guarantees. It simply means one cannot be arrested by the government for making statements the government objects to. Private companies and the State are perfectly within their rights to terminate employment of individuals with objectionable positions.

    The man is an embarrassment to NASA, whether an embarrassment on the clock or off, he should go.

    Also, someone like Hansen cannot testify as a private citizen. When he speaks he carries the weight of his position.

  275. jeeztheadmin says:

    I wish to quote a recent Patrick Michaels article in the National Review to elaborate on my above comment:

    Speaking of crimes, what about the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from electioneering? In the hotly contested state of Iowa, on October 26, 2004, Hansen gave a public speech in which he stated that “John Kerry has a far better grasp than President Bush on the important issues that we face.” Kerry lost Iowa by a mere 10,000 votes.

    Yet Hansen persists. He recently said “the 2008 election is critical for the planet. If Americans turn out to pasture the most brontosaurian congressmen,” maybe we’ll be able to save the planet from the doom he envisions this century. Hansen also wants to tax fossil fuels, making them much more expensive than they are already.

    So even though he predicted too much global warming, and his numbers couldn’t explain the ten-year hiatus we’ve experienced, Hansen keeps trying to sway presidential and congressional contests. And he wants to incarcerate any CEO (or scientist, probably) who casts doubt on his vision in public.

    The fact of the matter is: Hansen is out of control. NASA employees aren’t supposed to call for tax hikes, endorse candidates, or attack businessmen. Any other federal employee would be warned for doing so, and if he continued, fired (or worse). You have to hand it to him, though: he’s a single, scientific outlier, terrorizing the American people.

    Hansen should be fired. He is constantly in violation in the Hatch Act.

  276. Thank you for posting the monthly temp data – amazing so few bother to check Hansen’s predictions against the actual results.

    More here:

    http://tinyurl.com/6cms9f

  277. bitebybyte says:

    For the record, I meant to type uranium, not plutonium. Why, you ask, is Uranium-based / nuclear power bad? Mainly, it’s byproducts are a diverse number of radioactive elements (fission doesn’t often split atoms in even twos), many that easily kill humans. Secondly, there is no good plan to store the radioactive waste (Yucca is a no go — unless you’re a fan of shipping it all cross country) and no good way to “label” it so 10,000 years from now humans will know not to mess with it. I still stand by my position — the energy must lead now on alternatives/renewables, or we’re all screwed by 2100.

  278. TokyoTom says:

    Anthony, Hansen’s a scientist, not a legislator, prosecutor, judge or jury. So obviously his expressions are intended for political impact now.

    While I don’t condone some of his language, it’s the unfortunate kind of stuff that is unavoidable when we have battles over resources that no one owns (and where resources users don’t bear the full costs of their activities) and so we have people with different economic interests and preferences fighting over how government is used. I’ve put up several comments on this at at my blog.

    TT

  279. Pingback: Antarctic Ice Anomaly At All-Time High

Comments are closed.