Failing to make his case, James Hansen uses children as legal pawns

From LiveScience, another reason for NASA to fire Jame Hansen now:

Here’s the basis for his actions in a nutshell:

If carbon dioxide emissions aren’t reduced in time, the Earth will pass a tipping point with irreversible, catastrophic consequences, including the disintegration of ice sheets and large-scale extinction of species, according to the scientific analysis Hansen provided to the lawsuit.

I think Dr. Hansen has lost it. Earth has had higher CO2 concentrations several times in its history and it didn’t head to runaway roasting. So far, this all hinges on positive feedbacks, and there doesn’t seem to be much conclusive evidence for it. Here’s what Pielke Sr. has to say about CO2 as a control knob for Earth’s climate system.

Read Dr. Hansen’s latest non peer reviewed paper where he justifies to himself the use of kids as legal pawns here:

The Case for Young People and Nature: A Path to a Healthy, Natural, Prosperous Future

About these ads

158 thoughts on “Failing to make his case, James Hansen uses children as legal pawns

  1. This is child abuse -if Mr. Hansen achieves his goal of destroying modern civilization,
    These kids have no future except as cooks and serfs for the folks in the ‘Big House..’

  2. Using children as pawns is part of their standard modus operandi:

    A friend of mine has children aged 6 and 7 who came home one day and told their parents to put the lights out or the polar bears are going to die.

    This is outrageous abuse.

  3. “I think Dr. Hansen has lost it.”

    I nominate this as the Self-evident Statement of the Year…

    PS
    I propose that we confiscate ALL the research funds slated for NASA/GISS to defray the legal costs incurred by the government (i.e. the taxpayers) in defending this frivolous lawsuit!

  4. jeeez, it’s all about us

    No fun trying to sue China….

    People just are not buying it any more, they missed their tipping points, their predictions have been wrong….
    They keep claiming it’s not weather, and keep making weather predictions that make them look like total idiots

    It’s a hard sell when people can’t make their house payments, to tell them “energy prices will naturally have to go up under my plan”

  5. Dr. Hansen has demonstrably passed the “tipping point”. What a messed up individual. He and Gore must be blood relatives.

  6. When I was a boy in the 1950s, my father told me ‘The very worst thing you can say of a man is “He meant well”.’ At the time, I didn’t fully understand – I thought he was simply talking about failure, and I could certainly think of worse things than failure.

    Men like Hansen illustrate what he was really talking about.

  7. My teenage sons have profound interest in insuring that their money is not wasted away to nothing. Already they face a huge debt just to pay for our social security and medicare, plus all the other government debt. The last thing in the world they need is higher energy taxes, or higher energy cost imposed by mandate use of inefficient energy sources. This is especially silly since there is no need for it. Nor should my sons have to put up with rolling blackouts and energy shortages because of the use of intermittent power sources like wind and solar.

  8. The tipping point was passed long ago.

    The one question, if it matters, was exactly when, irreversibly, catastrophically, Hansen went over the edge. The other question is when the noticeable consequences will start. Sometime after 2012?

  9. It’s about time people wake up and see how their kids are being used and subjected to abuse, by the any means necessary enviro-movement. As well as political power grabs of the bought and paid for politicians at the hands of special interest. It’s not just the nut-jobs on the left but right as well. The masses just sit there while these people use their tax dollars to strip them of their liberty wither it be threw the courts, presidential executive orders, or legislation. Now not only have they indoctrinated our children they want to use them as pawns/tools in the judicial system. The parents I am sure are going along with it cause they can push their beliefs vicariously through their children……They don’t care about the “children” unless they can use them and it seems to be they way of the parents as well.

    Sad days ahead my friends if we continue to let these people get away with stealing the minds of our children.

  10. I know it is bad behaviour to copy a post from another thread, but it seems wise for me to copy to here what I recently wrote on another thread of WUWT which considered the same subject as this thread. It seems wise for me to copy it in the light of the “bring it on” comments above and considering that this thread directly mentions James Hansen: some people may not be aware of his past ‘form’.

    The post I am copying was in the thread at

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/04/desperate-measures-indeed/

    and is as follows.

    Please note that it provides two illustrations of the problem it explains: one court case was won by the the anti-AGW side and the other was won by pro-AGW activists on the basis of James Hansen’s testimony.

    Richard

    Richard S Courtney says:
    May 5, 2011 at 3:27 am

    Friends:

    There is a real risk here.

    Legal evidence and scientific evidence are very different.

    Expert opinions of available technical information are evidence in a law court, and the most authoritative of those opinions are accepted as being “facts”.

    Empirical data are evidence in science, and the data are accepted as being “facts” unless and until other empirical data disproves them. Interpretations of the data are opinions that have equal worth (regardless of the expertise of the opinion holders) so long as the opinions are consistent with the data.

    Courts of law do not evaluate scientific evidence (how could they?). Instead, when confronted with conflicting interpretations of a technical issue, law courts evaluate the expertise of the holders of expert opinions. So, in a court of law, the Expert Witness with the greatest authority in a technical field provides the technical “facts” which the court accepts as being the most definitive legal evidence.

    The Kingsnorth Power Station trial in the UK demonstrated the seriousness of the problem that the nature of legal evidence provides for those who want scientific evidence assessed in a court of law.

    Eco-terrorists had attacked the power station by cutting through its boundary fence to effect entry, then climbing its chimney and painting graffiti on it. This cost the owners of the power station much money for repairs, removal of the graffiti and – most importantly – having to close down the power station while the eco-terrorists were removed. These facts were not disputed.

    However, the law of England allows a person to damage another person’s property if that damage is needed to prevent more serious harm; e.g. a door of a burning building may need to be smashed to rescue a child trapped in the building, or property may need to be destroyed to create a fire-break that will stop progress of a fire that is out of control, or… etc.

    The eco-terrorists claimed that the carbon dioxide emissions from the power station are causing severe climate change which is much more harmful than any harm and costs caused by their attack on the power station. Indeed, their case was that the interruption of the power station’s operation induced by their attack was a greater benefit than the costs and damage of their attack.

    This case (presented by the eco-terrorists) is clearly untrue – it is ridiculous – according to available scientific evidence. But they won their case and were acquitted.

    Their acquittal resulted from Dr James Hansen travelling to the UK to attend as an Expert Witness for their defence. He is Head of NASA GISS and, therefore, is a very authoritative Expert Witness. The government of the USA has appointed Dr Hansen to that position and, therefore, the government of the USA has declared that he is a supreme authority on climate change effected by power station emissions.

    In the face of that expert opinion, the court had no option other than to accept the case presented by the eco-terrorists as being true and, therefore, it acquitted them.

    Another UK legal case demonstrates the same problem.

    A legal attempt successfully stopped indoctrination of children by showing Mr Al Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth” in schools without warning that the film was a political document. The UK government was the defendant because it wanted the showing of the film without comment in schools. But the Court found against the UK government because
    (a) the UK government agreed that the UN IPCC was the supreme authority on climate change
    and
    (b) the film did not agree with scientific statements of the IPCC.

    In summation:
    governments declare peoples’ authority as “experts” by appointing them,
    courts accept the words of “experts” with greatest authority as being “facts”,
    and law courts decide on the basis of those “facts”.

    Hence, defending scientific truth of AGW in a court of law is very, very difficult.

    Richard

  11. ““I think Dr. Hansen has lost it.”

    I nominate this as the Self-evident Statement of the Year…”

    Agreed . . . what we refer to up here in snowdrift land as a:

    “A Blinding Flash of the Obvious”

  12. “…. our climate remains stable enough….”

    Pray tell, when has our climate ever been “stable” or even “unstable?” From what I have gleened from the information published here and elsewhere is that the one constant is that the climate changes following a pattern. Periods of cold, followed by periods of warmth, so on and so on. That is the true “stable,” change. I wonder what judge they have shopped for, because I see an inevitable overturning of any judgement in the plaintiff’s favor.

  13. Dave says:

    “Will the government defend itself or throw the case to promote cap and trade?”

    The government has played games like that in the past.

  14. According to Hansen et al

    More winter precipitation is falling as rain rather than snow in the Northern Hemisphere

    Hmmm…. was this written prior to 2009?

    and this:

    A dramatic awakening was provided by sudden widespread decline of frogs, with extinction of entire mountain-restricted species attributed to global warming (Pounds et al., 1999, 2006).

    He acknowledges in the following sentence that this was shown to be untrue in in 2007, but never mind, leave in the false statement anyway.

  15. There is clearly no lower limit to the type of behavior that these people will stoop. It is really disappointing, but no longer surprising.

  16. Interesting. So nutjob himself may be called upon to go under cross examination of the evidence he has submitted? Let’s hope so.

  17. Kids: Using the ‘Default King’ as your expert isn’t a good idea. Maybe God did it!

  18. “Algebra says:
    May 10, 2011 at 7:51 am
    Can’t wait for him to testify. The cross-examination will be priceless.”

    I don’t know about that! They sued the Government, and the Government is interested in keeping the HOAX going as long as possible to try to get tax revenue and power. I would not expect the cross-examination to destroy the illusion of imminent destruction of life on planet Earth unless we eliminate carbon dioxide from the atmosphere!

  19. I like it. All in all, a smart(TM) plan: “…a simple, transparent, gradually rising fee on carbon emissions collected, with the proceeds distributed to the public .”* Yum, yum, yum!

    But wait, there’s more; we will want to share a little for a few minor expenses for some necessities: “A gradually rising carbon price is the sine qua non, but it must be combined with a portfolio of other actions: energy research and development with demonstration programs; public investment in complementary infrastructure such as improved electric grids; global monitoring systems; energy efficiency regulations; public education and awareness; support for climate change mitigation and adaptation in undeveloped countries.”** No problem, plenty to go around and with simplicity and transparency, what can possibly go wrong?

    The rest of the paper, barring several frightening graphs showing temperatures rocket launching into orbit, is mainly pretty fluff, “poppies red and roses filled with summer rain.”***

    * James Hansen et al., “The Case for Young People and Nature: A Path to a Healthy, Natural, Prosperous Future,” p. 21.

    ** Ibid.

    ***Ian Anderson/Jethro Tull, “Songs from the Wood,” Aqualung, 1971.

  20. As I recall, during the “enfatata” in Israel, when they ran out of idiot adults to commit suicide for the cause, they went to mentally deficient teenagers.

    I don’t know why, but I see a parallel here!

    Max

  21. I cannot invision Lisa Jackson, et. al., calling any skeptics to testify against Hansen and this lunacy. The government is not an adversary in this situation. It is rigged.

  22. I think we need to start asking those making the wild claims what they actually mean by “climate change”. What constitutes “climate change”? What defines “climate”? Is it just the range of limits of weather during some period of time? What the heck do they actually mean? What are they actually freaked out about? 1c warmer? I’ve lived in a range of 82c from -46c in Edmonton (without wind chill factor) to +38c… what is 1c to me? Nothing but a more pleasant day. So I don’t get it. I do get that a new ice age would be classified as a bit of a major change in climate but that’s happened lots of times before and will happen again. So what is “climate change”? Do they actually think that there is some “normal” climate that is the “desired climate”? If so what is that? Why would they think that? I think it’s important that we PIN them down with specifics so that we can know what the heck they are actually talking about when they say “climate change” along with their doomsday scenarios.

    I’m serious. We need Hansen, Gore, Jones, Briffa, Wahl, et. al. to clearly define their term “climate change” in specifics. Maybe they already have? If so then let’s collect up all their definitions of “climate change” and all their wild claims (which require extraordinary evidence) and make a big html table of it all. Let’s see where they stand based upon their own words.

  23. The costs for Hansen’s “solution” would impoverish these children and condemn those already in poverty to staying there. A good legal defender would make the case one of competing models (climate versus economic). A jury will fall asleep or laugh the plaintiffs out of court.

  24. Listen very carefully to Richard S Courtney. The UK case he outlines are frighteningly representative of what can happen. Fortunately, in the US, there are many ‘counter-experts’ to be called upon…however: Will they get called?

    This obscene use of ‘glurge’ to make the case is all-too-familiar to the spoon-fed TV generation, all I can say is: I hope it backfires soundly. This is wrong on so many levels!

  25. Does anyone know what is the evidentiary standard in a case like this? Is it “beyond a reasonable doubt” or is it “the preponderance of the evidence”?

  26. I agree with many of the comments above. What can we do, individually and as a group, to get this worm discredited and fired from NASA? We can’t just ‘talk’ about this….

    How do we take action to stop this ‘expert witness’ from using gullible children and the legal system to set precedence based on his twisted opinions, that then get cited in subsequent cases?

  27. I get the picture. On one side of the argument we have highly acclaimed scientist Hansen, the vast majority of researchers working in climate science and their actual data, supported by virtually all of the Academies of Science and other national/international professional organizations, and on the other side we have Pielke Sr, and a scattering of other well-known deniers and their followers, supported by a well organized industry financed cadre of PR types. When politicians fail to act on clear evidence and the consequences of inaction are catastrophic, a legal remedy becomes necessary.

  28. Where in the Constitution is the Federal Government given the job of controlling the atmosphere?

  29. …then there’s always the government just conceding and entering into a dissent decree which would bind the government to a policy without the benefit of legislation.

  30. I don’t understand Richard Courtney’s explanation of ‘experts’ If the courts only take notice of experts selected by the Govt., and these tend to be warmist, then AGW will be proven in the courts. This needs to be looked at since the appointment of an ‘expert’ can be a political decision. I do not favour courts ruling on politics. This must be the preserve of the legislature. If the courts are willing to entertain suits about science then we seriously need judges who can understand science and it processes. I see no evidence of this although Margaret Thatcher did turn to law after achieving a science degree. (She was never a judge).

    The problem is that science presents itself as the truth handed down from high. At best, it is usually the the most workable solution we can come up with at the moment. Yes, it can be tested but passing the tests doesn’t mean the science is right; just that for the moment it seems to work. But a great deal of work and many reputations are staked on the current solution so a new solution always has to work very hard to be accepted. A good example is the theory of continental drift which took many years to be accepted but then suddenly became the norm.
    The case for AGW has been so intense that it can be fairly compared to a cult with its proponents even calling for those who oppose the view to be prosecuted. The courts are going to have to step back a little from this if they are to maintain their independence and simply state that this is outside their competence. As much as would like to see the AGWs shot down in court, it is far better that this suit fails at the outset since the courts can provide no remedy since atmosphereis a worldwide phenomenom, thank God.

  31. I rather my grandchildren’s lives not be nasty, brutish, and short, like on Hansen’s side of the Looking Glass.
    ===========

  32. My granddaughter visited a couple of weeks ago.

    She was the one to bring up AGW, Climate Change, whatever the PC term is in vogue today.

    She explained how it was a bunch of hooey. For starters, she pointed out we have only been measuring many of trends involved for only a century, at best. Not long enough to draw any conclusions at all, she said.

    Not too bad for a 12 year old.

    Propaganda will not work on her or any other critically thinking individual.

  33. This is a very odd situation. The lawsuit now has the state requesting/requiring the skeptics to offer contrary evidence to defend themselves. Perhaps this is what Hansen wants, though: an opportunity to have the courts determine the scientific legitimacy of CAGW.

    Hansen is crazy, but perhaps crazy as a fox.

    Be aware. Be very aware of becoming involved. It would be better if the courts were to dismiss the lawsuit as being outside the courts’ jurisdiction.

  34. Thing that I don’t understand is: How he can get paychek from the government and work in GISS.

  35. Hansen says: “Another ice age will never occur, unless humans go extinct.”

    Hmmm….which one do you think he’s rooting for?

  36. I used to think that Hansen was just another political opportunist riding the AGW gravy train. But his panicky shrieks of “Censorship!” back in the Dubya administration when they told him to stop issuing global warming crapola as official NASA positions (note that he was still, specifically, free to publish on his own; he just couldn’t wear the funny NASA hat) seemed a little odd. But some of the protests he’s been arrested at, this weirdness…

    Yeah, I think he’s simply crazy.

    And the way he’s been self-publishing “papers” without peer review suggests to me that just maybe his fellow warmistas also see him as a nut-case liability now.

  37. “Using kids as legal pawns?” er…hate to break it to you all, but we kids were the ones who started this action. check it out at http://www.imattermarch.org
    Most of us are just under 18, so we need an adult to fight for us in court.
    Quit it with all your claims of us being “used” or “abused”- its ridiculous. We care about the planet and the many people and ecosystems that will be (and already are) very adversely affected by human-caused climate change.

  38. c.s,

    Please don’t just comment and leave. Stay around, I have to get some answers from you about the climate, while you still know everything.☺

  39. Let’s not forget that the species extinction predictions are derived from either a species diversity computer program which is abused and used for a purpose for which it was not designed or a computer program which predicts how many of the species, from bacteria to bugs to larger animals, that we have never discovered that will go extinct before we discover them. They are totally phantom species—only existing in their imaginations. [Just think of all of the millions of dollars that you have lost which you never had; it's a travesty; you've been robbed!] Not only is this logically flawed but it is impossible to put any real or logical values into such a program. And the answer is impossible to test; therefore, this is not science in any form.

    This is pure fantasy.

  40. Looking at Hansen’s Fig. 2 it looks to me like the ‘tipping point’ is being reached. Note the peak temperatures, immediately followed by a sharp drop to long low temp valleys.

    If CO2 is the main driver, how does it know which direction it is going. From the Ice Core data.

    Look at the 6 or 7 times CO2 has been at near current levels and half the time the temperature is going down.

  41. The tipping point is in Dr. Hansen’s brain and he appears to have reached it.

    Time for the boys in the white coats?

  42. DD More,

    That’s a deliberately crappy chart from Skeptical Pseudo-Science [a blog that can be extremely professional looking when John Cook wants it to be]. But that chart obscures the fact that CO2 follows temperature. Here is a chart based on the same data and time frame, which clearly shows that temperature rises precede CO2 rises.

  43. So Dr. Hansen is suing his employer. I will wait with bated breath for Dr. Hansen to finally show us the evidence that provides such strong support for the existence of a 21st century tipping point.

    But I suspect that he is suffering from a malady that seems to be common among propagandists. They start to believe their own propaganda. Maybe he ought to have Paul Ehrlich at his side to help him make his case. :)

    Richard S Courtney’s points about defending the truth in court are certainly well taken. Hopefully the truth will get a fair hearing.

  44. CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
    May 10, 2011 at 9:25 am
    Hansen says: “Another ice age will never occur, unless humans go extinct.”

    Hmmm….which one do you think he’s rooting for?

    The logic (behind the emotion) says that Hansen hates people, is a misanthrope, and rationalises his hatred through climate change, since it would be too revealing of personal animosity to be emotionally frank.

    Ice ages are good, as it gets rid of this impeding factor called humans.

    It is the peculiar logic of someone who is a controlled psychopath – ie, the sort that doesn’t end up in prison, but converts their emotions into legal, but divisive and unproductive affairs.

  45. “But that chart obscures the fact that CO2 follows temperature. Here is a chart based on the same data and time frame, which clearly shows that temperature rises precede CO2.” (Smokey, May 10, 2011 at 9:54 am)

    Sheer nonsense, dear fellow!

    Upon close and honest re-evaluation of the data, you will note that the chart clearly proves a far more worrying phenomenon, namely that CO2 is so malignant, that it even rips through our time/space continuum to project itself into the past to affect the future.

    I know, everyone is sick of hearing this, but it must be said again and again: It’s worse than we thought.

  46. Grumpy Old Man:

    Your post at May 10, 2011 at 9:18 am mentions my post (that is at May 10, 2011 at 8:22 am) saying’

    “I don’t understand Richard Courtney’s explanation of ‘experts’ “.

    I apologise that my explanation was not clear. If you can say what you “don’t understand” then I can try to correct the matter.

    Richard

  47. When did Hansen go over the edge?

    He was programmed by Carl Sagan back in the 1960’s. If he were competent, he should have accepted that there is no greenhouse effect, as currently promulgated, shortly after the Magellan Venus data was obtained back in October 1991. I have just posted (again) on the quite general incompetence on this point at

    Climate Slogans

  48. c.s says:
    May 10, 2011 at 9:29 am

    ““Using kids as legal pawns?” er…hate to break it to you all, but we kids were the ones who started this action.”

    Probably after getting your information from the BBC or Al Gore. In that case, you have something important to learn: Not all grown-ups are to be trusted.

  49. “If carbon dioxide emissions aren’t reduced in time, the Earth will pass a tipping point with irreversible, catastrophic consequences, including the disintegration of ice sheets and large-scale extinction of species,”
    This reads like a chapter and verse from the Revelation of Saint James the Profane.

  50. I am really glad that Hansen has revealed that he is quite willing to abuse particular children in pursuit of an eco-world government. I hope that he gets nailed for abuse of these children. Then maybe we can stop the government from pumping its eco-world government propaganda into all of our secondary schools and our colleges. All of it is abuse. Children who believe the Global Warming lie suffer serious harm. Yet it is sponsored by our government. This is an unfathomable outrage.

  51. This is a carnival game. It’s rigged.
    It’s win/win for the climate catamites.

    Big Brother’s Bread and Circus Report says our bread ration will be increased to minus one, up from zero.

  52. c.s says:
    May 10, 2011 at 9:29 am
    ‘“Using kids as legal pawns?” er…hate to break it to you all, but we kids were the ones who started this action. check it out at http://www.imattermarch.org
    Most of us are just under 18, so we need an adult to fight for us in court.
    Quit it with all your claims of us being “used” or “abused”- its ridiculous. We care about the planet and the many people and ecosystems that will be (and already are) very adversely affected by human-caused climate change.’

    You are being abused. Your testimony is clear evidence of that. You care about Global Warming because you are the victim of systematic lying on the part of people like Hansen and many such people in our government, including Obama. Your life has been misdirected onto a path that is truly a fantasy.

  53. Corpus delicti
    Bearing in mind Hansens’s claim of CO2 causing an imbalance in energy in = energy out, will Trentberth be presented as a hostile witness?
    Where’s that body gone, I’m sure it was around here somewhere . . .

  54. I say bring it on – let’s get the courts to review the facts set & have them dump AGW in the waste bin so we can move on to more productive tasks

  55. Hansen may have strong ground to stand on here.

    My model clearly shows that climate change may eventually leads to a sudden increase in unemployment, so he certainly has a reason to be involved in the case.

    Seriously though. I’ve read the complaints these people are filing. The wording is so wacky that I couldn’t believe my eyes. I wonder if Hansen has actually read the complaints, and understands what he’s attaching his name to? I would be surprised if he has.

  56. So, let me get this straight. If the kids win say a trillion dollars in court, where will the money come from? Won’t it simply be borrowed against their inheritance? In effect, the only ones that stand to truly gain would be the lawyers. The kids will simply end up paying back whatever they receive in future taxes and reduced standard of living. Brilliant.

  57. “c.s says:
    May 10, 2011 at 9:29 am

    the many people and ecosystems that……. (and already are) very adversely affected by human-caused climate change.”

    Go for it c.s, list some of the people and ecosystems that you know of that are already very adversely affected by human-caused climate change and describe how they are adversely affected. I’m genuinely still searching.

  58. Hansen went over the edge when he heard that under direct presidential orders to NASA Administrater Bolden, NASA’s new mandate had shifted from climate modeling to Muslim Outreach. It was just too much for him.

  59. A perfect oppertunity to ask for full disclosure of the GISS data and methodology.

    Mr Hansen must be able to prove his assertions in a court of law. This would require more than his word as a scientist (which seems to be all that was needed in this country)

  60. @Richard S Courtney says:
    May 10, 2011 at 8:22 am

    Yes, but Richard, the government had all the DNA experts in the world available to them to put O.J. Simpson in the slammer, and he was still acquitted.

    Courts may accept expert testimony as fact, but they are still subject to logical arguments, and the CAGW side has no logical argument to stand on. In short, Experts can be made to look like fools in a court, this is especially true if their argument is weak.

  61. M White, the problem is that you forget who is being sued. If it were somebody rational, they would use this opportunity for discovery in a way that would blow Hansen out of the water. I doubt Jackson will avail herself of the opportunity.

    In any case, I have serious doubts about the standing of a case based on hypotheticals.

  62. A simple caveat of filing a lawsuit is that you could lose, and it could backfire on you.

    In this case, If you sue the EPA for failing to protect the air, then you open up NASA’s pollution. Each and every time they launch, a veritable cocktail of pollutants are spewed into the air. Not limited to rockets, there’s also the pollution from aircraft and vehicles, and every other form of pollution NASA is responsible for.

    Bottom line, after all, is our kid’s atmosphere they argue, and polluting it in the name of saving it is no excuse. Like the Japanese collecting whales to save them…?

    There’s also no small precedent’s set by this, and I don’t really think Hansen has recognized the unintended consequences.

  63. James Hansen.

    70 years old.

    Asking kids to do his work? Maybe he sees this as his last chance. The tides of gov’t are changing, and soon they’ll see a need for “newer blood, fresher minds” to take this into the future.

    He need to find a nice, secluded island to retire to.

    While they’re still above water…

  64. Jan Curtis said (May 10, 2011 at 10:34 am)

    “I thought Federal employees cannot sue the Federal Government.”

    Apparently, this federal employee is different. He was also allowed to take part in a protest against the policies of his boss, the President:

    “…Around 100 people have been arrested outside the White House while protesting against mountaintop removal mining, including NASA scientist James Hansen. The protesters were arrested Monday after refusing orders from U.S. Park Police to leave the sidewalk outside the White House…”

    Which, by the way, was his SECOND arrest for tresspassing.

    And still works for the Gov’t.

  65. Should a court decide to actually hear this case – which sounds similar to the suits being filed in various states – I would think the defendants would have to provide a vigorous defence . A loss would be a political disaster for this administration and Mr. Bammy won’t like it .

  66. c.s says:
    May 10, 2011 at 9:29 am

    “Using kids as legal pawns?” er…hate to break it to you all, but we kids were the ones who started this action. check it out at http://www.imattermarch.org
    Most of us are just under 18, so we need an adult to fight for us in court.
    Quit it with all your claims of us being “used” or “abused”- its ridiculous. We care about the planet and the many people and ecosystems that will be (and already are) very adversely affected by human-caused climate change.

    I’m going to try to not sound condescending. Please understand that when you’re young, you are more susceptible to lies. You are more willing to believe someone who says they need your help to save the world. You are more willing to accept a story that paints your lifetime as unique or special, or a generation chosen to stand against a great evil of some kind. You want to believe this, and indeed everyone wants to believe this because frankly the alternative is outrageously dull and meaningless. The great Chinese proverb of “May you live in interesting times.” might as well be “Good luck.” in English for it’s desire to wish a meaningful life on a stranger. I personally prefer the Klingon philosophy in this regard, “Perhaps today is a good day to die” which encourages sentient beings to try to make their ends as meaningful as their existence. Our culture is a bit new, and has only fear of death to guide it.

    Having grown up in a christian cult that paid particular attention to inspiring the young people into believing nonsense for the purposes of self-promotion of the organization, I have a unique position to tell you that you *are not* using your critical thinking skills in this matter. That’s right, I grew up having adults tell me how I should behave, how I should deal with the opposite sex, how I should pray, how I should compete, etc..etc… all under the guise that in doing this, I was helping to prepare the world for the return of Hey-Zeus. I didn’t question them, I had no reason to. I had seen the evidence that the world was getting worse. I had seen their videos that showed increasing human conflict, increasing cultural depravity, increasing destruction of families, etc… Why would I question when I had seen it all? I had never questioned anything in my life, and their case seemed rock solid.

    What was really going on was abuse that I will never fully recover from. A false sense of the world was painted in me, and it stains me still.

    The world isn’t perfect. There are threats to human existence everywhere you turn, even and –> especially from fellow human beings. This was the truth I didn’t have in my brain yet, that humans, even those you trust, can and really do hurt each other badly. They also lie/cheat/steal enough for you to cling tightly to the people you find in life who don’t lie to you. Hansen and others are lying to you. I’m not going to counter their lie with another lie and say that “the world is fine, go home now.” but I’m also going to say that those people *do not know what they are talking about*. As with the cult their ultimate goal is self promotion only. They may care about the world anyway, but their use of kids and conversion of kids over to a belief system is an exercise in pure narcissism. You worshipping their gospel and through your life convincing others to believe is what they want.

    Ask yourself why these people are even involved with you. You say it is because you need an adult in order to file a lawsuit. What are they getting out of it? How does Hansen gain by supporting you? If you can answer that question honestly and completely, you’ve taken you first step towards thinking about the situation with a critical eye.

  67. I can’t help but think that this is a setup. If the case were heard impartially there is a very high liklihood that the plaintiffs would lose, and a legal defeat would surely endanger at least a portion of GISS’ funding. There would be tremendous pressure by GISS to have Hansen to withdraw – if a fix wasn’t in.

    If private attorneys represented the public in this case, I would have no worries at all. But the plaintiff and defense attorneys are all on the same side, and they all have the same motivation to see Hansen’s little wind-up dolls prevail.

    I would feel much better if an outside law firm filed an amicus brief, and got involved in this case. Because the government’s attorneys are absolutely not to be trusted here; they serve at the pleasure of the Administration. They want to keep their jobs. And their boss Eric Holder is nothing short of a gangster, with no regard for the law or precedent – a hallmark of this Administration.

  68. If the suit were to succeed, we would be forced to file a counter suit as a class action against Hansen et all, on behalf of all farmers deprived of their livelihood due to the CO2 depletion resulting from their political science.
    ———-
    c.s says:
    May 10, 2011 at 9:29 am
    “Quit it with all your claims of us being “used” or “abused”- its ridiculous.”
    ____________

    OK. I’ll settle for “just plain stupid”, and I agree- you are ridiculous.
    Consider yourself hereby ridiculed.

    “If you want justice go to a whore house. If you want to get screwed go to court.”- John Grisham.

  69. Peter Kovachev says:
    May 10, 2011 at 8:45 am
    …“poppies red and roses filled with summer rain.”***

    ***Ian Anderson/Jethro Tull, “Songs from the Wood,” Aqualung, 1971.

    I like a good Ian Anderson cite more than most. You have the lyrics and song right, but wrong album. Surprising actually, since the song title and album title are one and the same.

  70. What a cock-up. Congress overruled by the courts or NASA’s credibility destroyed in a witchtrial. Hansen, at 70 and looking to retirement and his place in history, has nothing to lose. America and the world, excluding Gore, Schmidt and Suzuki, lose both ways, at great cost.

    The Scopes Monkey Trial Redux. Filmed by Cameron in 3D, coming to an Imax theatre near you!

  71. Richard Courtney,

    I would urge you not to be so pessimistic about the weight that courts will necessarily attatch to expert evidence. A good legal team (and I speak, all modesty aside, as a past member of many) can destroy an expert’s credibility through incisive cross-examination. In the witness box (or the stand, if our colonial cousins prefer) there is nowhere to hide from difficult questions. Trouble is, catastrophic man made global warming has never truly been on trial. The issue in the Kingsnorth and Inconvenient Truth trials was never about whether CAGW (call it what you will) was true or not. It was enough in those cases that a broad “consensus” existed. The question of just what exactly the “consensus” was, or whether it held water, just wasn’t relevant to the questions that the court had to decide.

    It would be splendid if Hansen’s evidence could be properly tested at trial. I read through his witness statement that was produced in the Ratcliffe power station trials (protesters were convicted, but will now be acquitted on appeal due to undercover officers going native). It was tosh; real End of Days stuff. If he was properly taken to task over his claims….well, let’s just say that I don’t think he would emerge with his reputation intact It would be far from easy, I’ll give him that. He’s no doubt a slippery old fox, well used to giving evidence and to obfuscation, diversion and distraction. But I’d say: bring it on.

  72. I have devised an ulterior simple policy: Have the UN IPCC only be populated by, and consulted by, only using properly peer reviewed scientific studies from, people who have a, no older ‘an twelve month, proper clean bill of mental health.

    et voila: No more IP(e)C(a)C.

  73. Smokey ,
    What you said above is likely true , but I think that Obama realizes the potential political harm that his administration might suffer . There’s a reason that no significant climate legislation has been passed – it’s a hot potato and I suspect that he’s not willing to risk it . He would probably throw Hansen , Jackson , Holder – the lot of them – under the bus to win four more years .

  74. I rather have AGW tested in the courts than by the media or by the corrupted peer review process.

    Cheers

    Michael

  75. Jeremy says:
    May 10, 2011 at 11:44 am

    Yes, but Richard, the government had all the DNA experts in the world available to them to put O.J. Simpson in the slammer, and he was still acquitted.

    OJ had a trial by jury where the prejudices of the jurists could be given free rein. This won’t be heard by a jury but by a Judge – big difference.

  76. To add to what Jeremy above has said to the young plaintiff I would pray in aid Clemenceau:

    “Not to be a socialist at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head”

    In other words: don’t worry, you’ll grow out of it.

  77. So, maybe I need to file a counter-suit against c.s. and Hansen, on behalf of my sons, to keep them from being turned into beggars even before they earn their first paycheck. How about it, c.s.? Feel like answering a subpoena?

  78. “The Hansen 5″ (warmists) v US Govt (Lisa Jackson EPA {warmist})

    Both call expert witnesses who agree with each other.

    “The Hansen 5″ win. Govt pays out lots of compensation. Kids get rich and release their first album, ooops sorry wrong group of 5 kids.

    The Jackson 1 goes back to her office and apologises for losing the case, but now promises they will make things right by introducing laws to combat rising CO2. And its not her fault. After all the case was proved in court.

    This is looking bad :(

  79. D. J. Hawkins says:
    So, maybe I need to file a counter-suit against c.s. and Hansen, on behalf of my sons, to keep them from being turned into beggars even before they earn their first paycheck.

    Exactly what I was thinking.

    Any lawyers out there who can offer insight into this? I would like to know if that course of action is available if Hansen continues with this ****.

  80. TomB says:
    May 10, 2011 at 12:53 pm

    OJ had a trial by jury where the prejudices of the jurists could be given free rein. This won’t be heard by a jury but by a Judge – big difference.

    Not really. In the anti-trust case against Microsoft, the entire case was heard by a judge. That judge at the end of the trial was so well educated on matters of monopolistic behaviors of software companies it was astounding. He ruled against Microsoft (a judgement that was later abandoned by the incoming administration), despite scores of paid-for experts Microsoft had to throw their way. Besides which, the issue here isn’t who hears the case, it is the strength of the argument of experts in court. It doesn’t matter who hears the case, what matters is who has the weaker argument. The CAGW argument is so weak as to not be self-consistent, and to be inconsistent with known historical records.

  81. Sueing the Federal Government, on the basis of highly contentious & controversial science, for a projected future event that may or may not happen – wow, I guess ‘Minority Report’ was on the money. Pre-crime is here, folks –

    Me: “But Officer, I wasn’t doing anything!”
    Carbon Cops: “No, but you will – the Precogs are never wrong!”
    (or, insert favourite substitute for ‘precog’)

    (BTW, is this even tenable in law?)

  82. Well, I don’t know how much traction he’ll get. Even the most sympathetic judge can only base their decision on the effect of CO2 on the US climate. Since 1890 that warming trend has only been about .05 C per decade, which is well short of the 1 degree that they claim would be catastrophic unless they’re suing on behalf of people who will be born in 2210.

  83. Mr. Hansen’s status as an “expert witness” can be
    legally challenged using copies of his arrest reports
    (including proffering the booking sheets with his
    fingerprints!) and poster sized pictures of his protest
    marches.

    Any “scientific evidence” he might submit in court can
    be shown to be tainted with his personal unscientific bias.

  84. My daughters, now 20 and 25 years old, have, since they were in their early teens, laughed at the CAGW claims. I have taken great care to expose them to all sides of the arguments about climate and have left it up to them to make up their minds. I have pointed them towards both pro- and con- web sites and I’ve left them to make up their own minds.
    When my younger daughter told me that she was going to be shown Al Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth” at school, I went along and asked if the Court-ordered correction sheets were available. The screening of the film was postponed for a week whilst the legally mandated sheets of corrective information were sought.
    My daughter subsequently reported that the showing of the film was greeted with derisory calls from the audience. Not one of the children shown the film believed a word of it.
    I think that there is a majority of children who recognise only too quickly when someone is trying to fool them. Our children have more ‘smarts’ than we give them credit for.

  85. I’ll be going to see a public lecture of his in New Zealand on Friday. I’m really interested to see what a politically driven scientist off his rails looks like. Should be entertaining

  86. SionedL says:
    May 10, 2011 at 9:02 am
    I cannot invision Lisa Jackson, et. al., calling any skeptics to testify against Hansen and this lunacy. The government is not an adversary in this situation. It is rigged.

    What SionedL said and then Roy UK @ May 10, 2011 at 1:17 pm fills in the details.

    Not good.

  87. I agree with those who think the government will be trying to lose this case.

    Some form of counter-action will be necessary.

  88. I would like to cross examine Dr. Hansen with the following questions:
    1) What is the present CO2 concentration? Answer: 390 ppm.
    2) What is the threshold amount of CO2 required for photosynthesis to begin? Answer: about 90 ppm.
    3) So we are about 300 ppm above the threshold where a green planet could not even exist? Answer: yes.
    4) Does the world’s recoverable reserves of fossil fuels amount to about 4,000 gigatons? Answer: Yes.
    5) If all the fossil fuels were burned and added to the atmosphere, what would be the logarithmic temperature increase? Answer: 1.4C.
    6) Wasn’t the CO2 concentration 18 times higher than today 6E8 years ago? Answer: Yes.
    7) And hasn’t the world’s temperature oscillated between 12C and 22C, 6% of the time being 12C and 46% of the time being 22C, for the last 6E8 years? Answer: Yes.
    8) Isn’t the world’s temperature now about 14.5C? Answer: Yes.
    9) So, if we burned all the world’s fossil fuels, the temperature would increase from 14.5C to 15.9C? Answer: Yes.
    10) If the world in the past has been at 22C for 46% of the time, how do you figure 15.9C is a tipping point? Answer: D’oh!

  89. Jeremy:

    At May 10, 2011 at 11:44 am you say in response to my post at May 10, 2011 at 8:22 am:

    “Courts may accept expert testimony as fact, but they are still subject to logical arguments, and the CAGW side has no logical argument to stand on. In short, Experts can be made to look like fools in a court, this is especially true if their argument is weak.”

    Perhaps, but who is going to do that?

    The US Government employs Hansen, appointed him as as Head of GISS, supports the AGW narative, and will be the defendant. It is not clear that the defence will – or will want to – provide any attempt to make its own appointee look like a fool in Court.

    Richard

  90. AngusPangus says:

    At May 10, 2011 at 12:48 pm you say to me:

    “I would urge you not to be so pessimistic about the weight that courts will necessarily attatch to expert evidence. A good legal team (and I speak, all modesty aside, as a past member of many) can destroy an expert’s credibility through incisive cross-examination.”

    I have no doubt that you are right. But I give the same answer to your point as I gave to Jeremy; i.e.

    “The US Government employs Hansen, appointed him as as Head of GISS, supports the AGW narative, and will be the defendent. It is not clear that the defence will – or will want to – provide any attempt to make its own appointee look like a fool in Court.”

    Richard

  91. Even to someone with absolutely no legal knowledge this smells fishy to me.

    If both sides are conspiring together to create a particular outcome then surely the judge must also be involved so that he can hand down the required verdict and penalty.

    If as some posters mentioned the judge awards financial damages then would this not set a precedent for the entire US population to be awarded similar amounts. I’ve been to the States several times on holiday, can I have some too.

  92. TomB:

    I stand corrected; was chatting about the Aqualung album yesterday and must have had a ….what’s it called..a…a…flashback. As the CO2 levels go up and temperatures rise, such errors will continue to bedevil our lives. Things definitely are worse then I thought.

  93. c.s says:
    May 10, 2011 at 9:29 am

    “…er…hate to break it to you all, ….We care about the planet and the many people and ecosystems that will be (and already are) very adversely affected by human-caused climate change.”

    c.s, you seem hardly old enough to have justification for making anonymous postings, but you are not old enough yet to have enough courage not to hide behind your anonymity.

    I began my growing up during the Hitler regime and was almost done with that when the war came to an end after most of Europe was in rubble and ashes. I listened to my elders and read up enough over the years to understand how the Hitler regime came into power. I suggest you study history before you begin to learn anything about climate science, which latter you have not yet done.

    It seems to me that you do not realize that Hitler’s power grew out of a youth movement that was as misled as you and your peers who support Hansen are. I am not talking about the Hitler Youth. That came after Hitler got into power. I am talking about the Wandervogel organization. That is the one that produced many of the supporters and followers of Hitler. You better check that out.

    Other than that, believe it or not, all here care about the planet, plus we worry about what it is that individuals like Hansen are doing to the people who live on it. We are the sort of people who have been paying for your life and your education up to now and who, so far, can still barely afford to keep that up, provided the likes of Hansen let them do it.

  94. What is it with looneys who build castles-in-the-air and expect everyone else to go live in them?

    If monkeys-making-fire harm planet then why not make-fire-stop now? Stop selling liquid fuels, shut down the power plants and MAKE EVERYONE LIVE IN THE DARK!

    Its not difficult is it?

    At least I’ll be spared the relentless CAGW nutters banging on about it all.

    FFS! Its like sucking diarrhea thru a sock.

  95. Does anyone know where the suit is filed? I googled, but just kept finding the same article over and over. “Federal court” could be anywhere.

  96. Hugh”scattering of other well-known deniers and their followers, supported by a well organized industry financed cadre of PR types.”

    Thanks Hugh for that comedic relief.. :)
    You must have missed all the information for the last 10 years showing most of the “data” used to promote CAGW is poor/falsified or none existent..and an “appeal to authority” with an ad hominem thrown is just.. sad.
    I noticed you forgot to mention the vast majority of money is going from industry/govt/UN etc..towards the CAGW pushers….
    But ya forgot to mention that..
    I was going to ask you where all the industry sponsored money is for the “scattering” of ‘well known deniers..(which is a paradox in itself..a few blogs and books..and thats it)but then realised that you were so clueless that it would be like asking you how CO2 taxes and levies would make the climate “better”…
    Please read a bit more than the daily newspaper for facts on this serious subject..
    ps..is their a booklet these CAGW clones are reading from..they dont think..they repeat the same mendacious fables..truly sad where this has all gone..

  97. Hansen sues the government through the children, once the case begins the government comes to an agreement with Hansen, admits liability, and can then impose whatever tax it chooses as a “‘legal” obligation. QED.

  98. DaveK:

    With respect, your post at May 10, 2011 at 3:02 pm misunderstands the problem. It says;

    “If both sides are conspiring together to create a particular outcome then surely the judge must also be involved so that he can hand down the required verdict and penalty.”

    There is no conspiracy and no suggestion of one.

    The US Government will be the defendent and would desire the case were not brought. This desire is because the US Government would lose whatever the outcome of the case. But if the case were brought then the loss to US Government would be least if the US Government were to lose the case. Therefore, the US Government has no reason to try to win the case.

    Richard

  99. Moderators:

    My post in response to DaveK has vanished. Perhaps you would be so kind as to recover it.

    Richard

  100. From c.s on May 10, 2011 at 9:29 am:

    “Using kids as legal pawns?” er…hate to break it to you all, but we kids were the ones who started this action. check it out at http://www.imattermarch.org

    Really? According to this May 7 HuffPo piece a woman named Victoria Loorz seems the most important part of your Children’s Crusade:

    Victoria Loorz is the co-founder, with her 16-year-old son Alec, of the non-profit Kids Vs. Global Warming, and the iMatter Campaign, committed to educating and empowering young people to lead in creating a sustainable and just world.

    Apparently there was some sort of “climate change protest march” scheduled for Mother’s Day, wonder what happened with it. From Ms. Loorz:

    The iMatter March is the result of nearly two years worth of hard work, frustration, and joy for my family and so many others, and it makes my mother’s heart proud that my son put all of this in motion, beginning when he was 12, and after weeping as he watched Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, and realized what it meant for his future.

    Al Gore’s docudrama makes many people on this site weep, due to the glaring inaccuracies, mis-truths, and outright political propaganda statements in it. Read this from 2007 for a sample, other “problems” have shown up since then.

    From c.s:

    Most of us are just under 18, so we need an adult to fight for us in court. Quit it with all your claims of us being “used” or “abused”- its ridiculous.

    You already have Ms. Loorz, co-founder of this Children’s Crusade. Why is Hansen needed? Or is the reality that Hansen needs you, he can’t go against the government that pays him for his day job? Are you sure you’re not being used?

    We care about the planet and the many people and ecosystems that will be (and already are) very adversely affected by human-caused climate change.

    We also care about the planet. But we also know this planet has a very long history of doing just fine without our help, and humans have really screwed things up in the past by trying to fix “problems” that the planet didn’t even notice.

    Did they tell you it’d be a quick fix, we’ll cut carbon dioxide emissions and everything will go right back to normal? The polar bears will be saved? Here’s some climate science from 2009 by noted esteemed climate scientists:

    Global Warming ‘at Point of No Return’

    Global warming has reached the point of no return, a study published in the Tuesday edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by a joint team of the U.S., French and Swiss researchers concludes. Even if the world reduces emissions of CO2 to the level before the industrial revolution, it will take at least 1,000 years to reverse the climate change effect that have already taken hold, AP on Sunday quoted the team as saying.

    Dr. Susan Solomon of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Earth System Research laboratory led the study. “People have imagined that if we stopped emitting carbon dioxide the climate would go back to normal in 100 years, 200 years; that’s not true,” she said, adding the effects are well nigh irreversible.

    That was followed by this from January 2011:

    Climate change to continue to year 3000 in best case scenarios

    New paper in Nature Geoscience examines inertia of carbon dioxide emissions

    New research indicates the impact of rising CO2 levels in the Earth’s atmosphere will cause unstoppable effects to the climate for at least the next 1000 years, causing researchers to estimate a collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet by the year 3000, and an eventual rise in the global sea level of at least four metres.

    The study, to be published in the Jan. 9 Advanced Online Publication of the journal Nature Geoscience, is the first full climate model simulation to make predictions out to 1000 years from now. It is based on best-case, ‘zero-emissions’ scenarios constructed by a team of researchers from the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis (an Environment Canada research lab at the University of Victoria) and the University of Calgary.

    “We created ‘what if’ scenarios,” says Dr. Shawn Marshall, Canada Research Chair in Climate Change and University of Calgary geography professor. “What if we completely stopped using fossil fuels and put no more CO2 in the atmosphere? How long would it then take to reverse current climate change trends and will things first become worse?” The research team explored zero-emissions scenarios beginning in 2010 and in 2100.

    Got that? Zero Emissions. According to peer-reviewed climate science, if we shut down civilization now and get rid of all carbon dioxide emissions, it’ll still take a thousand years for things to get back to normal.

    Also, eventually there’ll be a 4 meter global sea level rise, somewhere around 3000 AD. Al Gore said there will be “up to” 20 feet of rise, which is more than 4 meters, and it’ll happen “in the near future”.

    Now, take that info back to the people who got you all worked up about global warming, and ask them what is the great urgency to fix something now that will still be a problem a thousand years from now?

    BTW, China is the Number One emitter of Carbon Dioxide on the planet. Why don’t you boycott anything Made in China until they agree to limit their emissions?

  101. In general it is a criminal offense for a US Government employee to appear in a case against the government. There are some exemptions dealing with cases involving yourself and family members, etc. whether Hanson falls under on of those I do not know.
    From the office of Ethics Guidelines http://www.usoge.gov/common_ethics_issues/representation.aspx
    [quote]Representation to Government Agencies and Courts
    Executive branch employees are subject to criminal statutes that prohibit the representation of private interests before the Government. One of these laws prohibits an employee from prosecuting a claim against the United States or acting as the agent or attorney of a private party before the Government in connection with a particular matter in which the United States is a party or has a direct and substantial interest. This prohibition applies whether or not the employee receives compensation for the representation.
    There is an exception that allows an employee to represent, with or without compensation —
    the employee (self-representation),
    a parent, spouse or child of the employee, or
    a person or estate that the employee serves as a guardian, executor, administrator, trustee or personal fiduciary.
    The matter involved may not be one in which the employee participated personally and substantially or which was the subject of the employee’s official responsibility. Also the employee must obtain approval for the activity from the employee’s appointing official.
    There is another exception that allows an employee to represent, without compensation —
    employee nonprofit organizations (such as child care centers, recreational associations, professional organizations, credit unions or other similar groups) before the U.S. Government under certain circumstances. The employee may not be compensated. And the employee may not represent an employee group in claims against the Government, in seeking grants, contracts or cash from the Government, or in litigation where the group is a party;
    a person who is the subject of disciplinary, loyalty, or personnel administration proceedings.
    Another law governing representational activity prohibits an employee from accepting compensation for certain representational services before the Government whether those services were provided by the employee personally or by some other person. Again, there are exceptions that would allow for the representation of a parent, spouse, child or person served in a fiduciary capacity.[/quote]

    Actual laws at
    http://www.usoge.gov/laws_regs/statutes/18usc205.html and

    http://www.usoge.gov/laws_regs/statutes/18usc203.html

  102. Dave says:
    May 10, 2011 at 8:21 am
    Will the government defend itself or throw the case to promote cap and trade?
    =========
    DaveK:
    With respect, your post at May 10, 2011 at 3:02 pm misunderstands the problem. It says;
    “If both sides are conspiring together to create a particular outcome then surely the judge must also be involved so that he can hand down the required verdict and penalty.”

    This may not be a conspiracy – although I suspect someone has had a few ‘what if we did this’ conversations.

    The government and Lisa Jackson et al will ALL accept responsibility and create a precedent that AGW legally exists and damages children. This will then be quoted ad-nauseam.
    I have no doubt that the Circuit where the case will be held will be carefully chosen – the 9th perhaps – to ensure a successful outcome. This Administration by losing – or not defending the case – wins. There will be no legal argument about AGW that will be taken as a given. Hansen cannot win the scientific argument so he is taking the legal route against a friend who will fold without a defense.

  103. I agree, Hansen has lost it, and it’s a sad day for all.
    Destroying the basic tools for modern civilization is not progress, it’s back to the Dark Ages with Utopian-colored glasses.

  104. This seems an opportunity that must not be missed to end this controversial ploy, surely in US Law there is a right for any party likely to be effected by the outcome, to be legally represented and allowed to jointly test the merits of the case, and its claimed “expert”.

    This would stop the whole “cuteness” of Hansen’s strategy to expect that those initially being sued will “rollover”in compliance and therefore create a legal precedent to give legitimacy to extreme measures and legislation created for the purpose.

    It should be a strong legal team backed by the best scientists willing to go head to head with Hansen. I say a strong legal team, because in the event, of a initial court ruling preventing such representation by an aggrieved or dissenting third party, that an immediate appeal is prosecuted to the highest court of Law in the United States.

    My intuition tells me that a supreme court will not want to forever bind future governments, so they can be so easily blind sided by such a legal “trick or connivance” and allow the third party to properly test the evidence.

    I am sure competent legal practicioners have many issues and scenarios to support that contention.

    This needs to be fought out in the courts, for the truths and fictions to be revealed, there is no room for compliant politicking. I agree with Richard Courtney, not something to just passively observe and allow to happen.

    Enough “tricks” already in compliant slimate science…err Climate Science without allowing Hanson’s pea and thimble trick!!

  105. Employing children in weird lawsuits, thousand year predictions, frantic repetitions of the same falsehoods, white-wash inquiries, backdoor attempts to bring in carbon credits….all this hysteria can seem pretty funny, as we all know, but it’s starting to look creepy and outright dangerous to me.

    There’s a lot of money, prestige, reputations, millions of work hours, thousands of publications, career plans, cushy positions, government handouts, special products and services, high tech sector deals, endowment funds, international agreements and juicy promises of political power riding on this silly little scam. The “investors,” who are surrounded by yes-men with outstrtched hands, still think that their perfect scenario is just temporarily held up by a bad economy and public fatigue, but that better times and good PR will quickly clear the snags. When reality eventually sinks in, and their rickety edifice, the “castle in the air” as a chap here described it, begins to fall apart, there’ll be a whole lot of pretty peeved off, scared, angry and wildly desperate people in very high positions and with lots and lots of resources. All that makes me a bit jumpy, seeing how people in the past have done some extremely nasty and shocking things with a lot less…and for a lot less. Things could, indeed, be worse than we think.

  106. son of mulder says:
    May 10, 2011 at 11:12 am
    “c.s says:
    May 10, 2011 at 9:29 am

    the many people and ecosystems that……. (and already are) very adversely affected by human-caused climate change.”

    Go for it c.s, list some of the people and ecosystems that you know of that are already very adversely affected by human-caused climate change and describe how they are adversely affected. I’m genuinely still searching.

    Well c.s. I’d like to be enlightened, also…..Where’d ya go?

  107. Hansen is drawing a long bow to believe that the USA owns the atmosphere or part thereof and therefore has jurisdiction over it. Sure, there are laws such as the altitudes of aeroplanes allowed over the USA, but these are more specific to the aircraft than to the air. There are laws allowing reservation of parts of the broadcast spectrum, but these are again for use within the USA, and relate to the act of broadcast more than the air.
    If the USA wants to make laws about the amount of CO2 in the air, it has to emphasise CO2 rather than the air. It then has to show that the CO2 in question has a relationship with actions done in the USA. If a glob of CO2 comes wafting over from China, that’s not the business of the USA.
    Nobody I know is really happy with the way entry to Pakistan was gained by US helicopters recently – there were other ways that could have been negotiated with less infringement of Soverign rights. There’s no way the USA is going to tell me and my country that we have to stop CO2 production, or the USA will fly in devices to suck it up in the middle of the night.
    It is, as lawyers say, ultra vires. Negotiation perhaps, dictatorial demand, no.

  108. “List some ecosystems and people that are already adversely affected by climate change”
    How about the lower crop yields from farms that are greatly driving up food prices

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/05/food-prices-global-warming

    How about ocean acidification and coral reef bleaching?

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/ocean-acidification-global-warming-intermediate.htm

    How about the steep drop in antarctic penguin populations thanks to loss of sea ice and the krill that feeds on the algae that grows on it

    http://news.discovery.com/animals/chinstrap-adelie-penguins-krill-110411.html

    How about the melting permafrost and loss of the tundra?

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110216132100.htm

    I could go on and on.
    Lastly, how about that fact that the “research” of most climate skeptics are financed by coal and oil companies?

  109. In my opinion, Hansen is guilty of child abuse!

    And Geoff (May 10, 2011 at 6:32 pm), perhaps you should expand your circle of friends if they don’t include those who support the means used to terminate the foremost terrorist of the past decade. I suspect the “other ways” you refer to would have been a total failure, typical of most UN operations.

    But I agree with you regarding regulation of CO2.

  110. Why anyone listens to this unethical scientist is beyond me.

    He endorsed a book about anarchy called “Times Up!” by Keith Farnish and he admits he never read the book !

    “30 December 2008
    Keith,
    well I do not have time to read it ‐‐ but I would certainly be willing to state that your thesis is correct, something like “Keith Farnish has it right: time has practically run out, the ‘system’ is the problem, and we must force our governments to look out after our interests, rather than the interests of the fossil fuel industry.””

    http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2010/20100325_Clarification.pdf

  111. c.s,

    The Guardian is an object of ridicule and contempt when it comes to anything scientific. It caters to the wacked out eco-Watermelon contingent.

    FYI, the evidence of increased agricultural production due to CO2 is all around:

    click1
    click2
    click3
    click4
    click5

    Got more charts if you want ‘em. Just ask.

    Diverting food into ethanol production caused rising prices and food riots in Mexico a couple of years ago. The riots have spread to Egypt and other countries. Contrary to the Guardian, CO2 enhances plant growth; more CO2 is better.

    The Skeptical Pseudo-Science blog is alarmist propaganda emitted by this strange person.

    OTOH, WUWT has won the “Best Science” category in the Weblog Awards twice running. Your Pseudo-Science blog has never even made the finals. Neither did RealClimate. Neither blog is credible. Here, you will learn real, honest science here.

    Do a search of the WUWT archives if you want to see the “coral bleaching” disinformation thoroughly debunked. Likewise regarding the penguin canard [hey, I like that one!] The permafrost question has also been covered. For a list of debunked global warming claims, see here.

    You ask: “Lastly, how about that fact that the ‘research’ of most climate skeptics are financed by coal and oil companies?”

    Please provide verifiable evidence that ‘coal and oil companies’ provide more funding to scientific skeptics [the only honest kind of scientists] than companies, NGOs and governments provide to climate alarmists.

    You aren’t even 18 yet, and you don’t realize the outright propaganda you have been subjected to your whole life. Eventually you will realize what is being done, and why. In the mean time, stick around WUWT. Sixty million unique page views and almost six hundred thousand reader comments mean WUWT has gained widespread acceptance and credibility, unlike slick-looking propaganda blogs that are spoon feeding impressionable youths climate misinformation.

  112. lucia says:
    May 10, 2011 at 3:32 pm

    http://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/sites/default/files/FEDERAL%20FILE%20STAMPED%20COMPLAINT.pdf

    Also, under the Equal Access to justice Act, if the plaintiff prevails in all or a substantial part of the complaint, we as taxpayers get to pay the plaintiff’s attorney fees!

    “The Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) (5 U.S.C. § 504; 28 U.S.C. § 2412) provides for the award of attorney’s fees (up to $125 per hour) and other expenses to eligible individuals and small entities that are parties to litigation against the government. An eligible party may receive an award when it prevails over the government, unless the government’s position was “substantially justified” or special circumstances make an award unjust.”

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

  113. This was discussed in the earlier thread at

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/04/desperate-measures-indeed/

    I think contributor “wws” had the most clear-sighted view of these claims in that thread.

    Sorry kids, but your cases will fail before they even get to the evidence, if the Supreme Court decides in American Electric Power vs. Connecticut that the issues are not legally manageable. The decision will be handed down shortly, but it seems to be the likely outcome. If so only the legislative and executive branches of US government can help you.

  114. Might I also say, Experts can’t expect to be shielded from “difficult” questions in cross examination, if asked specific questions they are bound in law to give truthful answers, so can’t dodge and weave and must give due credit to other scientific opinion, even if it destroys their own hypothesis! Other wise they lose their credibility as an expert and risk being exposed as a liar. This is the risk that experts take when they step in the witness box and swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth!

  115. c.s dealing with your points in order

    1. Global food prices are driven by demand. Global food production is increasing. Global population is growing. More CO2 encourages plant growth. Yes there are always areas of eg varying drought causing local shortages but there always have been and there is no evidence that it is tied to anthropogenic CO2 but to normal climate variations. And as the head of Earth Policy Institute in your quoted Guardian article says.” Adaptation is difficult because our knowledge of the future is not strong enough to drive new investments” So he’s a sceptic.

    2. Just reading the comments on the item you reference http://www.skepticalscience.com/ocean-acidification-global-warming-intermediate.htm

    is enough to make it clear that the behaviour of Coral is not well understood.

    3. Concerning penguins and Antarctic sea ice. The Antarcric sea ice has been very constant since satellite records started in 1979. see http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/

    The article you reference even states that the natural food of penguins is fish “Until about 200 years ago, they ate a diet largely of fish. But as whaling and seal hunting wiped out other top predators of the Antarctic that feasted on krill, the penguins moved in on the easy-to-catch plankton — and their populations swelled. ”

    This well known behaviour in population modelling leads to rapid growth and decline when for some reason an equilibrium is changed. But it’s not caused by anthropogenic CO2 in this case.

    4. Permafrost melt is a future prediction and not a current adverse impact only a projected one. Since the last ice age the permafrost has retreated from 45 deg N to 64 deg N and we seem to be fluorishing.

  116. I love on the Yahoo link ‘Earth will pass a tipping point’ the way they use the day after tomorrow image for cliamte change.

    Oh and ocean acidification.

  117. Hansen is not a climatologist he qualified as an astrophysicist. Not the same discipline at all. Enough said.

  118. Interstingly enough, Hansen lists himself at Columbia rather than GISS in this paper. Therefore, he didn’t need to get NASA approval for the publication.

  119. Coldest March 11 in Australia since 1970… Experts say “this is consistent with our prediction that this winter’s temperature will be above average.”

  120. D Johnson says: May 10, 2011 at 7:30 pm – Re Choppers over Pakistan
    Commonly, it is dangerous to use a method where the end justifies the means. I said nothing of the pleasure or otherwise of my friends about the “end”. The “means” would distress many a country if unalerted, they found 5 USA choppers had entered airspace and done a military job. But then we do not know if Pakistan was alerted or not, there is so much propaganda floating around.
    Very many writers on WUWT have expressed concern with AGW tactics where the end justifies the means. Should we not try to be above that tactic in our thoughts and actions?

  121. David Falkner says:
    May 10, 2011 at 8:11 am

    In a ‘nutshell’ was very appropriate wording.
    =====
    agreed, perfect wording:-)

  122. Hansen needs to get the sack immediately. There is no way a government employee should be allowed to be suing his employer and expect to stay employed. And if he is a NASA scientist it doesn’t matter if he has an adjunct teaching gig, when he publishes it impacts NASA’s reputation. If they had any concern at all of their once storied reputation they would cease all connection with this reprobate.

  123. Wally says:
    In general it is a criminal offense for a US Government employee to appear in a case against the government.

    Given Hansen’s past record, I somehow doubt that concerns him at all.

  124. Is this a publicity stunt, with the adults behind it assuming that the legal action will be dismissed at some early stage? It is unfortunate that they lack the basic adult sense of responsibility for protecting the young from foolishness and ill-founded scaremongering. They inhabit an unattractive world, and are apparently so frightened by it, or so full of hatred for it, that they seek to exploit these youngsters. But their world is one of their own imagining, with or without computer-model enhancements. It is standard operating procedure for political radicals to paint an awful picture of the future in order to destroy the present and thus speed up the arrival of a new and better era. The 20th century is replete with examples of the hideous messes caused when such people actually get into power.

    But perhaps the actions will not be dismissed. Perhaps they will even be vigorously contested. But how can the present administration do so without losing face? Perhaps by arguing that they are doing all that is reasonably feasible in the circumstances? Could they thereby sidestep the more important questions?

  125. CS is well-indoctrinated and it will take a smart comment to make her stop in her tracks and dig a bit deeper for the real truth. She will also risk alienating herself from friends and family whose respect she’s earned by showing “the courage of her convictions” to stand up to us “loonies”. Considering she might be wrong on many counts will not be a very appealing option. Unless she really cares about truth come rain come shine.

    However, you can post here if you want to stand more chance of this group hearing you.

  126. He is just another NASA grant worker – I debated one of his fellow scientist PHD and all. Claimed that the global warming issue was “SETTLED SCIENCE”; I asked what settled science was and did he have a proof of the hypothesis that C02 is a evil gas? he got all angry and lost it. They produced white papers that were based on flawed computer models so they could continue receiving grants and pay checks. Whore science at best.

  127. Every time I think about the “big-oil funding” argument, I have to think about all of the schools and universities that may have had some of their departments built on trust funds, provided by those that had ties to oil or coal money.

    Several universities are in gas, oil and coal-rich areas, and may have had their geology departments enriched by funds from “big-oil”.

  128. Earth has had higher CO2 concentrations several times in its history and it didn’t head to runaway roasting.

    This is what made me start taking a closer look at AGW. Then I turned from a Warmist into a sceptic.

  129. Check out this knee slapper from the iMatter blog (http://imatterblogger.wordpress.com/):
    As you may already know, throughout the country starting on May 7th there will be youth led iMatter marches to voice the urgency of the need for climate change to our government.

    Yes, indeed, we do need climate change. Because change is the only constant!

  130. It’s a setup… the “defendants” such as Lisa Jackson will botch the defense (because they consider it indefensible) thus “proving” the plaintiffs case.

  131. Hansen is doing a lecture tour in New Zealand at the moment.
    He’s complaining about NZ’s use of coal. He doesn’t know enough to know that NZ exports high quality coal for use in making steel.
    Is the world going to stop using steel now?

    Hansen was interviewed on National TV1’s Closeup. I have a copy of the video, which I will make a transcript of if anyone is interested. It has the usual Hansen claims – the Arctic is melting, many animals are going to die, the sea level will rise 70 feet etc. The interviewer Mark Sainsbury let him get away with those claims. There was no balance.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/environment/news/article.cfm?c_id=39&objectid=10725266

    Scientist: Leave coal in the ground

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/4997738/Use-of-coal-bad-for-NZs-image

    Use of coal ‘bad for NZ’s image’
    KIRAN CHUG
    Last updated 05:00 13/05/2011

    Coal is civilisation’s greatest threat, says a top American climate scientist, who has hit out at New Zealand’s green brand and energy programmes on the first day of his tour of the country.

Comments are closed.