Hansen on skeptics – we are winning

Taken at the Energy Crossroads conference in D...

Taken at the Energy Crossroads conference in Denmark on 12 March 2009. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Though, he still thinks we are all funded by some sort of “machine”. It never occurs to him that he’s fighting a guerrilla war and that most skeptics are self motivated.

Update: the UK telegraph has a similar story here

Scientist hits climate change skepticismUPI.com

EDINBURGH,Scotland,April 9 (UPI) –Environmentalists and climate scientists, facing public skepticism, are losing the debate on global warming, a U.S. scientist who first raised the issue says.

James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who issued warnings about man-made climate change as early as the 1980s, said public skepticism is increasing even in the face of growing scientific acceptance of the reality of global warming.

“There is remarkable inconsistency between the scientific story and public story,” Hansen said in Edinburgh, Scotland, where he will receive the Edinburgh Medal at the Edinburgh International Science Festival this week, The Daily Telegraph reported.

Hansen said those opposed to major social and economic changes needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions were attempting to undermine the scientific evidence.
“The science has become stronger and stronger over the past five years while the public perception is has gone in completely the other direction. That is not an accident.

“There is a very concerted effort by people who would prefer to see business to continue as usual. They have been winning the public debate with the help of tremendous resources.”

Without a dramatic change in public opinion, Hansen said,he fears future generations will inherit a world where global warming is out of control.

“Our parents honestly did not know what the consequences of continued development and reliance on fossil fuels as an energy source,” he said. “We can no longer claim that, as the science is now clear.”

About these ads

188 thoughts on “Hansen on skeptics – we are winning

  1. ‘It never occurs to him that he’s fight a guerrilla war and that most skeptics are self motivated.’

    Typo should read ‘that we fight a…..’

    Regards S

  2. What a tool. Unbelievable he can say these blatant falsehoods in name of the once great NASA. Very sad…

  3. Wow,he has a swollen head,they aren’t losing,they have lost.Game set and match the way I see it.

  4. Sure the science is clear, clear as mud.

    The gall of a man who fabricates data graphs and maps using statistical interpolation to inflate the temperature record. Sure it’s clear that that isn’t science, it’s scientific fraud and as he has accepted monies based upon those fabricated claims it graduates to finanancial fraud. Someone needs to find a nice jail cell for Hansen.

  5. Looking through the comments and scores claimed (including mine:-) on the ‘scientific literacy’ test I’m guessing the average was about 40/50, or 80%.

    Perhaps that^s why many of us here are unconvinced by Hanson’s ‘settled’ science’ claim!

  6. “The science is now clear’
    He has the arrogance to think that the public are so stupid that if the science is clear they would accept spin over fact”
    I always thought the older you get the more wise you become, although my research suggests the more you travel by jet plane, living the high life the more you take on the attributes of a air brained celebrity.

  7. I’ve received a sum total of $0.00 for my scientific skepticism on any topic. I don’t even have ads on my science blog.

  8. No, Hansen! you are the one losing the debate about CAGW, because you’re the one who is fixing the numbers & lying to save your own skin. It won’t work and I hope you live long enough to be brought before some kind of tribunal that cashiers you in front of the World’s TV cameras. It’s the very least you deserve. OTOH, your naked banishment to the environs of Barrow in Alaska, as a large white predator tracks you down; that would be fun to watch!

  9. “public skepticism is increasing even in the face of growing scientific acceptance of the reality of global warming”

    At least he didn’t say “growing scientific evidence”. I wonder why?

  10. I honestly don’t know how NASA could possibly feel this man is doing them any good – his history of ill-advised anti-climate sceptic public pronouncements should have rung alarm bells a long time ago. It’s hard to imagine anyone any longer feels Hansen has anything useful or constructive to add to the debate.

  11. Scandelous and shameful. Shameful and scandelous. And he gets a medal for it. What does that say about Edinburgh. I thought Scots had more sense.

  12. “James Hansen,director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies,who issued warnings about man-made climate change as early as the 1980s”

    A week after concluding his alarmist warnings about global cooling…

  13. They left me no choice but to join the ranks of the volunteer fighters against their establishment. It is THEM who orchestrated the biggest attack on the current civilisation, and I hope, that one day I will see them answering for their deeds.
    Global Warming establishment disguists me, as any bunch of lying cheating full of hubris bastards would.

  14. Hmm.
    The PDO has peaked and it’s now starting on its decline.
    The Sun appears to be heading into another grand minimum similar to the Dalton
    Minimum (1790-1840)—or maybe worse (another Maunder Minimum?).

    How much longer before the divergence of the data from the models becomes
    so large even Hansen can neither ignore it nor dismiss it?
    Of course, the data will remain “obviously wrong” for quite a while yet.

    In 3 years time, what will we see?
    In 3 years time, what will the “true believers” have successfully imposed on the world in the
    name of “climate change?”

    We can say—without a shadow of doubt—we definitely live in interesting times …

  15. David, UK says:
    Can somebody change the record please? I’ve heard this one.
    ——————————————————————————————–
    David, I am certain that James Hansen would be the happiest of all if he were to be left to his own devices. And, when did you last hear this story…where he will receive the Edinburgh Medal at the Edinburgh International Science Festival this week…?
    Geoff A

  16. I will believe that Hansen believes what he says when his own children and grandchildren live in mud huts without heating and AC, eating only what they grow in their own gardens. When his own children and grandchildren have given up electricity, telephones, TV’s and other modern conveniences…I will believe that his prophecies of doom include both him and us.

  17. I think that James Hansen gets his scientific facts from the same sourse as the skeptics get their millions of dollars in funding.
    That would be never never land.
    When was the last time that JH debated this issue?

  18. I guess trying to shut down the economy, oh yeah, and civilization, and going from a promise of boiling seas and fry-and-die for all, to a sudden “um, yes, that means it can get colder, too, LOOK, the snow proves it!” – turned out to be a bad idea.

  19. Hansen said:
    “…..a world where global warming is out of control”. Control by whom? Hansen himself? Does he he think thathe is God? Global warmings, and coolings and climate change have always been out of Man’s control. If Hansen believes that he can control the weather or global climate, then he must be sufferring from a serious bout of megalomania and should be wearing a straight jacket and locked up in a rubber-lined room.

    “….growing scientific acceptance of the reality of global warming”. We all know that global warming (and coolings) has happened, will happen and will always happen. It’s the cause that we don’t agree on and more and more scientists, such as Professor Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, a social democrat and green activist and geologist/paleontologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning. Vahrenholt who authored the now famous book Die Kalte Sonne. fact is that more andmore scientists are coming out of the woodwork exposing their skepticism on the anthropogenic cause of climate change.

    I think that besides ‘climate deniers’ and ‘climate skeptics’, there should be another label added to this story, describing those scientists who are abondining AGW beliefs in exchange for a healthy dose of climate skepticsm. I am not proposing a label myself. Any offers?

  20. Apparently, The Wellcome Trust is going to fund an e-journal for those scientists who are finding difficulty in getting their papers into mainstream journals. Is this going to be good, bad or neutral for the sceptics?

    Anthea

  21. When proponents of AGW start behaving as though it’s real, then I might start thinking there is something in it!

  22. There clearly is a disconnect between reality and what goes on in Hansen’s brain. History will not be kind.

  23. He does not really mean science he means a narrow group of climate scientists when he talks about scientific opinion. Since their people were all recruited in an era when belief in global warming was a prerequisite of any hope of job acceptance he does not grasp that public belief now needs external examination of the theory by qualified specialists in every area from data collection to data analysis and the computer modelling.
    Trust in climate scientists for many now ranks equal if not lower than that of of bankers and politicians so giving any climate scientist an award degrades and belittles every single member of the scientific community.
    Hansen forgets that many of us were believers until the evidence that forced them to have a rebranding from global warming to climate change forced us to believe evidence we had already seen of deception, data manipulation and sloppy methods but up to then disbelieved. When the internal debate partially escaped into the public domain revealed the removal of those no longer committed to the AGW religion our previous commitment turned to antagonism for having been suckered deliberately using the integrity of other scientific fields to bolster the unjustified faith in them.
    If the science is so clear why are the predictions not detailed and 100% accurate unlike the 100 months to doomsday temperature rises given so much publicity until it became obvious they were junk when there now seems a systematic attempt to write this prediction out from history of the web.

  24. “It never occurs to him that he’s fight a guerrilla war and that most skeptics are self motivated.”

    Typo alert. That should be “… he’s fighting a guerrilla war …”

    I think James Hansen is the least “scientific” man I have ever heard of. He is worse in some ways that people who believe in magic.

  25. In science, skeptics “win” by default, so Hansen should not be surprised. The science has become stronger, unfortunately it didn’t point in the direction he hoped. At the TAR there was the hockey stick and the model results. At the FAR we knew of the problems with the hockey stick and we had a much improved model diagnostic literature that showed correlated model error larger than the phenomenon of interest. The case for net positive feedback and anthropogenic influence that was significantly greater than natural variation was always questionable.

  26. I really have no idea how someone like Hansen can be so deluded. The science is clearly on the sceptic side. Every single one of their claims has fallen through … except the one which we sceptics now appear to be the main champions of…

    CO2 causes around 1C of warming for a doubling.

    Hansen just needs to accept this science and stops his non-science pontifications which just make him laughable.

  27. Oh, NASA, hero organisation of my childhood! Now can’t launch anyone into space, is controlled by pork-barrellers, and employs nuts like Hansen.

    “How have the mighty fallen”.

  28. I can picture Del Boy Hansen leaning against his Error Bar with a glass of Old Pulteney, telling tales of Global Weirding as the Edinburgh chill creeps into his old bones. I wonder what the canny Scots think of his prophecies? Lets hope no-one lifts the lid on him.

  29. ” … with the help of tremendous resources” ?!

    What the hell is this jackass talking about? Even if it were true that “BIG OIL” was funding the skeptics, it’s a drop in the bucket compared to the funding that the alarmists are getting from BIG GOVERNMENT. Plus, the alarmist side has had virtually absolute control of the journals, though it looks like that’s starting to change now, thanks to Climategate. The only advantages we have are 1) the exposure of the deceipt, corruption, and arrogance of the other side, and 2) the cooperation of Mother Nature. Yes, we’re winning alright, not because of tremendous resources, but in SPITE of tremendous resources applied against us. Can the son of a witch not at least be honest about THAT much?

  30. “The science has become stronger and stronger over the past five years while the public perception is has gone in completely the other direction. That is not an accident.

    “There is a very concerted effort by people who would prefer to see business to continue as usual. They have been winning the public debate with the help of tremendous resources.”

    He’s kidding right? For example the public in the UK were promised milder winters. It failed and they used their own eyes. Furthermore, the IPCCs temperature projections have diverged with reality and so on.

    On the issue of “tremendous resources” need I remind him that the self-confessed liar, Peter Gleick, thought the same thing too until he inadvertantly revealed a relatively poorly funded empherically based science machine. I want to see evidence of the tremendous resources on the sceptics side.

  31. ridule at will!
    Ballad of the Skint Man

    The doctors in the lab
    made a seven legged math
    but the fat lady is singing
    there’s no baby in the bath
    and somebody next to you tries to feel your wrath
    as you grope for some sticks and stones.
    Something is happening but you don’t know what it is,
    Do you, Mr. Jones?

    you get thrown off the stage
    by an angry ground hog
    People smell a rat
    but you blame it on the dog
    but the peasants with their pitchforks
    don’t want to kiss your frog
    so you’ll have to feed the shark alone.
    Cuz something is happening here
    But you don’t know what it is Do you, Mister Jones ?

    You peek through the drapes
    At the tracks in the snow
    The butcher is looking for
    a goat named van gogh
    you quote nevermore
    but the man says he knows
    you’re shallow to the bone.
    But something is happening here
    And you don’t know what it is. Do you, Mister Jones ?

    Men in suits come by
    to help adjust your tie
    as you try to justify
    your incredible infatuation.

    On a chalkboard with perfect pitch
    The train starts to dig a ditch
    You hit the ignition switch
    and set off a terrible conflagration

    You blindfold your prisoner
    and whisper in his ear
    about your powerful alchemy
    turning pixels into fear
    but you stay in your closet
    with your inflatable langolier
    and fantasize about your clone.
    And something is happening here
    But you don’t know what it is. Do you, Mister Jones ?

    They’re rationing reason
    Beating space ships into plows
    You can still kill for treason
    the only question is how.
    But when you’re in season
    you say ‘the other cow!’
    and fill your boots with french cologne.
    Because something is happening
    But you don’t know what it is. Do you, Mister Jones ?

    Well, you walk into the room
    expecting some stares
    you eat worms from the can
    but hardly anyone cares
    you want to get naked
    but your clothes aren’t there
    and jesus doesn’t have a phone.
    Something is happening
    And you don’t know what it is. Do you, Mister Jones ?

    The old man in the painting
    looks you in the eye.
    you call for a friend
    but get no reply
    something under the bed
    says “we know where you lie’
    so you try to hide beneath a throne.
    And you know something is happening
    But you don’t know what it is. Do you, Mister Jones ?

    http://www.filefactory.com/file/66wkica9af4j/n/Skint_Man_128_mp3

  32. Trevor says:
    April 10, 2012 at 2:49 am
    “” … with the help of tremendous resources” ?!

    What the hell is this jackass talking about?”

    WordPress. The skeptics have wordpress.

  33. cui bono says:
    April 10, 2012 at 2:44 am
    “Oh, NASA, hero organisation of my childhood! Now can’t launch anyone into space, is controlled by pork-barrellers, and employs nuts like Hansen.

    “How have the mighty fallen”.”

    Ran out of Germans.

  34. Alex the skeptic says:

    “I think that besides ‘climate deniers’ and ‘climate skeptics’, there should be another label added to this story, describing those scientists who are abondining AGW beliefs in exchange for a healthy dose of climate skepticsm. I am not proposing a label myself. Any offers?”

    That label would be “scientists”

  35. I disagree with Hansen’s illustration that skeptics have been winning with the help of tremendous resources. I would say despite his tremendous resources.

  36. I disagree with Hansen, he might believe not enough is being done to reduce CO2 but the global warming concept has been accepted globally, it is rarely challenged in the media it is accepted generally by the media and “saving the planet” and “reducing carbon footprint” are bandied about everywhere, and are foremost in the design of all new product be they cars, buildings, airplanes whatever. There is a huge global industry of solar energy devices and it is expanding rapidly.
    The skeptical view is sidelined, reserved for oddballs, at least that is the public conception. It seems to me that this is now a bandwagon rolling on and nothing will stop it, even if warming has stopped or if there was cooling.

  37. ““The science has become stronger and stronger over the past five years….” Just how can this man utter such an obvious untruth?

  38. The Science is now clear? But I thought it was settled years ago. In fact, they were so certain in 2007 it beats me that they are even studying it any more.

  39. “It never occurs to him that he’s fight(ing) a guerrilla war and that most skeptics are self motivated.”

    It never occurred to the Brits in the late 1700’s or the US in Vietnam. You know how those went.

  40. Has Hansen not figured it out that no one is disagreeing that the climate has changed, and is changing continuously, not to mention that we all agrre that the global temperature has risen since the end of the Little Ice Age. Our disagreement is with the “Catastrophic Anthropogenic” part of the Global Warming.

  41. Charles Gerard Nelson says:
    April 10, 2012 at 12:14 am
    It must take a lot of guts to go to Edinburgh and try and scare people about Global Warming.
    Average temperature in, april 7C / 45 F. Brrrrrr!
    ====================================================================
    Weather in Edinburgh this morning = 2C and Snow. All hail the Gore effect…

  42. Dr. Hansen, if you’re reading this, I’m willing to switch income streams with you for a year — longer, if you prefer.

  43. Jimmy is the quintessential alarmist. He predicts as follows based on continued increasing CO2 emissions:

    1. 5 meter sea level rise this century.
    2. Mass extinction event this century.
    3. Boiling of the oceans within four centuries.

    None of these predictions/projections are mainstream. Hasen is a contrarian.
    Yet he seems to be able to justify a pretty significant carbon footprint for himself. I wonder what the carbon footprint is for $26,000 vacations to give lectures? Or $18,000 vacations to accept $500,000 awards?
    Here is his outside income filing:

    http://www.atinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/ATI-NASA-Hansen-SF-278-2010.pdf

  44. http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2012/04/09/Scientist-hits-climate-change-skepticism/UPI-92091334006189/?spt=hs&or=sn

    scepticism 101. leave a comment. mine is number 6.
    btw, is there some sort of new literacy devolution going on ? or has the space between commas and words been lost to black holes and other dark matter ?
    this is a case of warmists losing, not sceptics winning.
    on a brighter note, I’m aiming for comment 111 111 111
    I was happy to rip strips off a green journalist on the weekend. he was moderately up the eco-retard food chain, working from Papua/New Guinea, home of Lihir Gold. I don’t suppose Lihir Gold is on your radar, but is the site of arguably the most toxic pollution in the southern hemisphere. we debated for 2×30 mins, and I used my ‘extensive’ collection of wuwt material, collected over 18 months, to floor him in the 2nd session. we exchanged info, in a ‘thrust and parry’.
    this may not meet moderation approval, being outside the “let’s not offend anyone important’ box, and maybe provocative, but his response to my claim of Americans paying for the UN was to show me an article which claimed America owed the UN over a trillion dollars. !!! wuwt !!! he also led pretty strongly with evacuating pacific islands, which he had a hand in. I countered with land falling in areas was often a local event, as in the drop of the sea walls at Fukoshima, and parried with the 50 000 000 climate refugees by 2010 cagw claim.
    my comment to the above link was “I’m disappointed that Scottish people would pay lip service to such obvious crap…”
    I’m posting this comment to facebook.

  45. “There is a very concerted effort by people who would prefer to see business to continue as usual. They have been winning the public debate with the help of tremendous resources.”

    Still desperately seeking “command HQ” poor soul.

  46. Trevor says:
    April 10, 2012 at 2:49 am

    “What the hell is this jackass talking about? Even if it were true that “BIG OIL” was funding the skeptics, it’s a drop in the bucket compared to the funding that the alarmists are getting from BIG GOVERNMENT.”

    There is no bigger “Big Oil” than OPEC. Hansen has been instrumental in effecting their ability to suck the wealth out of the industrialized world. No need to wonder who they would fund.

  47. He says that the science has progressed over 5 years and now they know much more than they did before. What happened to the “science is settled”????

  48. What you have to bear in mind when Hansen says things like, “with the help of tremendous resources”, he actually BELIEVES this. He, like all the fanatics, has now become a victim of their own propaganda.

    “The lies have been repeated so often that they now believe them themselves. That is now their operational worldview and their understanding of us and it’s a false one. Essentially, they went to war against and are still fighting, a phantasm figure who is a patchwork product of their own spin machine’s memes. They simply have a false understanding of us and that works in our favour.”

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/03/16/the-climate-wars-revisited-or-no-truce-with-kings/

    Pointman

  49. Other_Andy says:
    April 10, 2012 at 3:39 am
    NASA?
    Do they do climate ‘science’?
    I thought that their “foremost” mission was to improve relations with the Muslim world?

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/05/nasa-chief-frontier-better-relations-muslims/

    ————————
    Andy, space is just a sideline. The real missions of NASA GISS is control of all muslims and returning the world to the proper climate of our youte. (what’s a youte?)
    Whew, damn know nothing skeptics.
    Please get with the program.

  50. The AGW believers were never winning. You need ot have integirty, knowledge and reality to win.
    Hansen and his fellow extremists never had any of that.

  51. “James Hansen,director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies,who issued warnings about man-made climate change as early as the 1980s…..”

    And how many of the predictions he has made since then have come true? All of them! I know this because I am on the FDR in my scuba gear (glub). Who are you going to believe, Hansen and me or your lyin’ eyes? /sarc

    “The science has become stronger and stronger over the past five years while the public perception is has gone in completely the other direction.”

    How does science that is “settled” become “stronger and stronger?” It’s done, it’s over, no further research needed, let’s pack our labs and go home. Oh, wait, people have not been sufficiently scared by our previous predictions, we need to revise them to make them even scarier and to reflect the predictions that never came true. Now, maybe they will pay attention! /sarc

  52. Every time I see the name “James Hansen” and the title “director” and the letters “NASA” I am struck by a profound sadness. NASA once stoked the dreams we had for a better future through science and technology; now all they serve up through people like Hansen is fear and demands we retreat from the very future NASA pioneers helped bring about.

  53. If I had won that $600 million lottery, I think I would “build” a resort island that has a zero carbon footprint relying soley on “sustainable” and “green” resources from the pre-industrial age. Only people who took horse and buggies to the coast and Chinese junks to the island port allowed. I bet I could charge these rich butt-holes hundreds of dollars a night to live in Stone Age splendor. It could even have a Flintstone theme for the kiddies.

  54. The poor man can find causation in correlation for everything else except his incessant barking and the increase in CAGW skepticism.

  55. Harold Ambler says:
    April 10, 2012 at 3:58 am

    “Dr. Hansen, if youre reading this, I’m willing to switch income streams with you for a year longer, if you prefer.”

    The last time Hansen talked about his income, he bragged about paying his taxes on the loot and owning a car that leaked oil.

    I would also have to disagree with Hansen – I think THEY are the winners. Look at the BILLIONS in Climate Ca$h they’re receiving now from governments all around the world.

    By the way, I would like to identify a new effect called “The Hansen Effect”. Every time there is a post here on some idiotic statement he’s made, all of of our trolls go into hiding. There is also a related phenomenon called the “Climate Ca$h effect” – again where our fossil fuel-using trolls suddenly go into hiding whenever there is mention made of the BILLIONS they receive in climate “science” funding…

  56. Hansen says: “There is a very concerted effort by people who would prefer to see business to continue as usual.”

    For once I agree with him! He is one of those people, and his usual business is to make large sums of money and (more importantly, I think, for him) to accrue prestige and praise from the useful idiots. The man is not a scientist; he is an anti-scientist. Once he crossed the line of honest debate and began to alter the temperature record he committed the one unforgiveable sin of science.

  57. Maybe they’ll give him the “Glasgow Kiss” before he leaves too. I’d pay to see that.

  58. Timiboy sez: “The Science is now clear? But I thought it was settled years ago. In fact, they were so certain in 2007 it beats me that they are even studying it any more.”

    –This is hilarious. Exactly like the doomsday end of the world preacher who kept revising the date of the apocalypse. Hansen is in a cult and needs to be deprogrammed.

  59. Hansen is right about the tremendous resources on the skeptic’s side. They are called brains.

  60. pwl says:
    April 10, 2012 at 12:27 am
    I’ve received a sum total of $0.00 for my scientific skepticism on any topic.

    I have so much income from this pastime, that even one thousandth of this sum would be the same, exactly. I bet Dr. Hansen simply can’t solve a difficult equation like this.

  61. “Hansen said those opposed to major social and economic changes needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions were attempting to undermine the scientific evidence.

    “The science has become stronger and stronger over the past five years while the public perception is has gone in completely the other direction. That is not an accident.”

    Hanssen’s “logic” doesn’t make good sense. As Davy Crockett once said, it doesn’t even make good nonsense. It’s possible , and logically consistent to believe that additonal CO2 WILL prouce more warming, as the CAGWers attest, yet believe that the good of condinuted industrial production outweighs the bad of additional warming. It is also logically consistent to belive that additional CO2 will lead to additioanl warming, and that warming will be a GOOD thing- something to strive for.

    To sum up, different people can accept the same theory, but still take different political stances depending on their differing views and goals.

  62. @Andrew
    >>Scandelous and shameful. Shameful and scandelous. And he gets a medal for it. What does that say about Edinburgh. I thought Scots had more sense.
    ____
    Yep. This makes as much sense as Obama being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for nothing at all. Eventually they’ll be trying to convince us the moon is made of green cheese. Unfortunately, quite a few people will obediently nod their heads and never question this new “revelation.”

  63. Anthony said,

    “Though, he still thinks we are all funded by some sort of “machine”. It never occurs to him that he’s fight a guerrilla war and that most skeptics are self motivated.”

    – – – –

    Anthony,

    I suggest independent thinkers (skeptics) move away from military terminology when discussing the broad scientific /social /economic /ethical aspects of climate related dialogs.  We can take a higher level of discussion without warfare references.

    John

  64. Hansen is a victim of group think. I am sure he honestly believes it is a fact when he says “the science of global warming is getting stronger and stronger.” He will have perceived the deluge of alarmist papers, spoken only to like minded fanatics.

    He probably has never heard of the names of Richard Lindzen or Akasofu, or if he has, it is only in conversation with fellow fanatics, where they are routinely dissed and dismissed in the most sneering manner.

    How could anyone possibly have an appreciation of the sceptical science in such an environment? And Hansen is not just anyone. He is a zealot with a mind so closed that no chink of light can ever penetrate the darkness. The more he speaks, the more we shake our heads in disbelief.

  65. Yes, Hanson’s delusional and beyond repair. Yes, the AGW cabal is losing. But here in the U.S., we’re going to be paying dearly for accepting their delusions for some time to come. The Supreme Court ruled CO2 a pollutant giving the EPA authority to regulate its’ industrial production. No new coal electrical generating plants will be built ,and older facilities will go off line because of this nonsense.

    I’ll believe we’re actually winning when government funding of Green Industries cease, and a new administration places a gag on CO2 regulation. We can’t afford to wait for another Maunder minimum to prove a point. Right now, Hanson is still way ahead of us.

  66. I did not know that they gave medals for LYING!
    Leave it to the Brits to celebrate just about anything.

    Tell me again—why does he still have his job at NASA?

  67. ” I am on the FDR in my scuba gear (glub)”

    Non-New Yorkers won’t realize that “FDR Drive” (aka East Side Drive) was meant. Also, Hansen was talking about the West Side Drive. Not that both wouldn’t be inundated per his sea level prediction.

  68. “The science has become stronger and stronger over the past five years”
    Time to ask Dr. Hansen and/or NASA exactly what is being referred to here.
    Much like Vicky Pope said there was evidence but linked to a page Met Office page with no evidence at all, still haven’t received an explanation for that from the Met Office.

  69. The comments against established science on this site, again as I have stated in other places on this blog, are ridiculous.

    Hansen is talking about American conservative public opinion, not public understanding globally.

    Many Americans live in a bubble of consumerism, and all align their beliefs in opinions along political lines.

  70. “Hansen said those opposed to major social and economic changes needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions were attempting to undermine the scientific evidence.”

    (My bold)

    And thereby hangs the tail: Hansen is more concerned, along with his ‘Green’ buddies, about getting control of people, not for science but for pure, unalloyed power.

    To extend what Disko Troop suggested (A Glasgow kiss): that act is usually preceded by the comment: ‘See you Jimmy, can ye sew? Well, stitch this!!’ Now THAT, I’d pay to see!

  71. Wishing the man dead makes us no better than the illeterate twit who suggested that Watts kill himself with CO. Shame on you.

    Moderators: why do you allow that? It just gives our detractors more ammunition to call us dangerous kooks.

  72. “There is a very concerted effort by people who would prefer to see business to continue as usual. They have been winning the public debate with the help of tremendous resources.”

    The increased waste and abuse of tremendous resources by the charlatans trying to halt business as usual has helped catch the attention of people who would prefer to make a living.

  73. Pleeeeze! Won’t someone think of the children.
    If Hansen is correct,and we skeptics are “winning”, the children will remain free.
    Thanks Anthony.WUWT is indeed an enormous asset. Keep on rockin’ ladies and gents!

  74. “There is remarkable inconsistency between the scientific story and public story,”
    ===================
    No there’s not…………..LOL
    ….but keep it up, you’re doing yourself in

  75. He is talking about the forced social and economic change that people oppose based on common sense and the desire not to suffer from his solutions.

  76. Bob the Swiss:
    How can this guy remains director of the NASA GISS ?

    higley7:

    Tell me again—why does he still have his job at NASA?

    In order to coordinate the manipulation of historical temperatures so that they provide a better match to the models and the preconcieved notion of global warming.

    … In my opinion.

  77. From a ‘political’ point of view Hansen is right – in fact he could have said that the ‘warmists’ (Agenda 21 et al) have won. The European Union is taxing everything on emissions, has a working emissions trading scheme and mandating ethanol; the US similarly mandates ethanol and is regulating fossil fueled generation out of business. _All_ the populatiion now understands the idea of global warming and the suparmarkets show ‘local produce with low carbon footprint’. Rio+20 will be a roaring success and expect the impositiion of international treaties as a result.

    From a scientific perspective they have lost – but many of the converts will be unable to conceive of CO2 driven climate change NOT happening – so they will continue to blame every weather occurence on fossil fuels. There are too many scientific illiterates thanks to academia’s bias being put ahead of real science.

    So I am afraid Hansen is right – they have won – even if the weather and climate ceased to cooperate a few years ago and may cool significantly. It’s cooling because of global warming after all.

  78. A glance at the source of funds for this organisation reveals that the major funding bodies were gvernmental, both at national and local level, and that other important sources were energy companies that levy renewable obligation taxes.
    No doubt further research would reveal that the remaining sources also have seats at the governmental feeding troughs, but, since I have no doubt, i will leave it to a lurking AGW troll to prove me wrong.

  79. aul Marko says:
    April 10, 2012 at 6:31 am

    Yes, Hanson’s delusional and beyond repair. Yes, the AGW cabal is losing. But here in the U.S., we’re going to be paying dearly for accepting their delusions for some time to come. The Supreme Court ruled CO2 a pollutant giving the EPA authority to regulate its’ industrial production. No new coal electrical generating plants will be built ,and older facilities will go off line because of this nonsense.

    I’ll believe we’re actually winning when government funding of Green Industries cease, and a new administration places a gag on CO2 regulation. We can’t afford to wait for another Maunder minimum to prove a point. Right now, Hanson is still way ahead of us.

    I think you will find that the Supreme Court did not rule CO2 a pollutant. They ruled that the EPA had the legal powers to regulate CO2 as a pollutant. That of course is what they have done. Nobody in Congress has had the sense to call the EPA on that and have them state what is the ‘safe level’ and why that is so. As if the CO2 concentration falls to less than 150ppm plants will start dying shortly followed by most of nature.

  80. The currency received by me for my climate scepticism? Getting to see bozos like Hansen, Mann and Gore self-immolate with gobs of funding. The thing that irritates me, however, is the waste of money. Then there’s our local crop of trolls, who do the same thing for free…some kind of compulsive anti-scepticism. Oh my, can I hope beyond hope that I will see the gutting of AGW in my lifetime?

  81. fenbeagleblog says:
    April 10, 2012 at 1:11 am

    You and Josh are national treasures. I always look forward to a new fenbeagle masterpiece.

  82. “Leave it to the Brits to celebrate just about anything.” I guess this was written by an American, so I can’t take offence at it. It would be like taking offence at a baby poking out its tongue.
    “Tell me again—why does he still have his job at NASA?” Because it is an American organization?
    Point is, higley7, abuse of one’s allies is not necessarily something that is the private property of Uncle Sam. Now, man up, and apologize.

  83. Hansen likes using exponential functions. In the 1970’s he promoted exponential cooling just around the corner. In the 1980’s he flipped to exponential heating just around the corner.

    He forgot to include an i (or j for you engineer types) in the exponent. With its complex conjugate, you end up with cyclical climate change.

  84. It is astonishing, @snotrocket, that you have twisted the situation.

    The facts should drive the policy, not the other way around as you have mistakenly put it.
    The scientific evidence which is peer reviewed should drive a reduction in greenhouse gas production.

  85. So an old fella, who forgot to bring his hat, went to Scotland to get a badge and said, “The science has become stronger and stronger over the past five years while the public perception has gone in completely the other direction. That is not an accident.”
    Nope, must be caused by climate change. :o]

  86. It is so hypocritical that those posting here speak of a broken record regarding James Hansen’s Comments. No where is it more evident in the anti global warming community that an echo chamber keeps resounding again and again, recycling recycling myth after myth.

    All of the myths, every one, dispelled here:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

  87. Interesting that Hansen is worried about losing the debate he refuses to actually have.

    Imagine how bad it would be for the likes of him, Mann, Schmidt, Romm et al if they actually did publicly debate skeptics.

    There is only one side hiding from challenges and open discussion. It’s the ones claiming there is nothing to discuss.
    Tonight in Portland Oregon there will be an alarmists presentation by Oregon state climatologist Phil Mote and professor Schmittner.
    It’s a follow up to a January Oregon AMS sponsored skeptic’s presentation.

    Here is the perfect example of how Mote or Schmittner et al discuss or debate AGW. They just don’t.

    After 2:30:00 & Schmittner’s long comment (that was supposed to be a question) Chuck Wiese challenges him with a specific scientific point and asked Schmittner where the evidence was for the AGW claimed effect of current increasing concentrations of CO2.

    Schmittner’s reply evaded the question entirely as he said, “I don’t agree with that and I do think the paleoclimate data shows there is strong effect from the CO2.”

    This shows how Mote, Schmittner et al are incapable of having any focused conversation, discussion or debate. They will not address or answer any of the specific and focused challenges which normal discussion generates.

  88. It is fascinating that , contrary to the scientific method, AGW skeptics form a disbelief about global warming, then find evidence to support it instead of weighing all evidence.

    This clearly makes most of the skeptic community a member of a religion, not science based analysis.

    Real scientists of the other hand look at all the evidence and form conclusions based on that.

  89. Checking premises is a good thing to do. : )

    Hansen irrationally attributes profoundly immoral motivations to all independent thinkers who are critics of his ‘a priori’/pre-science premise. His ‘a priori’/pre-science premise is it must be bad that humans are burning fossil fuels. That premise became the single fundamental concept of ‘the cause’. Then Hansen went out to advocate and promote only the science of people who agree with his ‘a priori’/pre-science premise that is the essential philosophical foundation of ‘the cause’. When it quickly became apparent that there was insufficient science to support that ‘a priori/pre-science premise and the resulting ‘the cause’ then a voluntary and self-selected group of scientists (‘the team’) spontaneously agreed to promote any so-called science that supported ‘the cause’ and become gate-keepers to stymie skeptics (independents) from involvement in the IPCC processes. See CG1 & CG2 for evidence of their efforts. They were IPCC centric CAGWists and proceeded to collaborate internationally with a primary focus on gaming the processes of the IPCC. It was a collaboration which yielded the IPCC centric science that was unavoidably biased toward CAGWism because of ‘the team’s’ shared myopic acceptance to pursue only what supported Hansen’s ‘a priori’/pre-science premise.

    Hansen is the single most important reason that his so-called science is not being broadly accepted. He failed scientific professionalism and objectivity. It is ironic that he seems to have martyred himself for the benefit of the skeptics, weakening the case for his ‘cause’. That make him an anti-martyr for his ‘cause’.

    The above makes a valuable case study for future journalism classes. The case study is needed by most journalists; the ones who were not critical of the Hansen’s ‘a priori’/pre-science premise and the resulting ‘cause’. The public has broadly smelled the problem with the foundation of ‘the cause’ but the fawning journalists were incapable of seeing it. They could not see the problem with ‘the cause’ because the journalists were ideologically pre-conditioned to accept it by their indoctrination in certain major schools of journalism that favor ideologies like Hansen’s brainchild ‘the cause’.

    John

  90. David, UK says:
    “Can somebody change the record please? I’ve heard this one.”

    I’d suggest that Hansen and Jones have changed the temperature record often enough.

  91. Hansen said “those opposed to major social and economic changes…”
    ___________________________
    Hansen scores “own goal”.

  92. Trevor says:
    April 10, 2012 at 2:53 am

    Alex:

    How bout “climate apostates”?

    Or maybe “climate dissidents”?

    Dissident: disagreeing especially with an established religious or political system, organization, or belief.

    Hansen’t “take” on climate is certainly an “established religious belief”.

  93. @Kosowski: The first 2 of your points are recognized, established, peer-reviewed scientific predictions. They are based on the current evidence at hand, which is always subject to change.. I have no idea what you mean by mainstream, since all that matters is evidence, not public opinion.

    As to point number 3, I do not believe any scientist is predicting boiling of the oceans in four centuries, or ever, until the sun explodes a few 1,000,000,000 years from now.
    This a joke, the pronouncement of a lunatic or exaggeration for effect, and I would like to see a source for it.

    You wrote Hansen “predicts as follows based on continued increasing CO2 emissions:

    1. 5 meter sea level rise this century. 2. Mass extinction event this century. 3. Boiling of the oceans within four centuries.

    None of these predictions/projections are mainstream. Hasen is a contrarian

  94. Maurizio Rovati says:

    April 10, 2012 at 1:33 am

    He looks pretty like this guy… :-)

    ========================================================================

    If that’s Baghdad Bob in the link, can Dr. Jim be MadDad Jim?

    “These are not great souls who alert us to troubles but tiny minds who wish us suffering if we have the presumption to refuse to listen to them. Catastrophe is not their fear but their joy. It is a short distance from lucidity to bitterness, from prediction to anathema. — Pascal Bruckner via Steve Hayward at Powerline today.

  95. John Whitman @ 6:27 am –
    John, the war terminology is perfectly appropriate. The CAGW proponents are making war on western civilization, attempting to lay it to waste. Other than the lack of direct civilian casualties, the draconian laws and regulations proposed and enacted by Western governments in the name of reversing CAGW are destroying the industrial capacity of Europe and the U.S. almost as effectively as WW2 aerial bombing did. A power plant or factory closed by insane laws and regulations is no different than a power plant or factory closed by bombing – it’s still closed.

    Jay Davis

  96. Hansen’s bigger computer suggests more robust modeling for funding agencies. Like a bigger car suggests more massive equipment for the ladies. In both cases, there are hidden shortcomings. In reality, we’re just getting screwed.

  97. Alex The Skeptic (1:26AM) -Those who have seen the light: “Epiphinates”. I just made that word up.
    Pointman (4:48AM) – When a liar believes his own lies, he becomes a Pathological Liar.

  98. Tim Mantyla says:
    April 10, 2012 at 7:09 am
    The comments against established science on this site, again as I have stated in other places on this blog, are ridiculous…..Hansen is talking about American conservative public opinion, not public understanding globally…..Many Americans live in a bubble of consumerism, and all align their beliefs in opinions along political lines.

    Except that no kind of science, nor what you may call “the science,” is ever established, and in this case it’s not much of a science other than flashy wizardry and repitious appeals to authority to obscure a massive investment, funding and global taxation racket. Follow the real money, including that from oil companies…the biggest corporate donors to the “greens”… which delight in this artificial, regulations-induced scarcity where they can avoid new competition, produce far less and earn much more. That’s how you make the trite “less is more” line into a reality.

    And, with all the attention on CO2, have you ever wondered about where the evidence is that even the most dramatic warming would have a bad effects on the world? History shows exactly the opposite. Al Gore’s Hollywoodish phantasmagoria of droughts, floods, hurricanes doesn’t count as evidence.

    Also, what do you know about “public understanding globally”? We don’t know how the majority of people in the world think simply because they live under tyrannies and cannot express themselves honestly.

  99. To the man who triumphantly shouted that April in Scotland was very cold this month, it is not evidence for global cooling. People who post on this site who are knowledgeable should be noting this, from skepticalscience.com:

    ” To conclude that global warming has ended based on recent cold snaps is another example of the misleading practice of focusing on small pieces of the puzzle while ignoring the broader picture.”

  100. Bob the Swiss says:
    April 10, 2012 at 12:23 am
    “How can this guy remains director of the NASA GISS ?”

    Obama’s in charge. Harry Reid, accomplice.

  101. It is telling that the site claims to be the most viewed, not the mostscientific or authoritative , site on global warming.

    I have experienced the unscientific echoing of recycled myths, and stooping to attempted smears and bullying first hand, when I posted comments about this another article regarding monkton of benchLey’s

  102. Pointman says:

    You can’t help but feel it’s only a matter of time until he pulls a Gleick. He’s such a driven fanatic.

    Then again, I’d rather have him pull a Gleick than a similarly named Austrian product. Fanatics on a mission to save mankind are unpredictable.

  103. Ive asked this question many times, How does glowbull warming always have to be bad gloom & doom results? The fact is everything in on or about the planet is a natural thing. Granted much of it like a snakes poison can harm or kill organic life. You cant take something and make it into nothing. and cant take nothing and make it into something. And for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. So it should eventually come out Even Steven. Hansen will eventually self sabotage.

  104. The recent work, or at least a recent presentation, by Richayhrd Lindzen has been revealed as false; look at realclimate.org.

    His work in the real science community has long been regarded as relying on the flawed data and conclusions. Again, many on this site are failing to do adequate research. This makes your conclusions flawed.

    Any 1 of you could get a climate science degree, but on this site is anyone doing it?

    REPLY: You don’t have a climate science degree either, so what is stopping you? And, what makes you more qualified to make pronouncements? Goose gander, and all that. And, Dr. James Hansen of NASA GISS doesn’t have a climate science degree either, in fact, his degree is in astronomy and physics.

    Education:
    BA with highest distinction (Physics and Mathematics), University of Iowa, 1963
    MS (Astronomy), University of Iowa, 1965
    Visiting student, Inst. of Astrophysics, University of Kyoto & Dept. of Astronomy, Tokyo University, Japan, 1965-1966
    Ph.D. (Physics), University of Iowa, 1967

    Source: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/hansencv_201201.pdf

    Not even training in meteorology. It seems that many people at NASA see Dr. Hansen and GISS as an embarrassment:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/10/hansen-and-schmidt-of-nasa-giss-under-fire-engineers-scientists-astronauts-ask-nasa-administration-to-look-at-emprical-evidence-rather-than-climate-models/

    So Mr. Mantya, please stop your pointless blathering about things you know absolutely nothing about and go write some articles on brains or something. http://timmantyla.wordpress.com/tag/brain/ .

    – Anthony

  105. After killing our manned space program and starving the unmanned programs into oblivion, all that’s left of NASA is Hansen’s alarmism. Truly the Dark Ages are impending.

  106. Jimbo says:
    “On the issue of “tremendous resources” need I remind him that the self-confessed liar, Peter Gleick, thought the same thing too until he inadvertantly revealed a relatively poorly funded empherically based science machine. I want to see evidence of the tremendous resources on the sceptics side.”

    Peter Gleick still thinks there’s a well organized and funded Climate Denial Machine, as evidenced by his confession. These people have no ability to evaluate evidence objectively, even we they fraudulently obtain the evidence themselves. Somehow $X to Heartland = Climate Denial Machine BUT $X^2 to Greenpeace = Objective Science. These are the “experts” we’re supposed to trust to evaluate the evidence pertaining to climate policy? I don’t think so.

  107. Really, this is a good sign.
    Sun Tsu teaches “Know your enemy” and “All war is based on deception.”
    As long as we can keep Hanses and the Hockey Team believing this error (atop all his others) he is doomed. His efforts against rational science will continue to be mis-directed.

  108. “The science is now clear”

    Another case where they believe that if it’s repeated often enough it will become true.

  109. The problem is that the debate is over but in the UK the Government is ignoring all debate, and just following a policy of ‘Carbon is bad’. As a democracy it’s frustrating to hear what constitutes a lie at this level. There was even a member of the ‘Committee for Climate Change’ on BBC Radio 4 last week saying that China was complying with the need to reduce carbon emissions…how deluded is that?

  110. One of the things that amused my wife and I during a two week Edinburgh stay in late June 2002 was the concern of the locals regarding Global Warming. They were “dying” from the heat wave that had descended on them, and many took us to task for not supporting the Kyoto agreement.

    Cause for amusement: the high during our two weeks – that was killing them – was 68⁰F. Us dumb Californians (and other Americans) were freezing in our cut-offs and short sleaves! After all, it was summer!

  111. @Wellington.

    “Then again, I’d rather have him pull a Gleick than a similarly named Austrian product. Fanatics on a mission to save mankind are unpredictable.”

    Sadly, I think it will come to that when the real fanatics realise “the cause” has had its day.

    Pointman

  112. Tim Mantyla said:

    “…To conclude that global warming has ended based on recent cold snaps is another example of the misleading practice of focusing on small pieces of the puzzle while ignoring the broader picture…”

    Yet at the same time, to conclude that global warming is CONTINUING based on recent WARM weather seems to be the norm. You can’t ignore recent cold snaps simply because they don’t fit the current theory.

    In the 70’s, weather like these recent cold snaps would have been the support for the “global cooling” theory.

    And, the mainstream press (such as CNN) is beginning to see the light:

    “…Short-term weather patterns such as the one that affected the United States are poor indicators of global climate trends, however. Parts of the world, most notably Eastern Europe, experienced below-average to extreme cold temperatures this winter…”

  113. James Hansen,director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies,who issued warnings about man-made climate change as early as the 1980s,said public skepticism is increasing even in the face of growing scientific acceptance of the reality of global warming.

    Yet 97% of climate scientists agree with the consensus yet it’s apparently growing in acceptance. ;O)

  114. “They have been winning the public debate with the help of tremendous resources.”

    Tremedous resources … such as the truth.

  115. jayhd says:
    April 10, 2012 at 8:41 am

    @ John Whitman comment April 10, 2012 at 6:27 am –

    John, the war terminology is perfectly appropriate. The CAGW proponents are making war on western civilization, attempting to lay it to waste. Other than the lack of direct civilian casualties, the draconian laws and regulations proposed and enacted by Western governments in the name of reversing CAGW are destroying the industrial capacity of Europe and the U.S. almost as effectively as WW2 aerial bombing did. A power plant or factory closed by insane laws and regulations is no different than a power plant or factory closed by bombing – it’s still closed.

    Jay Davis

    Jay Davis,

    Thank you for commenting.

    The scientific/intellectual dialog surrounding the topic of our climate is not a military conflict. Open and free discussion of climate is essential for conforming to and continuing the traditions of our Western Civilization. Freedom to discuss climate is being opposed by the efforts of some climate activists and we have seen serious ideological environmental NGO attempts to block the open and free discussion of climate, no doubt. It is paramount to use intellectual, scientific, ethical and legal challenges against those within Western Civilization who attempt to block discussion; dialog to block attempts to silence skeptics is crucial to our survival. But it is not war. It is much more difficult than war; it is a crucially important test of human dialog on a grand scale with reason, reality and integrity being the final judge of correctness.

    On the other hand I would agree with you that interdiction by government economic policy against its citizen’s private wealth and freedom has negative physical results that can be as damaging as an actual war. But such interdictions that are sanctioned legally within a society are not war. Any dialog used to justify such interdictions within the society is not war. The dialog preceding such interdiction is more important than referring to it as war. The dialog is more difficult, more comprehensive and serious than war. For the dialog to precede then the use of reason, science and integrity requires far far greater achievement than that needed in war . . . I think.

    I suggest that if skeptics continuously use many references to war, it weakens the actual scientific/intellectual dialog from the skeptic side. On rare occasional reference to war could be useful, but restraint is needed in my view.

    John

  116. “There is remarkable inconsistency between the scientific story and public story,”
    Which is exactal what the ‘team’, of which Hansen is a part , showed in their e-mails.

  117. Looks like we picked up a new troll- and a boring troll at that- linking to SkepSci as some kind of truth…
    lol

  118. Whenever I think of Hansen or the “Hockey Teamsters Union”, for some reason I always think of Younger Bear:

  119. @Pointman 11:02 am

    Yes—all the more worrisome considering Mr. Hansen’s apocalyptic and messianic visions.

  120. John Whitman says:
    April 10, 2012 at 11:52 am

    [...] I suggest that if skeptics continuously use many references to war, it weakens the actual scientific/intellectual dialog from the skeptic side. On rare occasional reference to war could be useful, but restraint is needed in my view.

    John

    Pure poppycock, Mr. Whitman. It isn’t “skeptics” that are closing down coal-fired power plants or making nuclear plants nearly impossible to build; it isn’t “skeptics” that are wasting taxpayer money (what, $60 Billion by now?); it isn’t “skeptics” that are promising that our electricity prices will “necessarily skyrocket”; and it isn’t “skeptics” that are pushing for high gas prices, have admitted they’re pursuing the redistribution of wealth, and have closed down drilling in the Gulf while funding Brazil’s efforts to drill in the same place.

    It is you and your ilk. (And the above list is just the beginning of aggreviances.)

    You are so out of line with your holier-than-thou rhetoric it is simply unbelievable. Because this really isn’t a “scientific/intellectual dialogue” after all–it’s a ruse to reverse Western Civilization and thwart Capitalism, and if you deny that, you are abjectly clueless (or a paid tool).

    I suggest you go read what the UN has planned with Agenda 21. Go read the list of objectives from recent COP pronouncements. Or just use common sense to see who’s on the “offensive” in this stuggle.

    To say the “skeptics” want this war is laughable, but like the original colonists, we will take it to armed conflict before being subjected to tyranny and stupidity.

  121. “Our parents honestly did not know what the consequences of continued development and reliance on fossil fuels as an energy source,” he said. “We can no longer claim that, as the science is now clear.”

    What a revealing comment! Our parents knew more than Hansen will ever know. They knew that continued development and use of fossil fuels would provide their children with prosperity and a better world. Hansen, on the other hand, wants to discontinue development knowing full well what the consequences of that will be. But he has no problem with sacrificing our children to poverty, cold, and disease, all in the name of his goddess, Gaia.

  122. “Without a dramatic change in public opinion, Hansen said,he fears future generations will inherit a world where global warming is out of control.”

    As long as future generations do not inherit a world where James Hansen is out of control they will be just fine.

  123. Sorry John Whitman, it is war. And you should thank whatever deity you worship that we in the U.S. have a chance at the ballot box this coming November to change things around and win the war, or at least a major battle.

    Jay Davis

  124. RockyRoad says:
    April 10, 2012 at 12:56 pm

    Pure poppycock, Mr. Whitman. . . .

    To say the “skeptics” want this war is laughable, but like the original colonists, we will take it to armed conflict before being subjected to tyranny and stupidity.

    jayhd says:
    April 10, 2012 at 2:12 pm

    Sorry John Whitman, it is war. And you should thank whatever deity you worship that we in the U.S. have a chance at the ballot box this coming November to change things around and win the war, or at least a major battle.

    – – – – – –

    RockyRoad & jayhd,

    Your very direct comments were enjoyed, as I often have. Thanks.

    I support your spirit to kick the CAGWist supporting clowns out of public offices. : )

    I can see that advocating authoritarian government public policy based on activist CAGWism (a la the IPCC & Hansen, etc) is harmful to actual people. It is theft and extortion for sure. But I disagree it is similar to a war in any sense. When someone with CAGW leanings speaks out against me at a local public meeting on such topics as climate it is not war. If you multiply that kind of one-on-one dialog 400 million times in the US it is still not war. It is an intellectual/scientific dialog, war terminology I find lacking in that context.

    John

  125. @RockyRoad

    Though your suggestion, climate dissidents, is certainly applicable, I think “climate apostates” is somewhat more appropriate. Alex was asking for a label for those scientists who once toed the alarmist line, but have since become public skeptics. You are correct that a dissident is someone who rejects an established belief system (though in general usage it is more often applied to POLITICAL beliefs than to religious beliefs). The term “apostate”, however, is not only more uniformly applied to religion, but also specifically refers to someone who once believed (or at least professed belief) in a religion, but subsequently rejected it.

    Of course, the term was used derogatorily by the early Christian church, and usually referred to someone who only accepted Christianity when a Christian emperor ruled in Rome, and quickly changed when a non-Christian took the crown. Such apostates didn’t REALLY believe either religion, but publicly professed belief in whichever religion was most likely to put them in the emperor’s favor (and perhaps avoid a trip to the floor of the colliseum). So, from your standpoint and mine, the scientists in question are not what is generally meant by apostates, because they certainly are not doing what is in their best interest in terms of gaining favor with the rulers. But my impression of Alex’s request was that he was looking for a DEROGATORY label for scientists who were once alarmists but had converted to skeptics, a label that the remaining alarmists would use for them, and I believe “apostates” fits to a tee.

  126. @ Tim Mantyla:

    Jesus, TIM. Yes, we know that one cold snap (or even an entire year of exceptionally mild temps, like 2010) doesn’t prove global cooling. We just like to poke fun at the ” gore effect”, which has a habit of popping up whenever noted alarmists have a big event.

    But TEN YEARS of no rising temperatures, despite constantly increasing carbon dioxide “pollution” does start to make it look like maybe there’s a flaw somewhere in the theory of AGE. The complete FAILURE of the models to predict what happened over the last ten years does make one wonder if the models aren’t missing an important term. The ADMISSION (in private) by leading alarmists of DOUBT does tend to belie the certainty of their public pronouncements. The CONSPIRACY to keep skeptic papers out of the journals, and to even HIDE their own data and work, leads one to believe they can’t really defend their hypotheses.

    It’s all falling apart, TIM, and Hansen knows it. But he won’t go down without a fight.

  127. Pointman says:
    April 10, 2012 at 12:14 am
    You can’t help but feel it’s only a matter of time until he pulls a Gleick. He’s such a driven fanatic.

    He does this all the time when he puts his grubby fingers on the historic temperature records.

  128. Oh, it’s occurred to him that we’re all self motivated: he’s just a professional, professed, scammer of science using GISS credentials, and a liar, and a thief.

    And no: I do NOT ‘have to have’ some respect for someone I hired to go do a job for me, who then told me I’m too stupid to own GISS then be told the TRUTH.

    THAT is what his ‘activism’ is: he HIRED ON then TOOK OVER the COMPANY for his OWN PERSONAL agenda.

  129. Pointman says:
    April 10, 2012 at 12:14 am
    You can’t help but feel it’s only a matter of time until he pulls a Gleick. He’s such a driven fanatic.

    He does this all the time when he puts his grubby fingers on the historic temperature records.

  130. Tim Mantyla. Where is this evidence of global warming you speak of? You say I ignore it.
    I say, WHERE IS IT? It is no warmer at my home. I’ve lived here 50 years.
    Roald Amundsen sailed the Northwest Passage in 1903. The Vikings used to keep cattle on Greenland. Grapes were once grown in Britain. It has been warmer and colder than now many times in Human history.
    The climate changes, that’s what it does.
    You cannot show that a trace gas , CO2, at .038% concentration , can drive the climate. You would say it’s not the Sun, not the mighty oceans, No It’s.038% trace gas, essential to ALL life on Earth. That drives the climate.
    Mankind, in its evil, is responsible for about 10% of it.
    Over there at REALCLIMATESKEPTIC.COOM (whatever site it is that you tout,),
    Do they ever mention the “Scientific Method” there? Do they ever talk about the “Carbon Cycle”?.
    Do they ever question the validity of those assumptions about water vapor feedback?
    (They use these assumptions in the models, you know. If these assumptions are wrong, The CAGW Theory and the need to limit CO2 is wrong.)
    Do they ever discuss why the “Tropospheric Warm Zone” doesn’t exist? The climate models say it shoud be there, but it’s not. Where is that heat?
    These are plain, simple questions. No special college degrees are required.
    You’re all talk, no substance.
    Try a little skepticism. It’s healthy.

  131. @Tim Mantyla
    Tim says: “As to point number 3, I do not believe any scientist is predicting boiling of the oceans in four centuries, or ever, until the sun explodes a few 1,000,000,000 years from now.
    This a joke, the pronouncement of a lunatic or exaggeration for effect, and I would like to see a source for it. ”

    Yes, I think I am going to agree with you. It is the pronouncement of a lunatic. Watch the lunatic speak:

    “you can get to a situation where, it just, the Oceans will begin to boil…”

    @2:05.

  132. @Tim Mantyla
    Tim says: “As to point number 3, I do not believe any scientist is predicting boiling of the oceans in four centuries, or ever, until the sun explodes a few 1,000,000,000 years from now.
    This a joke, the pronouncement of a lunatic or exaggeration for effect, and I would like to see a source for it. ”

    Yes, I think I am going to agree with you. It is the pronouncement of a lunatic. Watch the lunatic speak:

    “you can get to a situation where, it just, the Oceans will begin to boil…”

    @2:05.

  133. Hansen is MURDERING science and the general public is finally waking up to that fact.

    When the couple of truck drivers I was talking to today are aware of the CAGW fraud and have at least some understanding of the science, then all that is left to Hansen are the religious fanatics.

    A rotten economy is really good at waking people up and this time they have the internet instead of the controlled mass media.

  134. I am not heartened by Mr. Hansens claim “we” are winning… it seems to be the kind of claim by someone who knows the fix is in, “heh, heh, well boys. ya got me, you win, guess I’ll take my fake charts and go home.” Look what “losing” has got this clown: New laws, taxes, regulations. Higher gas, utilities, food costs and bigger, more intrusive government.
    I shudder to think what will happen if he “wins.”

  135. NASA’s Hansen – “The science has become stronger and stronger over the past five years …”
    If NASA doesn’t do something to get rid of this fraud, We the People will and we will do it by getting rid of the management that failed to fire him.

  136. Though, he still thinks we are all funded by some sort of “machine”. It never occurs to him that he’s fighting a guerrilla war and that most skeptics are self motivated.

    …not to mention that a goodly number of us are more than a little ticked off for having been sucked into their con game at one point or another!

  137. Tim Mantyla says: All of the myths, every one, dispelled here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
    Really Timmy? Are you serious?

    “Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.”
    Where is the proof that humans are dominant forcing? Are we just supposed to accept that statement? Before you waste time, claims and assumptions by those behind the Global Warming Scam are not proof.

    “Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives.”
    Agricultural production is up, Polar Bears are thriving. So what negatives? Two negative do come to mind, 1) taxpayers being defrauded to fund Global Warming Scam scientists and 2) we needlessly paying $5 per gallon of gas.

    “97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.”
    97% of twenty or so (Mann, Hansen, Jones, Schmidt, ….) self-proclaimed experts is meaningless. What you have is evidence of group think (or a lack of thinking) and utter lack of proof of GW. Majority vote is not Scientific proof.

    “The last decade 2000-2009 was the hottest on record.”
    That would be true if: a) the records were only for recent years, thus ignoring previous hotter periods AND b) the temperatures for 2000-2009 years were not calculated/plotted using Lemon-Picked (selectively edited and biased) weather station data.

    Enough wasted time, the Argument Myther at Skeptical Science is full of Hot Air and broken just like Mann’s Hooky Stick.

  138. It bears repeating. Hansen has an agenda. He is carrying water for the Democrats and UN types who want their bureaucracies to control the U.S. and the world, because they think representative republican government is anathema to the environment, and that they know better than anybody else.

    Moreover, Hansen should be fired! He should not be afforded the dignity of a retirement ceremony (if he is even thinking of getting around to retirement – he loves the spotlight and the power he seems to have, so I don’t think that is happening anytime soon). He has done nothing but give science a bad name.

  139. Hansen said those opposed to major social and economic changes needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions were attempting to undermine the scientific evidence.

    As he flies to Denmark, Scotland, and who knows where else.

    One word: Hypocrite.

  140. @Jeff Alberts,

    A hypocrite indeed. In his recent TED speech, Hansen asks the question “what would you do if you knew what I know?”

    One thing is for certain, I wouldn’t be jetting all around the world accepting awards and giving speeches. Even for PR on his own cause, it would be prudent to appear by teleconference.

  141. Tim Mantyla says:
    April 10, 2012 at 8:39 am
    “As to point number 3, I do not believe any scientist is predicting boiling of the oceans in four centuries, or ever, until the sun explodes a few 1,000,000,000 years from now.”

    Tim, not “in four centuries”, but you can listen at your high priest telling it – “over the centuries” “and than that’s it for all species”. It was linked on WUWT in quote of the week. So go listen to him and then come back.
    Don’t come with links from warmista sites, it is impossible to discuss there any theory. Do it yourself there if you want. If you want any open discussion then discuss to the subject on the thread and you will be properly answered.
    If you just want to troll about you’ll get what you deserve.

  142. Scottish Sceptic says:
    April 10, 2012 at 2:39 am

    “CO2 causes around 1C of warming for a doubling”

    Well, what are you doubling CO2 with?

    Here’s a brain teaser for you! :)
    Take one ice-cube at a temperature of 0°C at which water freezes (or 32°F 273.15 K).
    Then take another ice-cube at the temperature of 0°C, then merge both ice-cubes to find the combined temperature “for a doubling” of this Ice-cube.

    What is the answer?
    In Celsius, Fahrenheit and Kelvin?

  143. A note on James Hansen’s figuring; he claims that we have to start this year reducing emissions by 6% a year, or if we leave it for 10 years then by 15% a year to solve the problem of CO2 emissions by the end of the century.
    Stick it up on a spreadsheet. 89 year at 6% reduction (of previous year) would bring total emissions below 0.4%. It takes only 35 years of the higher rate to get there.

    If we aim to reduce emissions by 60% then it takes 14 years at 6% or 6 years at 15% reductions.
    If we wanted to reduce emissions to virtually nil, then we can afford to wait 10 years to see if it is necessary. But it would appear that J. Hansen wants zero emissions.

    But in either case his figures aren’t very accurate and don’t inspire any confidence in him knowing what he is talking about.

Comments are closed.