Climate Craziness of the Week: James Hansen calls for new political party to combat climate change

From his Columbia University web site comes the latest manifesto from ex NASA scientist Dr. James Hansen, who calls for a “centrist” third political party. I’ve republished the manifesto below. h/t to Charles the moderator.

The American Party

James Hansen 29 May 2013

My remarks when receiving the Ridenhour Courage Award were written in Union Station on my way to the event. But my concluding comment — that we are near a point when the American people should contemplate a centrist third party — was not an idle spur-of-the-moment reflection.

I was in government 40 years, long enough to understand how aging organizations can evolve into self-licking ice cream cones, organizations whose main purpose becomes self-perpetuation rather than accomplishment of their supposed objectives. The public can see this tendency in our politicians, our Congress, and our major political parties.

Our government has failed to address climate, energy, and economic challenges. These challenges, addressed together, actually can be a great opportunity. Our democracy and economic system still have great potential for innovation and rapid adoption of improved technologies, if the government provides the right conditions and gets out of the way.

The Solution is Not Rocket Science

Conservatives and liberals alike can recognize the merit of honest pricing of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels today receive subsidies and do not pay their costs to society. Human health costs of pollution from fossil fuel burning and fossil fuel mining are borne by the public. Climate disruption costs are borne by the victims and all taxpayers.

This market distortion makes our economy less efficient and less competitive. Fixing this problem is not rocket science. The solution can be simple and transparent.

I have described a fossil fuel “fee-and-dividend” approach, summarized on Charts 1 and 2. 100% of a continually rising carbon fee, collected from fossil fuel companies at the domestic mine or port-of-entry, is distributed uniformly to all legal residents (electronically to bank account or debit card). 60% of people receive more in the dividend than they pay in increased prices, but to get or stay on the positive side of the ledger they must pay attention to their fossil fuel use. Millions of jobs are created as we move toward clean energy. Economic modeling shows that our fossil fuel use would decrease 30% after 10 years. A rising carbon fee provides a viable international approach to reduce global emissions, the basic requirement being a bilateral agreement between the U.S. and China. A border duty on products from nations without an equivalent carbon fee or tax would provide a strong incentive for other nations to join.

Reactions to this proposal are revealing. When I spoke to a group of international labor leaders, one of them declared “that’s libertarian!”. Yet I have found that most people understand that millions of jobs would be created by a system that moves us in a clear way to an honest price on all energies, far more jobs than provided by continued public subsidies of fossil fuels and specific favored “green” energies.

A self-licking ice cream cone is a self-perpetuating system with no purpose other than to sustain itself. The phrase was used first in 1992 in On Self-Licking Ice Cream Cones, a paper by Pete Worden about NASA’s bureaucracy.[1]

clip_image004.jpg

Fee and Dividend: Charts 1 and 2.

After I spoke to a group of conservative politicians, one of them said “that’s income redistribution!” Well, yes, overall fee-and-dividend is progressive, and some ambitious low income people who pay special attention to their carbon footprint will be able to save money for other purposes. Wealthy people who own multiple houses or fly around the world a lot, will pay more in added costs than they receive in the dividend. However, the added cost to them is small compared with change of income tax rates — and lower income tax rates would be much more likely when the economy improves as the system moves toward honest pricing of fossil fuels.

One other experience may be worth relating. I was invited by one Jim DiPeso, policy director of Republicans for Environmental Protection, to give a keynote talk at their meeting. DiPeso had written an article praising my fossil fuel fee-and-dividend proposal as embodying conservative principles. Soon I was disinvited. Rumor has it that DiPeso was last seen being escorted to a boat on the shores of Lake Michigan and being fitted with large concrete shoes.

What Choices Do People Have?

The extreme reactions (libertarian! income redistribution!) do not represent the feelings of most Americans I have spoken with. Most people readily appreciate fee-and-dividend and honest pricing of fossil fuels, once it is explained. They understand that it would help modernize our infrastructure, improve our economic competitiveness, and raise living standards. DiPeso noted that it could be made clear in an elevator talk. The public needs to know, but unfortunately, we do not have a President giving fireside chats on such fundamental matters, despite their importance for the economy, energy independence, national security, and climate stabilization.

The public is rational about such matters, in my opinion. But what present choices do they have? Some Republicans are so well-oiled and coal-fired that they assert that human-made climatechange is a “hoax” perpetrated by scientists seeking research funding (allowing them to work 80 hours a week for a modest wage, after investing 7-10 years in obtaining their higher education). Realistic Republicans, seeing the power of extremists, hesitate to speak.

Well-oiled coal-fired Democrats exist too, but their main problem is addiction to spending our money. Even when they advocate fee-and-dividend, they propose to use much of the fee to “pay down the national debt” (read: “make the government bigger”) and to fund their pet energy technologies.

Energy Research, Development and Demonstration (RD&D)

Government has a proper role in energy technology — it should support RD&D (research, development and demonstration). This topic is crucial to climate stabilization and closely related to the present topic — our currently dysfunctional two-party system — so I briefly digress.

Climate stabilization requires phasing out fossil fuel CO2 emissions, which in return requires a large source of carbon-free electricity. Hydropower is limited in amount. That leaves nuclear power and “renewables” (wind, sun, geothermal, etc.) as principal alternatives to fossil fuels, at least with current technologies.

Unfortunately, proponents of nuclear power or renewables, in promoting their preference, usually attack the other. This helps the fossil fuel industry, but is detrimental to our children’s future. Given the urgency of phasing out CO2 emissions, we need both nuclear and renewables. In the long run, one may win out over the other, but this is no time for mutual destruction.

Solar power and wind power have moved smartly through RD&D in recent years and are beginning to provide significant amounts of electricity, the biggest success story being Germany. In the decade 2001-2011 Germany increased the non-hydroelectric renewable energy portion of its electricity from 4% to 19%, with fossil fuels decreasing from 63% to 61% (hydroelectric decreased from 4% to 3% and nuclear power decreased from 29% to 18%). Germany’s renewable energy is continuing to increase (but the fact that Germany is building new lignite power plants is disconcerting as regards their expectations for fossil fuel phase-out).

Nuclear power has demonstrated a capacity for rapid expansion, e.g., in the decade 1977-1987, France increased nuclear power production 15-fold, the nuclear portion of electricity increasing from 8% to 70%. That was 2nd-generation technology, light-water reactors that use only about 1% of the energy in the nuclear fuel, leaving nuclear waste with a lifetime of millennia. Reactors planned today (mostly 3rd generation, light-water technology) include improvements (such as convective cooling that can operate without external power, thus avoiding the basic problem faced by the Fukushima reactorsb), but they still leave most of the fuel as long-lived “waste”.

Expansion of nuclear power thus depends on introduction of 4th generation technologyc, “fast” reactors, which allow neutrons to move fast enough to utilize more than 99% of the nuclear fuel. These reactors also can “burn” nuclear waste as well as excess nuclear weapons material2. Argonne National Laboratory extensively tested a prototype, the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR), designed with a fuel cycle that minimized the possibility of plutonium acquisition by terrorists or a rogue stated. Using this technology there is sufficient fuel in nuclear waste and excess weapons material to provide our electrical energy needs for centuries without uranium mining.

See discussion of nuclear power, including Fukushima, on page 7 of Baby Lauren and the Kool-Aid.
c Nuclear plants constructed in the next several years will be mainly 3rd generation light-water reactors; nuclear “waste” from these reactors can be used as fuel for the future 4th generation power plants.

Given the awareness of climate change that existed in the 1990s, it was a shock when President William Clinton, in 1993 in his first State of the Union address declared: “We are eliminating programs that are no longer needed, such as nuclear power research and development.” Although this pleased a vocal anti-nuclear minority, it deprived the nation of the ability to examine and compare all potential alternatives to fossil fuel electricity and reduced our potential to provide international leadership in peaceful uses of nuclear power.

This 1993 decision, to at least some extent, has caused a 20-year delay in development and refinement of advanced nuclear power technology in the United States. Just as with solar technology, there is great potential for technology development that reduces costs of nuclear power, especially via standardized modular construction. Bill Gates, who points out that nuclear power is already safer than all other major energy sources, is using a part of his personal wealth to develop a specific 4th generation reactorb, but for the sake of optimizing results and minimizing future electricity costs it is desirable to have more broad-based RD&D.e

Past failure to carry out this RD&D has created a situation in which gas is the likely energy source for continued and expanded electricity generation. In turn, this means that political leaders in many countries will be practically forced to approve hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) for gas on a large scale, unless sufficient effective alternatives are available.

Gas will truly be a transition fuel between coal and clean energies only if better, inexpensive, clean alternatives for electricity generation are developed. Otherwise such fuel-switching could backfire, because usable gas resources are enormous It would be helpful if advocates for nuclear power and renewables would be mutually supportive. Let competition and the public decide what energy sources they prefer on the long run. That decision can be made best as experience allows the full potential of all alternatives to tested. A rising fee on carbon can then be successful, leading to phase-out of fossil fuel emissions.

The American Party

The public recognizes and is fed up with the failure of both political parties to work for the common good. So is it time to abandon them for a third party? Perhaps not quite.

Some conservative thought leaders recognize the merits of a carbon fee, a non-tax, 100% of collected funds distributed to the public on per capita basis. I have mentioned a Wall Street Journal article endorsing this approach by George Shultz and Gary Becker, Shultz having been Secretary of State under Reagan and Becker being a Nobel prize winning economist. It seems worthwhile to work hard to gain support for this approach, with expectation that conservative support would be conditional on liberals not using any of the funds to expand government.

d All uranium-fueled nuclear power plants produce plutonium and there is no expectation that nuclear power will be eliminated by all nations on Earth, so it is important for the United States to stay on top of nuclear technology to help make it as safe and proliferation resistant as possible. The IFR replaces the usual PUREX (Plutonium and Uranium Recovery by Extraction) with a safer “pyroprocessing” approach2.
e Although I am suggesting the merits of further RD&D on advanced generation nuclear power, General Electric says that it is ready to build 4th generation PRISM reactors, a refined version of technology that Argonne National Laboratory developed two decades ago, i.e., they suggest that the technology is ready for demonstration.

However, it may turn out that no matter how we try, such a rational approach cannot gain sufficient support within any reasonable period. The rumor about DiPeso’s concrete shoes is only half facetious. Among potential supporters there seems to be a palpable fear of ostracism if they were to endorse a moderate conservative approach such as fee-and-dividend.

And yet moderation is just what most Americans seem to want.

In such case, the fastest way to progress may be a 3rd party, a centrist party. It is very possible that the United States is ready for a centrist American Party. In 1992 Ross Perot garnered almost 20% of the votes for President. At times he had led in the polls, but he damaged his credibility in several ways, including his assertion that he had once seen Martians on his front yard.

Compared with 1992, a much larger fraction of the people is fed up with the failures of both major parties. If, following the mid-term elections of 2014, there is not a strong indication of bi- partisan progress, it may be time to consider the possibility of launching a major centrist 3rd party effort, not only for the Presidency but for Congress as well.

Citizens Climate Lobby

Implausible dreaming, you scoff. Not so fast. For example, consider Citizens Climate Lobby. If you don’t know about them read today’s article in the New York Times. These are honest, hard- working people trying to educate politicians and the public about the need for a revenue-neutral carbon fee via op-eds, letters-to-the-editor, meetings with editorial boards, meetings with congressional staffers, and meetings with congress people.

Citizens Climate Lobby is made up largely of volunteers, with continual training of new recruits. They have doubled in size each year for the past several years and are active in most states. They are positive, dedicated and respectful, creating a good impression with congress people.

What is the chance that they can compete against the well-heeled fossil fuel lobby? Hard to say. But if they fail to move our present government by 2015, and by then have doubled in size a few more times, they just may be a democratic force to be reckoned with. They seek to persuade and are unfailingly respectful and polite, but determined. So, if in a few years the two major parties remain uncompromising and unsupportive of a carbon fee, it would not surprise me if Citizens Climate Lobby became a major force for a centrist third party.

Everybody is welcome to join Citizens Climate Lobby — a link to an introductory call is at http://www.tfaforms.com/275537. Their summer conference in Washington this year is 23-25 June; registration is at http://citizensclimatelobby.org/2013-international-conference

1 Hansen, J., Storms of My Grandchildren, Bloomsbury, 319 pages, 2009.
2 Yoon and Till, C. and Yoon, C., Plentiful Energy, Amazon, 395 pages, 2011.
About these ads

157 thoughts on “Climate Craziness of the Week: James Hansen calls for new political party to combat climate change

  1. “if the government provides the right conditions and gets out of the way.”

    If there was a poorly-considered statement in this ramble, this is it. James, you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

  2. Name That Party.
    The possibilities are endless.
    With Hansen at the head, it would be Fables of our Grandchildren?
    Or Phantom Weather ?
    Cataclysmic Caterwauling Clowns?
    But a party dedicated to wetting their pants over weather, resources and the future, while spewing hatred for mankind already exists.
    Its called the Green Party here in Canada.
    Green as in wet behind the ears, delusional of life,….certainty of youth.

  3. Reminds me of that one green, anti-nuclear party that emerged prior to last year’s elections in Japan. They rode the “nuclear power is bad!” train and had nothing else going.

    They were brutally murdered by the voters, because the people had different problems on their minds.

  4. I was in government 40 years, long enough to understand how aging organizations can evolve into self-licking ice cream conesa, organizations whose main purpose becomes self-perpetuation rather than accomplishment of their supposed objectives.

    UN
    Government
    WWF
    Greenpeace
    Friends of the Earth
    + many, many more

    (got bored reading the rest of Hansens rubbish)

  5. Hansen says the energy economy is distorted so his solution is to distort it more. That’s “self-licking” logic.

  6. Ww, that is one self delusional rant. Two howlers that stood out to me:

    “I spend 40 years in Government”. Gee, an i thought he worked as a research scientist at NASA. It turns out he was governing the country.

    “carbon tax will create millions of jobs”. That is the holy grail of economics. A tax that creates employment. Simply amazing and from a man with no formal training in economics.

  7. …Millions of jobs are created as we move toward clean energy…

    …A rising carbon fee provides a viable international approach to reduce global emissions, the basic requirement being a bilateral agreement between the U.S. and China…

    If we’re going with fairy tales, why not go with a more direct one; we’ll all pray to Gaea and she will distribute power bubbles to the faithful via elves riding winged unicorns?

    I think it’d be cool to see a winged unicorn.

  8. Good. He should be encouraged to do so. It will cut into the vote for the Democrats where the weirdos currently reside.

  9. Excellent, another loony left fringe party to laugh at. Go for it Hansen, please take as many left wing Democrat votes away from the Democrats as possible.

  10. I still don’t get how he works out that fossil fuels are enormously subsidised. Their price is worked out (largely) by the market (when they aren’t ganging up together to fix them). Certainly in the UK fossil fuels aren’t subsidised. 69% of gasolene/petrol is tax. We have VAT on home heating, plus ‘green’ taxes to boot. Maybe he wants to add in the imaginary economic costs of his imaginary AGW impacts, which are bo11ox anyway.

  11. Anyone who would declare “that’s libertarian” when hearing about “a fossil fuel ‘fee-and-dividend’ approach… a continually rising carbon fee, collected from fossil fuel companies at the domestic mine or port-of-entry, … distributed uniformly to all legal residents” simply doesn’t have a clue what “libertarian” means.

  12. If one’s goal is purely to cripple the fossil fuel industry, then this proposal makes a lot of sense. The stated goal to use this “carrot and stick” approach to reduce fossil fuel use by making fossil fuels really expensive, and then giving the cash collected to people who don’t use the fuels will enrich the poor (who don’t use as much fuel) in the beginning.

    Unfortunately, the rich will quickly find that the fuel has become more expensive than other forms of power, such as solar energy, and they will move to source their energy by personally building their own power collection sites. They won’t worry about higher gasoline charges so much, because they can afford the luxury.

    Business, on the other hand, will be hurt badly. Lets say we succeed in doubling the cost of diesel fuel. Nearly everything that is bought and sold in the US is delivered via truck. Those trucks run on diesel fuel. So, we double the cost of delivery, increasing the cost of all goods in the US. Sure, we give the poor some extra money, then take it back by making the food and clothing more expensive. Brilliant.

    There is simply not enough biodiesel produced to run the trucks, so they have no real choice in whether or not they burn fossil fuels. We may see more solar panels and wind farms, reducing the production of electricity from coal and oil, but that’s about it.

    In the end, we increase the basic cost of living for everyone, because we’re replacing cheap energy with expensive energy. Want to see the effects of expensive energy? Go to an island nation and check out the rate of electricity, water, food, etc. Why is water, for example, more expensive? Because water is moved by electric pumps. When electricity is more expesnive to deliver, it affects the cost of everything that depends on electricity. When trucking is more expensive to operate, that affects everything that is delivered by a truck. When fuel for trains is more expensive, it affects anything that his shipped by rail.

    Will the free money given via the top 5% (the rich) to the bottom 95% be enough to cover the extra costs? Somehow I doubt it.

  13. Leftist statement proposes socialist solution, calls it middle-of-the-road. Also thinks there is a powerful fossil fuel lobby.

  14. Hmmm.. Now that the Space Shuttle is scuttled and there are companies which are nearly at the point where private space travel is on our doorstep, isn’t NASA a ‘self-licking ice crean cone’?

    And I think we should STOP enabling this cretin by calling him “Ex-NASA Scientist.” It bestows some sort of credibility on him. An EX scientist is NOT a scientist any longer if he is no longer conducting primary research. Calling him a scientist, EX or otherwise, inflates this mountebank’s standing.

  15. “carbon tax will create millions of jobs”.
    No doubt true.
    Millions of Manual Labor jobs at minimum wage.
    That’s what happens when you cannot use energy to leverage your work.
    Read the fine print.

  16. Hansen’s CCC party, eh? (CCC = Climate Change Combatants). Sounds like something right out of Orwell’s 1984. It’s not like we don’t have enough strange contortions going on in our political establishments already!

  17. Barbee says:
    May 30, 2013 at 8:47 am

    LOVE IT! We should encourage this.
    It can only be a good thing for this country.

    Can you list a few ideas how it would be a good thing for this country?

  18. If a time machine existed to send Hansen back to the 1950’s I rather suspect that a certain Sen McCarthy would get his teeth into that manifesto – and rightly so!

  19. “Millions of jobs are created as we move toward clean energy”
    &
    “carbon tax will create millions of jobs”
    That’s about as far as I got reading this dribble. Couldn’t read the rest of it.
    Weren’t 2.5 real jobs in Spain lost for every “clean energy job” gained there?
    And how exactly does a carbon tax create jobs?

  20. Philip Aggrey says:
    May 30, 2013 at 8:38 am
    I still don’t get how he works out that fossil fuels are enormously subsidised. Their price is worked out (largely) by the market (when they aren’t ganging up together to fix them). Certainly in the UK fossil fuels aren’t subsidised. 69% of gasolene/petrol is tax. We have VAT on home heating, plus ‘green’ taxes to boot. Maybe he wants to add in the imaginary economic costs of his imaginary AGW impacts, which are bo11ox anyway.

    The claim is made that fossil fuels are not properly priced to cover their social costs, mostly with regard to pollution. You can roam through the Internet and get an idea of how various rent-seekers attempt to calculate this cost. It seems extraordinarily fungible and can be stretched to fit whatever hobby horse the whacko happens to be riding. Which is to say, pure nonsense. Heaven forfend they should adopt your more sensible view.

  21. JohnWho says:
    May 30, 2013 at 8:36 am

    Go ahead, laugh it up all you WUWT posters.

    You’ll be singing a different tune when the oceans are boiling.

    :)

    You know, if you had some concrete, solid, scientifically-verifiable information indicating the oceans are boiling, I’d appreciate you sharing that with all of us. Then we could all get into gear and prevent the oceans from boiling. Because I’m the last person in the world that wants to see our seafood supply end up like that.

    But if you think CO2 is going to “fuel the fires”, so to speak, to boil the oceans, I hate to disappoint–in the past, levels of that gas have been 10, maybe 15 or even 20 times what they are now, and we see no evidence of “boiling oceans”.

    So what is it you’ve got?

  22. “… that we are near a point when the American people should contemplate a centrist third party …”

    and then he describes a center of the far-left party.

    LOL

  23. There ya go, not so dumb after all, eh?!

    Step 1 … Save the World.

    Step 2 … Become President of the USA.

  24. RockyRoad says:

    May 30, 2013 at 9:01 am

    JohnWho says:
    May 30, 2013 at 8:36 am

    Go ahead, laugh it up all you WUWT posters.

    You’ll be singing a different tune when the oceans are boiling.

    :)

    You know, if you had some concrete, solid, scientifically-verifiable information indicating the oceans are boiling, I’d appreciate you sharing that with all of us. Then we could all get into gear and prevent the oceans from boiling. Because I’m the last person in the world that wants to see our seafood supply end up like that.

    But if you think CO2 is going to “fuel the fires”, so to speak, to boil the oceans, I hate to disappoint–in the past, levels of that gas have been 10, maybe 15 or even 20 times what they are now, and we see no evidence of “boiling oceans”.

    So what is it you’ve got?

    But, but, Hansen said!

    LOL

    Sorry RockyRoad, I guess my ” :) ” wasn’t enough and I should have used a “sarc” tag.

    Although, the idea that one could go out and catch already boiled lobster does sound rather tasty.

  25. So the purpose of the redistribution is to stop the thing that is allowing for the redistribution? Did I read what he wrote correctly?

  26. JohnWho says:
    May 30, 2013 at 8:36 am

    Go ahead, laugh it up all you WUWT posters.

    You’ll be singing a different tune when the oceans are boiling.

    :)
    ————————————
    (WAG) I bow in the presence of a master.

  27. markx says:

    May 30, 2013 at 9:04 am

    There ya go, not so dumb after all, eh?!

    Step 1 … Save the World.

    Step 2 … Become President of the USA.

    Hey, you don’t even have to actually save the world, just promise that you will.

    It worked for Obama, didn’t it?

  28. MangoChutney-

    Good points.

    You forgot the most obvious self-licking ice cream cone of all- NASA GISS!
    Hansen was the cone-head.
    Hansen was already dead-certain that NASA GISS had achieved its goal in 1988, just before NASA GISS funding was exponentially increased by furious licking activity.

    Also, Hansen wrote a 2008 rantathon letter, where he defined congressional lobbyists as those who wear alligator shoes, and then banned them from climate policy discussions.
    No Alligator Shoes!- Carbon Tax and 100% Dividend
    Hansen was emphatic about a motto-
    “Make this your motto: “100% or fight! No alligator shoes!”
    Apparently he is comfortable with alligator-shod eco-slicksters roaming the halls of Congress now…

    As far as a name for Hansen’s new ‘third’ party (I thought there were ten’s of political parties around the country?), I propose the PC party, which could stand for:
    Pearl Clutchers
    Precautionary Catastrophists
    Progress Clampers
    Piltdown Champions
    Punish Carbon!
    Pubescent Chiders

    Its motto could be “Monetizing Carbon Carbonizes Money”
    (originally quipped by WUWT commenter Lew Skannen on 1/11/2013)

  29. My irony meter pegged, caught fire and then exploded.
    Sounds like some dis-owning projection there Jimmy with that whole self-licking ice-cream cone business. Josh could have a field day with that imagery.

  30. As the objective of a carbon tax (supposedly) is to eliminate CO2 emissions (rather than redistribution), what happens when this is achieved?

    There will be no carbon tax to redistribute, and everybody, rich and poor, will end up with more expensive and unreliable green energy.

    Hansen is not so stupid as to not realise this, which suggests two things:-

    1) His main objective is redistribution.

    And/or

    2) He knows his policies will cause economic damage, but refuses to admit this fact in public.

  31. Tosser.

    Love how he just slipped in his “Courage” award. All about ego folks. Guess who the real self licking ice cream cone is?

    Nauseating.

  32. Let’s see:

    the center between sparse and vast would be “half-vast”.

    C’mon, who wouldn’t join Hansen’s Half-Vast Party?

    more :)

  33. So leftist off the charts is “center”? “Libertarian?” Maybe in the context of North Korea.
    Why doesn’t Hansen just shut up? Isn’t he embarrassed at himself? Of course he isn’t, but that’s standard for ignorant, delusional, mean-spirited fanatics like him.

  34. Single issue parties don’t generally go anywhere. This is particularly so here given that concerns over AGW seems to be waning with the public.

  35. Hansen says ‘The Solution is Not Rocket Science’

    William, What is the darn problem?

    Hansen, the problem is getting and keeping a job. The problem is saving enough money to purchase a house. The is problem earning enough money to pay for education. The problem is earning enough money to pay off debts and to save enough money to retire.

    The problem is the government is spending more money than they receive in revenue. The problem is massive government departments that serve no purpose but to increase the cost of business in the US. The problem is employee benefits for government employees which cannot be afforded.

    The US is following the EU into economic ruin. Idiotic ‘green’ scams and carbon taxes is a significant part of the reason why the EU is failing. If the solution to economic nirvana was what you prescribe the EU would not have the highest unemployment in the history of the EU with four countries on the verge of bankruptcy.

    You have lived in a bubble, isolated from reality. You had a high paying government job and are now getting a generous defined benefit pension. You speak unchallenged from a bully pulpit. You have no understanding what happens when a city, a state, or a country reaches the end of the borrowing road. Go visit Detroit, travel through that city to get a first hand view. Talk to some of the people that cannot get a job, talk to people who must work two jobs to pay for rent and feed their children. Walk through a neighborhood where there is high employment and nightly violence.

    The resultant of a massive tax on energy and more subsides for the green scams will be higher energy prices in the US (which is a tax on US citizens) and a loss of jobs in the US. See EU above.

    China is placing two coal fired power plants into service per week; India one coal fired power plant per week. The developing world is developing.

    Destroying the US economy will not reduce world carbon dioxide emissions which is not a problem anyway.

    Hansen you are an idiot.

  36. (sigh) I cannot seem to get the dreadful image out of my head of Hansen bent over licking himself…

  37. Ian:

    “My irony meter pegged, caught fire and then exploded.
    Sounds like some dis-owning projection there Jimmy with that whole self-licking ice-cream cone business. Josh could have a field day with that imagery.”

    Ian,

    I wholeheartedly agree. The contradictions compound exponentially. Hansen must be on the verge of lockjaw from talking out of both sides of his mouth….

    JCL

  38. Hansen’s real problem is not that the political system has failed to address ‘the problem of global warming’.

    His real problem is that that the lies he has told about ‘global warming’ have failed to advance his political objectives. To Hansen and others of his ilk, ‘addressing global warming’ is a means, not an end.

  39. “A self-licking ice cream cone is a self-perpetuating system with no purpose other than to sustain itself.”

    This, of course, makes no sense at all! Any ice cream cone consumer knows that an ice cream cone, no matter how it is licked, will never sustain itself. Eventually, it is gone. Sort of like our tax money…part of which goes towards paying for useless government-fed institutions like NASA/GISS.

    Then again, I expect this kind of buffoonery from Hansen…

  40. Hansen’s idea is so incredibly inane it is almost impossible to believe that he himself actually believes what he is claiming. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE to drastically increase the cost of energy and not drive up the cost of living for everyone. The cost of energy affects the price of EVERYTHING, not just the price of the gallon of gas you put in your automobile. Anyone with even half a brain realizes that this is an incredibly bad idea (except for the already rich and powerful who will be have a much more exclusive lifestyle that only they will be able to afford). The government takes X amount of dollars from you, rebates back 50% and keeps the remainder to cover the” implementation and management” costs. In the meantime, not only does your gasoline price increase, which they government will be claiming they are reimbursing you for, what about cost of electricity?? water ?? and literally EVERYTHING ELSE!

    Problem is, there really are a lot of people with less than half a brain it seems.

  41. Jimmy reminds me of “Frank the Tank” (played by Will Ferrell), in “Old School”, where, after consuming vast quantities of alcohol he exhorts “come on everybody; we’re going streaking!”, winding up the only one jogging in the nude, still thinking there are lots more behind him. Clearly he’s deluded, and very possibly, insane.

  42. This article by Hansen is a thoughtful essay. It is a window into how the man thinks. I don’t agree with his assertions that 1) fossil fuels are subsidized, 2) carbon fees would stimulate the economy, or 3) renewable energy sources can be successfully implemented to become major sources of electric power.

    However, I do agree that the idea of a third political party is becoming more attractive every year, but efforts to create a third party have been going on for as long as I can remember.

    Underlying the essay is the idea that CO2 emissions, and thus fossil fuels, are contributing to climate change which he sees as a terrible thing. Hansen’s goal is climate stability, which means that he thinks we can massively influence earth’s climate.

    In view of that position I can see how he believes that our society is subsidizing fossil fuels by assigning a current health cost of CO2, and a long term cost of CO2 that will, somehow negatively affect our offspring. Even if he were correct, he did not balance those supposed costs against massive economic disruption without fossil fuels, and the cost in health and deficit in food production we would otherwise experience. His cost/benefit analysis does not consider the entire picture,either. Where are the benefits of fossil fuels?

  43. These type of scientists and green activist types all have financial and political aim with their science and promotional material, they have never done anything productive that has ever made peoples lives better, even their schemes are designed to suck funding from the tax payer, which is particularly stomach turning; when there are children going to bed hungry at night, millions living in poverty, infrastructures needed like schools, hospitals etc..

    There is no political opposition to energy efficiency or to the “Environment” no one wants to “destroy” it, but the environmental agenda appears to have hijacked these causes and are influencing the a cascade of damaging policies to both humans and the environment, promoting heavily subsidized low carbon energy schemes without the technology needed is madness.

    *wood-chip power stations is deemed carbon neutral, Cutting down a vast amount of forest for wood destroys wildlife on a huge scale and increases the cost of energy for millions while redirecting much needed funding from the worlds poorest into the pockets of rich land owners.

    *Wind-farms are deemed carbon neutral, but, which destroy wildlife and are harmful to humans, destroy the landscape and they increases the cost of energy for millions while redirecting much needed funding from the worlds poorest into the pockets of rich land owners.

  44. Oh PLEASE! Oh PLEASE! My DREAM COME TRUE. Create that “third party”. Siphon off 10 or 15% from the “left most party” in the country right now. Despite the claims against the right/center-right party, they WILL hold together. It will be “all over” for the left for as long as Hansen’s party is partying!

  45. James is either intentionally misleading, doesn’t understand economics or is delusional. Enforcing a big tax on energy companies would have a huge trickle down effect on the entire economy. Everything would be more expensive. The access to cheap energy keeps the prices of everything we buy down. Inflation on basic goods would be very high and any economic benefit of the energy welfare checks being handed out would be countered, and more, by the depressing effect of higher prices and higher unemployment. I would guess we would enter a period of high inflation with low economic growth/recession.

    But, I guess the end result would be pleasing to James as the lower economic growth/recession would also kill energy demand, and, therefore CO2 emissions. It’s another way of doing it, but it’s a way that makes the uninformed masses cheer (sticking it to the evil corporation while handing out a bunch of free money). “He will bring them death, and they will love him for it.”

  46. “Self-perpetuation rather than accomplishment” is the driving principle behind climastrology.

    “The Solution is Not Rocket Science” because there’s no problem that needs to be solved. CAGW is Hansen’s con job. It simply does not exist.

  47. Our dear James Hansen appears to suffer from a malady that’s driven by a fantasy. It would be nice if he had been good enough not to feel entitled to conscript us in all of this but, as the years have informed us he, well, hasn’t felt that necessity.

    I’ll try to illustrate this by a story. Now, I’m restricted to writing this from the male perspective because I am, well, a male.

    Now, my sister, my older sister, will claim that all males are, in fact, females for whom their development was sadly arrested, forcing them to remain trapped in the male stage. Despite the fact that the only medical expertise she’s ever displayed was in the art of administering torment, I won’t argue this point. But let us disregard it for the sake of the following story.

    Consider a somewhat bookish, teenage, high school male. Like every male in that class the object of his adoration, his love, his lust, his male hormones, is a teenage female. But not just any female. She is the one. The only. The most gorgeous girl in class. The head of the cheer leading squad. The Homecoming Queen. All the boys want her.

    True happiness awaits. If only he can summon, muster, draw upon every speck, every dust bunny, every sweaty drop of courage and call her and ask her out. He’s convinced a rejection worse than death awaits him. But in the same vein as a not overly wise, but overly plastic surgerized old lady once said: “You have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it”; he knows he must call her to find out what answer is in her. With a trembling hand he fumbles for the phone; tentatively dials the awesome number – the angel answers – then fumbling, barely able to form the words he awkwardly asks her; heart pounding; stammering; he asks her; asks her if she’ll go to the dance this weekend. She says…

    …Yes!

    Yes! He can barely believe it. Oh, wonderful ‘Yes’, the finest word in the English language. And, hot damn, she says Yes enthusiastically! She means it. Happiness does exist. The arrangements are made. He’ll pick her up on Friday.

    Our young male’s walking on a cloud, virtually floating over the ground. Wow. She’s a queen, a princess, and she’s actually going out with me, he thinks. She’s the most gorgeous girl in the class and she could have any guy she wanted and she picked…

    The air whooshes out of those Ferrari tires as they instantly deflate.

    …me? She’s gorgeous, and she could have anybody, and she said yes to…me? Why? What’s wrong with her? Are her limbs falling off from gangrene and they’re being replaced by prosthetics? Is she the result of temporary plastic surgery that dissolves back to its former state on Friday nights? Worse; does she, maybe, have a different organ then the one I think she does? Is her taste really so bad that she’s willing to go out with just about anybody? Jeez, how do I get out of this?

    We’ve all seen this, witnessed it. Now, let us visualize James Hansen as our teenage protagonist in the foregoing story: A floppy hatted protagonist. And let us consider the planet Earth as that gorgeous teenage cheerleader (ok, a couple billion year old version) that James Hansen pines, swoons, dreams, fantasizes about, lusts for (enough Tom). And let us consider ourselves as the Football players that stand in the way of him and his unspoiled planet.

    I say, let him make that call. Stand to the side and let him pursue precisely what he wants. I know there’s maybe some risk involved, but in the end, I’ll bet he ends up saying, “Jeez, how do I get out of this?”

  48. Also, who in the world thought this was libertarian. Libertarianism, as I understand it, would have a small government which, which leaves most social, business, and personal decisions to people or local governments. I don’t see how a huge tax on the oil industry and a massive redistribution of wealth by our national governing body to curb the ‘evil’ of carbon pollution is even remotely libertarian.

  49. “If the study of human interactions could become a science, I suspect that an inviolate axiom might be discovered to this effect: Every social disposition creates a disparity of advantages. Further: Every innovation designed to correct the disparities, no matter how altruistic in concept, works only to create a new and different set of disparities.” — Jack Vance (R.I.P.)

  50. Rumor has it that DiPeso was last seen being escorted to a boat on the shores of Lake Michigan and being fitted with large concrete shoes.

    Death seems a theme with this guy. Death trains, etc

  51. Matt,

    I also was rather offended by Hansen’s use of the term “libertarian.”
    He seems to have no idea, what it means. Or is it an intentional misleading?

  52. Hansen has spent more than a quarter century fixated on something that “is not rocket science.”

    Can anyone tell me what the -bleep- he was doing at NASA, then?

    I’m all for a “divide and conquer” approach, but when the division involves cracks, I feel a sort of pity for the fellow cracking up, and it appears to me this is what is happening to Hansen. Not that he isn’t reaping what he sowed, but it is pitiable just the same.

  53. Jimbo seems to have forgotten that the 96000 people who voted for the third party–The Green Party–in Florida in 2000 cost his patron Al Gore the presidency.

  54. The quality of thought in this new piece appears to approach the quality of his climate science.
    At least he is consistent…ly off-the-wall awful.

  55. All free thinkers with dogma enforcement skills are welcome. Corporate shakedown artists are also welcome.

  56. Actually, it’s not such a bad idea. Hansen and his Carbon People’s Party could present their “evidence” and let the electorate decide. The question is what percentage of the popular vote they would garner, and would it be statistically distinguishable from background noise? ;->

  57. The UK has already got a “Monster Raving Loony Party”. Perhaps Hansen should create one in the US.

  58. @GlynnMhor says:
    May 30, 2013 at 9:29 am

    Oh, there is a special place in hell for you for sharing that visual!!

  59. ConfusedPhoton says:
    May 30, 2013 at 10:40 am
    The UK has already got a “Monster Raving Loony Party”. Perhaps Hansen should create one in the US.

    Sort of like the Ba’ath party in Iraq and Syria, only more destructive. Cool. :-P

  60. “aging organizations can evolve into self-licking ice cream cones, organizations whose main purpose becomes self-perpetuation rather than accomplishment of their supposed objectives”
    The caps fits you Hansen and you wear it so well?

  61. I was in government 40 years, long enough to understand how aging organizations can evolve into self-licking ice cream cones,…..

    Did Mr. Hansen intend this high irony, as apt description of Anthropogenic Global Warming and the his brand of climate ‘science’? Was it deliberately autobiographical? Or a fruedian ‘slip’ of monumental proportions? Is he completely oblivious to his perfect self description?

    Inquiring minds need to know….
    MtK

  62. I hope Hansen names his new party “The Consensus Party.” Then, after the first national vote, we will have real data to find out what the true “consensus” numbers really are. But the alarmists won’t do that because they prefer to determine consensus using models rather than actual observations.

  63. D. J. Hawkins – give Hansen time and I am sure he could be as destructive as anyone – “the end justifies the means” can allow people to do awful things.

  64. The only “honest pricing” for anything has nothing to do with the cost (social or otherwise). Everything is worth exactly what someone is willing to pay for it. If people will only pay a dollar for your product but it costs you two dollars to make it (or mine it, etc.), guess what, it’s not an economically viable product.

  65. Fruit Loop. Cutting gov out of said loop? Good luck with that.

    And with creating a fruitloop party to attain said ends.

  66. New Climate party drains 5.0% of the vote away from the Democrats.

    New Climate Ctizens Lobby (also favored by Hansen) drains 25% of the climate donations away from WWF, Grist, ThinkProgress etc.

    Hansen is just making new enemies out of his previous partners.

  67. “(sigh) I cannot seem to get the dreadful image out of my head of Hansen bent over licking himself…”

    Oh God. Did you have to :-)

  68. hunter wrote “Please, please, PLEASE start this party and get Gore to be its first candidate”

    HUnter, good to see you. Are you going to start visiting over at Judith’s again?

  69. Excellent and witty observations above — enjoyed them! #[:)]
    ***********************************************************************

    And yet….

    What a narcissist like H. cares about most is attention. He got it.

    The best thing to do with a narcissist is the one thing that he cannot stand:

    ignore him.

    I didn’t even read his article. What did he say? Couldn’t — care — less.

    Yes, yes, if I had followed my own advice, I would not even have posted this… . But, I have no non-public means of talking to all of you!

  70. “I was in government 40 years…” – I don’t recall Hansen’s name on any ballot paper; much less his appearance in the House. Kinda defines his idea of what constitutes ‘government’.

  71. William Astley says: May 30, 2013 at 9:26 am
    “Hansen says ‘The Solution is Not Rocket Science’”

    OMG!!! Now I’ve been endorsed as the solution….

  72. When I spoke to a group of international labor leaders, one of them declared “that’s libertarian!”.
    Libertarians want less government, Hansen proposed much more government. This shows an international labor leader didn’t know the term.

    After I spoke to a group of conservative politicians, one of them said “that’s income redistribution!” Well, yes, overall fee-and-dividend is progressive, and some ambitious low income people who pay special attention to their carbon footprint will be able to save money for other purposes.
    And one of this group properly identified your plan. Free money for the poor, always popular among progressives. Of course poor people can’t afford to purchase much of a carbon footprint, which helps your plan.

    Except they can’t afford the “upgrades” to go lower-carbon. I know people who could go bankrupt if they’d have to replace their old furnace. People with jobs are driving a half-hour or more one-way, without public transportation options, and can’t afford a more-efficient new car. About the only way they could lower their carbon footprint is to lose their job and stop all the driving.

    For which the Hansen plan will compensate them with more money in their pocket.

    Among potential supporters there seems to be a palpable fear of ostracism if they were to endorse a moderate conservative approach such as fee-and-dividend.
    Which shows Hansen does not understand the meaning of “conservative”.

    Of course Hansen thinks that “not one dime” of this fee will go to the government. Government will collect it, distribute it, audit it. Will government do all that for free, out of the goodness of government’s heart?

  73. D. J. Hawkins says:
    May 30, 2013 at 10:41 am

    @GlynnMhor says:
    May 30, 2013 at 9:29 am

    Oh, there is a special place in hell for you for sharing that visual!!

    D.J. Hawkins you are absolutely correct concerning GlynnMhor. Forever more I’ll be trapped, doomed with that image engraved in my mind.

  74. GlynnMhor said on May 30, 2013 at 9:29 am:

    (sigh) I cannot seem to get the dreadful image out of my head of Hansen bent over licking himself…

    And to think, not that long ago it would have been “mandatory internet protocol” to include the link to goatse.

    (That’s the link to the Wikipedia article, in case you were worried, you wuss.)

  75. Speaking as an outsider I think Max Hogoson 9.41 has this summed up perfectly. This should be encouraged.

  76. Mark Bofill says:
    May 30, 2013 at 8:32 am
    ……………………………………..
    If we’re going with fairy tales, why not go with a more direct one; we’ll all pray to Gaea and she will distribute power bubbles to the faithful via elves riding winged unicorns?

    I think it’d be cool to see a winged unicorn.
    ——————————————————————
    Me too!
    Last time was in the ’60s, I think I was listening to Purple Haze………
    Or was I doing Purple Haze?
    Anyway, I think it’d be cool to see a winged unicorn, again
    cn

  77. philjourdan says:
    May 30, 2013 at 8:36 am
    That is what makes America great. Jimmy, if you want a new party, start it. No one is stopping you.
    ——————————————
    Yeah, Jim. While you’re convincing China to climb on board the global warming tax train go ahead and let them know you want to start a new green political party in China, too.
    cn

  78. A party, who’s central purpose involves having govt take control over almost every aspect of our lives, and he calls it a centrist party?

  79. if the government provides the right conditions and gets out of the way.

    and

    they propose to use much of the fee to “pay down the national debt” (read: “make the government bigger”)

    So now he pretends to understand how federal accounting and macroeconomics work? A free-marketer with zero understanding of ‘paying off the national debt’? He’s a fool.

  80. Best idea Hansen has come up with in years, IMHO. Third parties in the US have been consistent flops for over a hundred years. When they have any national effect at all it is just to take votes away from whichever major party they most resemble. Having all the climate alarmists band together in a new party would (a) serve to show how few of them there are, and (b) take contributions, volunteers and donations away from the Democratic party, and (c) untempered by other important Democratic constituents the alarmists will be free to show everyone just how extreme they are.

    I suspect Jim would offer himself up as a candidate for President — what an enticing prospect! Or maybe we’d see the return of Al Gore to the political scene (can’t wait for those financial disclosure reports!).

    New parties work much better in a Parliamentary system, but in the US for all their differences, the Democratic and Republican parties firmly agree on this important principle: “the voters don’t need more than two party choices”. Ballot access laws in all the states are rigged accordingly.

  81. Is this guy on recreational drugs?

    Most people readily appreciate fee-and-dividend and honest pricing of fossil fuels, once it is explained. They understand that it would help modernize our infrastructure, improve our economic competitiveness, and raise living standards.

    A fee-and-dividend is a tax on working Americans. It is removing money from the economy, as all taxes are. Under no circumstances would it “modernize our infrastructure, improve our economic competitiveness, and raise living standards.”

    Taxes do NOT provide income for the federal government. The federal government is not revenue-constrained; we create our own money; we are monetarily sovereign unlike the Eurozone members. Taxes are used as a thermostat to cool or warm the economy. When the economy is too cold, as it is right now, you remove taxes, and increase government spending. When it’s boiling hot and everyone is working, as it was after WWII, you increase taxes.

    Read Beardsley Ruml, the Chairman at the time of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in 1946: Taxes for Revenue are Obsolete (People then didn’t get a chance to understand what going off the gold standard in 1934 meant because the war intervened. Ruml was reminding them.)

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/warren-mosler/taxes-for-revenue-are-obs_b_542134.html

    The federal government modernizes our infrastructure by spending into the economy, per the constitution, putting people back to work. This is not money that anyone has to pay back. And it is not interest-bearing credit creation that banks subject us to, and have destroyed this country with by increasing the asset prices of houses and stock and bonds.

    You improve our economic competitiveness by putting people back to work. Full employment. That raises living standards, not piling on needless sin taxes (since Hansen thinks oil is a sin). Raising the price of oil hits working Americans the hardest in costs of transportation and food. Full employment will restore the economy of this country, but shockingly the Federal Reserve under that subhuman Greenspan in Clinton’s time (Clinton being a Class A ignoramus about macroeconomics) wrote in 1999 that the US should maintain a policy of unemployment to combat inflation. Facepalm.

    As a consequence, the pool of available workers willing to take jobs has been drawn down further in recent months, a trend that must eventually be contained if inflationary imbalances are to remain in check and economic expansion continue.

    http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/press/general/1999/19991116/default.htm

  82. LOL. He thinks that calling a party a centrist party makes it a centrist party when the very basic concept behind the party is decidedly in the far-out left wing nutbar range of political parties. Fudger Hansen lives in his own little world.

  83. Barbee says:
    May 30, 2013 at 8:47 am

    LOVE IT! We should encourage this.
    It can only be a good thing for this country.

    Rocky Says:
    ” Can you list a few ideas how it would be a good thing for this country?”

    YES! Glad to (but keep this to yourself!)
    1) Democrat party will be fractured.
    2) Democrat cash contributions will be diverted to new party (machine)
    3) Democrats spending all that money on extra party reduces availability.
    4) Democrats fighting amongst themselves causes distractions.
    5) This New Democrat party will have no motivation to lie about their true positions – aka: destroy oil based economy, cripple manufacturing, cripple farming/farm industry and food production…

    Really, need I go on? Use your head. The Democrat party fractured? This may be the last chance this country has at free economy-and freedom from tyranny. GO! Hansen!!!

  84. Hansen:

    “Reactions to this proposal are revealing. When I spoke to a group of international labor leaders, one of them declared “that’s libertarian!”.”

    Well, would anyone expect an international labor leader to know what libertarian is? To think: the poor Marxists have to listen to Hansen. They deserve it.

  85. I’m all for it. Good luck Jim. Best wishes Break a leg. Aim for the Heavens.
    Anything to fracture the liberals!

  86. If there is anything that proves Hansen is out of touch with reality it’s that he thinks he’s a “centrist”.

  87. ‘centrist’
    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
    If he believes his proposed socialist-nutter party is centrist, then that makes me further to the right than Oswald Mosley. I just though I was a fairly moderate conservative, but obviously I’m wrong.

    Another thing: what on earth is the “Ridenhour Courage Award”? Do you get given it for having the courage/cheek to carry out your own brand of activism on the tax-payer’s dime?

  88. A new horror movie coming to a cinema near you starring James Hansen as the “self licking ice cream cone.” That’s a ‘dog’ of an idea you have there Jimmey-boy !

  89. One of my favorite podcasts is Big Picture Science. They cover a variety of topics and often I often enjoy their humorous approach to educating. Recently, however, they did an episode where they compared climate skeptics to intelligent design proponents and creationists.

    http://www.bigpicturescience.org/episodes/Skeptic_Check_Hostile_Climate

    They also made a number of claims about the Schmitt and Happer Wall Street Journal Op-Ed piece: In Defense of Carbon Dioxide.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323528404578452483656067190.html

    I posted a somewhat lengthy response on their Facebook page saying why I didn’t think they did a very good job at being skeptical. At the end of the response I posted a few questions off the top of my head that actual sceptics sometimes have and requested a calm and civil discussion. My first question was:

    James Hansen’s famous 1988 paper made quite a few specific predictions about temperature and CO2. How have these predictions compared to observational data?

    To my surprise they actually got an interview with Dr. Hansen to respond to some of the questions I had. That interview is located at:

    Dr. Hansen’s answers were not very surprising to me but I was happy that Big Picture Science made the effort and the interview questions were much improved over their previous attempt. Here’s one quote from the interview when asked about quoting the 97%: “Climate scientists are always skeptical of their own conclusions”

    –Simon F.

  90. The Hansen-Gore ticket. Now that’s entertainment!

    It snows and the candidates get arrested at every campaign stop. The only question is, will any reporters be available to cover the other parties’ candidates?

  91. Keeping up with the recent trend of naming political parties after drinks such as The Tea Party may I suggest Hansen name his political party – The Kool Aid Party.

  92. “I was in government 40 years, long enough to understand how aging organizations can evolve into self-licking ice cream cones, organizations whose main purpose becomes self-perpetuation…”

    Autobiographical note.

  93. Join up for The Extreme Centre Party and receive a subsidy for growing Soylent Green.

  94. Ah yes, the dream of all political amateurs and single issue people:

    “The left is too far left, the right is too far right, MOST people are actually centrists. If we make a centrist party everyone will jump in and we can accomplish our goals”.

    The reality is, all first world countries are highly divided between left and right… The U.S., Canada, Australia, the UK, all sharply divided. But everyone thinks they’re in the center.

    Hansen has a long way to go before he understands even the basics of politics. Almost as far as he needs to go to understand the rudiments of climate drivers.

  95. “Let competition and the public decide what energy sources they prefer on the long run.”

    And lets load coal, oil and gas with such taxes that it will help the public decide to prefer anything but.

  96. I don’t want to put my red planet to that (in “Likes”), it’d look like I’m supporting him!

    What happened to the Green Party? Not strong enough for him? It sounds like he thinks people want this. Has he not been paying attention?

  97. RockyRoad says:

    Hansen’s CCC party, eh?

    Heh – yes, the US being run by the CCCP! I can just see it! So instead of green colors, they could go with red to be opposite, That would make sense. And they could use a hammer logo to represent progress, and a sickle logo to represent “cutting emissions”.

    That’ll fly!

  98. This is funny:

    Because there has already been registered and established a US centrist party.

    Incidentally by one John P Reisman who also is an adamant proponent of a looming climate scare or even catastrophy, and who runs the one-man climate scare ‘think’ tank called the OSS foundation..

  99. He’s a bit late. Those of us who were concerned about the environment set up our parties in the mid-seventies. The slow-coaches waited till the eighties.

  100. If ever there were proof that the U.S. government is the employer of last resort for persons who are otherwise unemployable, this is it.

    It is the only place where this crackpot could have lasted 40 years without being thrown out on his ear (which is what should have happened to Hansen ten years ago for abuse of his office).

  101. Hallelujah! and pass that climate kool-aid.
    /sarc

    Centrist? snigger.

    Self licking? Snigger! snort!, heh heh!

    What may be funniest is that the mal-adjusted social delinquent jimmy-boy (Thanks Streetcred ;> ) must’ve been poking some magic mushrooms before he got to doing his own licking after retirement.

  102. From David Albert on May 30, 2013 at 12:45 pm:

    The real solution to energy deficits lies in LENR . The recent third party confirmation of Rossi’s technology (http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=1434) bodes well for the near future. The US would be well served with R&D efforts in this area.

    The non-peer-reviewed paper that was dropped onto arXiv and snapped up as “proof”:
    Version 1, Thu, 16 May 2013 13:09:56 GMT, 1840kb: http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913v1
    “Comments: 29 pages, 15 figues, plus plots and diagrams”
    Version 2, Mon, 20 May 2013 12:43:10 GMT, 1238kb: http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913v2
    “Comments: Formatting error corrected. 29 pages, 15 figs, 9 plots, 8 tables”
    Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device

    As gushed over at Forbes:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/

    Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi’s E-Cat Cold Fusion Device: Maybe The World Will Change After All
    Mark Gibbs, Contributor
    5/20/2013 @ 10:40PM

    Note that Gibbs reviewed the May 16 first version. On the same day he published, suddenly the much-smaller Version 2 pops up. The usual links go to a “latest version” page.

    It was chewed over at El Reg:

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/22/e_cat_test_claims_success_yet_again/

    COLD FUSION is BACK with ‘anomalous heat’ claim
    Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat rig tested by boffins

    22nd May 2013 00:49 GMT

    So the test is probably going to be vulnerable to scientific tooth and claw from the start, since it amounts to researchers being asked to visit the premises of EFA – that is, the company that holds the production rights for the E-Cat – and test a black box whose operations are invisible.

    Followed by:

    http://news.discovery.com/tech/alternative-power-sources/5-reasons-cold-fusion-bunk-130528.htm

    5 Reasons Cold Fusion is Bunk
    May 28, 2013 07:00 AM ET // by Jesse Emspak

    and also:

    http://www.physicstoday.org/daily_edition/science_and_the_media/forbescom_renews_attention_to_widely_disparaged_low-energy_nuclear_reactions

    Forbes.com renews attention to widely disparaged “low-energy nuclear reactions”
    The century-old business magazine applauds an arXiv paper claiming an “independent” LENR test.

    May 28, 2013

    This one basically found only Forbes was gushing, as it had before, everywhere else in the “normal” media there was skepticism and criticism. Links to even more pieces critical of Rossi’s “independent” test.

    BTW, I love this pic of the high-temp E-Cat running that’s in the Gibbs’ piece:

    As one who has played with large white-hot pieces of steel, I find it most curious the cylinder is cooler between the supports in the air, where the air would insulate it, and hotter where touched by the metal supports, which should be drawing away the heat. The only way I could conceive this picture can be correct, is if current flowed between the device and the supports, creating heat at the contact points. That would be consistent with what the picture shows.

    Take note, those metal supports hold devices consuming electricity. Basic electrical safety would demand that structure being electrically grounded. I do not see electrical insulation between the shell and the supports.

    Also, I have downloaded both arXiv paper versions. Offhand I can’t see a noticeable difference, but I haven’t looked in depth. I did check the Properties though. Ver 1 was done on May 16, published that day. Ver 2 is listed as from Alex Passi, I’ve seen him listed as doing translations, by his blog he’s an E-Cat/LENR enthusiast. Properties says the modifications were done on the 17th. The “corrected” version wasn’t posted until the day the “gushing” Forbes piece was published, three days later.

    I’m not about to trade climate charlatans with black box models with “proprietary intellectual property” and unreproducible results, for energy charlatans with black box devices with “industrial trade secrets” and unreproducible results.

  103. James Hansen calls for new political party to combat climate change

    He should come here to Australia, we already have one. It did pretty well in the last national election. Its called the Climate Sceptics Party.

  104. Well now he is not part of NASA, and Only a university professor he can indulge his passion for politics….where is the science? There never was any……lol.

    He doesn’t see how naive his idealogical rant is….? oh dear.

  105. Tonights speaker is Jim Hansen of the Modern Hysterics and Witchburner Party of America.

  106. So for 40 years Hansen has been a self-licking ice-cream cone?

    Based on imagery provided by GlynnMhor, it’d only be a few more inches until Hansen can get his head up his…

    Actually, I think he accomplished that about 15 years ago. ;)

  107. Karl Kruszelnicki (a former science reporter and alarmist) tried this in Australia an election or two ago at the height of the AGW hysteria. I recall that he reported back that even the Australian Marijuana Party managed more votes than his party…

  108. From Wikipedia:
    “Schizoaffective disorder most commonly affects cognition and emotion. Perceptual disturbances (i.e. hallucinations) and/or disordered thought processes, including delusions and disorganized speech and thinking, occur in conjunction with significant social and occupational dysfunction.”

  109. In what can only be described as an amazing feat of clairvoyance, the Monty Python gang predicted the rise of Hansen’s new party years ago:

  110. Pat Michaels [May 30, 2013 at 10:14 am] says:

    Jimbo seems to have forgotten that the 96000 people who voted for the third party–The Green Party–in Florida in 2000 cost his patron Al Gore the presidency.

    Possible, but not definite. The same was said about Perot in 1992 giving the election to Clinton at the expense of Bush 41, and many other elections.

    People like Nader and Perot get voters to the polls that might not have gone otherwise. In fact they have huge get-out-the-vote efforts outside the main parties. So it is a huge assumption by Bush 41 or Gore that these were ever “their” personal voters, or that these voters without a Perot or Nader on the ballot would instead pull the lever for the next most similar.

    And then there is the opposing effect of a Nader who gets people to the polls specifically to vote against him, because they remember the damage he and his ilk has done in past years. So elections are dynamic and those numbers cannot really be parsed like that. Not to mention the fact that they are dwarfed by other factors like election fraud from multiple votes, lost returns and illegal aliens.

  111. Good luck, my friend Hansen, good luck. The chances of an additional party having any impact whatsoever on US politics are none.

  112. Janice Moore says:
    May 30, 2013 at 11:42 am

    What a narcissist like H. cares about most is attention. He got it.
    The best thing to do with a narcissist is the one thing that he cannot stand:
    ignore him.
    I didn’t even read his article. What did he say? Couldn’t — care — less.

    I have to say Janice, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. Hansen does indeed display the delusional thinking of a pathological narcissist. Not to mention his barely concealed sense of entitlement. And vicious projection. He clearly craves narcissistic supply…

    And yet I think your solution is not entirely helpful. Would you ignore a wild beast clamouring at your front door threatening to devour your children? No, thought not. The key is not to ignore a narcissist per se, but to avoid engagement unless forced to engage by the beast itself.

    Knowing how and what these people think is key to understanding their predatory nature – know thine enemy. Ignore them at your peril! These people’s MO is always to gain ground through the application of cunning strategies. The tactical expropriation of territory not theirs to take. Indeed they are pathologically incapable of operating in any other way, which is why they’re usually such pathetic individuals (can’t help thinking of the POTUS). But the way to deal with such malevolence is to develop disengagement and containment strategies, not to simply ignore it.

    At the end of the film The Last King of Scotland, the naive young doctor Carrigan finally realizes the nature of the beast he’s dealing with and says to Amin, “You’re a child. You have the mind and ego of an angry, spoiled, uneducated child. And that’s what makes you so ******* scary. “. Yes, indeed. That’s what makes people like Hansen so ******* scary – they’re just kids. Very intelligent and educated kids perhaps, but angry and spoiled all the same. Ignoring them is partly why we’re in this current mess.

    And from a genuine Libertarian perspective, the coercive state is also a narcissistic entity and needs to be dealt with on the same basis using the same strategies. But such a position is too much for most people to even contemplate, let alone implement…

  113. @ Barbee

    Which country? As far as I am concerned, “this country” is Australia, and we’ve already got a Green Party.

  114. We in the UK have a political party that would be perfect for Hansen. It’s the Monster Loony Raving Party, or some such similar name. Amazingly, I believe it does actually get some votes.
    Chris

  115. Can I encourge Hansen to put all his time , money and effort into this idea . And in turn I promiss not to laugh to hard when he loses shirt .

  116. My father once explained ‘entropy’ to me.
    He told me that “You can turn a scientist into an engineer easily enough, but you can never turn an engineer into a scientist.”
    There is a corrolary now: “You can turn a scientist into a politician easily enough, but you can never turn a politician into a scientist.”

  117. Frank Zappa wrote a song about him once: Might be movin’ to Montana soon, gonna be a Unabomber loon.

  118. “carbon tax will create millions of jobs”
    =============
    indeed. so raising income taxes will also create millions of jobs? raising sales taxes will raise create millions of jobs?

    surprising with all the taxes we already have that we have any unemployment whatsoever. we should be awash in jobs created by taxes.

    government jobs such as Hansen’s, living like parasites off of the rest of us that work in the real world. eventually as taxes get high enough those are the only jobs that will be left, and the government will be taxing itself to raise money. what could possibly go wrong.

  119. Most political parties in the U.S., dare I say all, exist to force their ideology onto the “American” people. Which irritates me no end. Collectively we are not the “American” people, we are citizens of the United States of America. As for me, I much prefer that all political parties stay the hell out of my paycheck and property, and my business, beliefs, bedroom, and baby womb. I am betting my neighbor, a far more liberal person than I am, wishes that very same thing too. Is there such a thing as the Individual Party? I would join that one.

  120. “organizations can evolve into self-licking ice cream cones, organizations whose main purpose becomes self-perpetuation rather than accomplishment of their supposed objectives. ”

    I am concerned about the ability of our space-time continuum to absorb this much irony. Another few statements like this and Hansen could doom us all.

  121. There have been several “American Party” parties in our country’s history, but the one I learned about in school is the one that was also called the “Know Nothing Party”. Seems appropriate for this new proposal.

  122. Excessive taxes, including hidden taxes in electric rates or other energy costs for subsidizing “renewable” energy projects, can conclusively be shown to be the reason for persistently, stubbornly high unemployment here in the US, and even more so in Europe. The excessive taxation takes away the capital that is required to create jobs, with the result here in the US that 40% of new college grads are unemployed or underemployed, and up to 60% of young adults in Europe are unemployed. The money that should have been used for capital formation is then spent supporting the unemployed and entitled classes, and therefore produces nothing while needlessly burdening those who do work and produce. A vicious circle is created in which the economy, as the available capital diminishes, can employ successively fewer and fewer people until even taxing those people to death does not produce enough revenue to support the classes doing no work. We have already seen the collapse resulting from this process in Greece and Cyprus, and the US is definitely headed in that direction. Loaded with more hidden taxes, Obamacare may well push us over the brink, if it is fully implemented.

    It is likely that green programs are responsible for the destruction of tens of millions of jobs in the US and the EU.

  123. Matt says:
    May 30, 2013 at 9:45 am
    “James is either intentionally misleading, doesn’t understand economics or is delusional.” Only one thing wrong with that, the “or” should be “and”.

    Here in Australia we have a government that has followed his policies exactly. We have the World’s Biggest Carbon Tax. 10% on just about anything that produces electricity from coal or oil. There are supposedly subsidies for energy using industries that export their wares, but with an excessively high Australian dollar the subsidies don’t seem to work too well. Result, unemployment increasing, Ford has said it will shut down its car plants by 2016, aluminium smelters in trouble, you name it. At least we have two parties (a coalition) that promises to repeal the Carbon Tax legislation if it winds the September 14 election. Mind you, it also has a “Direct Action Plan” to combat rising carbon dioxide levels, but at least, given the state of the Australian budget, there is not likely to be any spare money for this purpose.

    Prime Minister Rudd reckoned the best plan was a ‘market solution’ – buying and selling ‘carbon credits’. Economists agreed, but he got cold feet and dumped his plan. He was replaced as PM by Julia Gillard, who before the 2010 election promised “There will be no carbon tax in any government I lead”, won with the support of The Greens and then instituted a Carbon Tax. The economists’ second preference if you wanted to cut CO2 emissions for any reason (valid or not). The third preference, and said to be the most expensive for any given result is “Direct Action” – which has the major merit that you can spend as much or as little as you like, and can stop funding more easily than if you have to repeal an Act of Parliament.

    I reckon Mr Hansen should start up his CCCP – don’t the initials ring a bell somehow? At least he would collect most of the more extreme nutters into the one group, and their influence on the other parties would be less.

  124. “Dudley Horscroft says:

    June 1, 2013 at 12:21 am

    We have the World’s Biggest Carbon Tax. 10% on just about anything that produces electricity from coal or oil.”

    Don’t forget the Australian “proice ohn carbohn” @ AU$23/tonne CO2 is applied to power generation from hydro plants such as Snowy Hydro and Hydro Tasmania.

  125. Yeah, Dr. James Hansens third party, with help of the Citizens Climate(crazy) Lobby promises to tax and restrict our energy to the point of poverty and death AND keep the planet at a constant temperature AND a steady co2 level!
    Who wouldn’t vote for a party with such lofty goals?

    “Human health costs of pollution from fossil fuel burning and fossil fuel mining are borne by the public. Climate disruption costs are borne by the victims and all taxpayers.”

    First…. the taxpayers ARE the victims of a climate crazy activist who was in charge of GISS records for NASA who has adjusted raw data for years and defrauded the WORLD of billions/trillion of dollars for his none existent alarmism.
    97% of future grand children will have consensus that Dr. James Hansen is a fraud and guilty of crimes against humanity, stick that in your model Hansen!

Comments are closed.