He’s got the whoooole woorld in his hands…
This troubling news from the Guardian, UK
“James Hansen, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer.
Hansen will use the symbolically charged 20th anniversary of his groundbreaking speech to the US Congress – in which he was among the first to sound the alarm over the reality of global warming – to argue that radical steps need to be taken immediately if the “perfect storm” of irreversible climate change is not to become inevitable.
Speaking before Congress again, he will accuse the chief executive officers of companies such as ExxonMobil and Peabody Energy of being fully aware of the disinformation about climate change they are spreading.”
I suspect he’ll be calling for the jailing of bloggers like myself next. I think Mr. Hansen has lost all sense of reason, and his last shred of credibility.
UPDATE: Apparently Mr. Hansen has made the claims above on live radio on the Dian Rehm show this morning, audio files of the interview will be up shortly here:
http://wamu.org/programs/dr/08/06/23.php#20635
When the audio file is up, I’ll post a direct link.
AUDIO CLIPS NOW AVAILABLE:
Listen to this segment
Joe D’Aleo created this graph this morning:
click for a larger image.
Satellite measured global temperature trend from the University of Alabama, Huntsville show sthat it is cooler now than when he made his testimony in 1988.
UPDATE2: See the reader poll on this issue here
“You declare that since Rothbard has declared it’s a fraud, it must be.” MarkW
Just read the history of banking and judge for yourself. It clearly went from two forms of honest banking, “deposit” banking and loan banking to the current corrupt system which combines the two.
But as the current economic crisis shows, something is rotten in our banking system.
Mark, I guess you will try to blame the Fed for all the banking woes and you would not be far wrong. But your local banker and everyone who benefits off cheap loans at the expense of everyone else is at fault too. This is why the Fed continues to hang on, it has made a lot of people dependent on the loot fractional reserve banking generates.
We have become a nation of victims and/or victimizers because of a corrupt banking system.
On the other hand, you and Pam have found common ground. Congratulations 🙂
Evan Jones (09:34:22) :
I concure 100% with your solution.
Let the “free market” work!!!!
This country has been served “Bad Rice” long enough.
1) If it moves, tax it.
2) If it keeps moving, regulate it.
3) And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
4) See Pam Gray for further instructions.
Thanks to Ronald Reagan for 1 -3.
floreign:
You assume what you wish to prove-that your anologies/metaphors are apt and fair. Should you wish to begin again, we’ll grant a mulligan but you are not permitted to tee-up with the pros.
Oh, no, I’m cool. I guess I have my own “agenda” to fulfill today.
This country has been served “Bad Rice” long enough.
You know, I think I would mind it less if it weren’t for the intense (and costly) efforts to convince us (and the kiddies) that it is good rice.
dstealy: Like so totally!
PoetSam: C’mon, give Ronnie baby a break. He cut federal taxes by half and federal revenues were 28% greater after 8 years, even factoring in inflation. (And overall revenues were up a heck of a lot more.)
He did more for the cause of genuine Liberalism than any president this century. (Though neither liberal nor conservative seems willing to admit it. anna v might possibly understand this!)
Evan,
I was just giving Ronnie credit for quotes 1 – 3, that’s all. I guess I should have used quote marks instead.
BTW, low taxes are part of the solution but an honest monetary system is another important part.
Unfortunately under-regulated industry (of any kind, not just oil) demonstrates its one weakness. China has very lax regulations on small businesses. So much so that in order to import safe products, the US has to step in and provide regulations. Mad cow disease is another case of lax regulations. And the US stepped in to provide the regulations needed to keep consumer products (and the process of making those products) safe. Childhood disease is yet another example. Polio struck poor and rich alike. Without regulations, we would still be dealing with Polio. Mining for gold is another example. The water canons used to blast away the hillside sent pretty nasty stuff into the streams and rivers down below and unnaturally destabilized the otherwise slow eroding process on steep slopes.
Without regulations, consumers would be at the mercy of companies and stock holders who can afford to steer clear of the environmental damage caused by manufacturing or processing, and can steer clear of potentially unsafe products by getting what they need elsewhere.
The other end of excessive regulations leads to it’s own set of problems and has its one weakness. Without profits, no one has a job.
The middle ground is a viable place to be. It is legitimate. It has value. It works. Hansen’s attempt to keep serious discussion and open-mindedness off of his pet theory is similar to anyone here who vehemently espouses one theory over another (be it banking, capitalism and its many forms, or models), reducing the discussion to name-calling, sound bites, and boyish king of the mountain posts.
PoetSam: Oh, okay. I was slow on the uptake.
Pamela: Agreed. I am certainly not opposed to all regulation. I strongly support reasonable restraints and obligations such as basic safety, cleanup, truth in labeling and advertising.
Subsidies are another ball of wax. Ideas should rise and fall on their own.
Pam,
The problem with your middle of the road approach is you would (apparently) be satisfied with a compromise between honest and dishonest. In that regard, you are more European than American. Europeans take corruption for granted for historical reasons. Americans are idealists. When we are right, we are very right and serve as an excellent example to the rest of the world. When we are wrong, we tend to be very wrong, as a trip to the airport will demonstrate.
Not only do you not have a good grasp of liberty but you don’t have an appreciation for principles either. I have not called you names up to now, but pragmatic Pam seems appropriate.
In the short run, pragmatism may be necessary. But in the long run, it’s principles that matter.
Still, you sound like a fine person and I like you but I would not trust you with much power. Your non-principled good intentions would cause much damage.
I attack fractional reserve banking because it appears to be at the root of many problems, including depressions and wars. I am not alone in this opinion. Since you have read about Hamilton, I suggest you read what his contemporaries said about FRB, particularly Jefferson. But it is a also a no-brainer for me since it is based on fraud and theft (particularly from the poor).
I reckon though, you’ll be satisfied with the status quo till we are knee deep in another depression and/or world war. How sad that in the 21st century we still have such things.
Dear Poet:
The biographer presented a very balanced view of Hamilton, and included the views of his contemporaries who did not like the banking scheme. The biographer does not write to prove a point of view. The biographer writes to inform. My favorite kind of book.
You write to prove your point and to paint the opposing view in very negative terms. Many politicians seeking office follow that kind of rhetoric but why use it here? Why not inform me about your opinions like I inform you about mine and dispense with the negative brush strokes you use on opposing opinions? While you may prefer and like such discourse and are entitled to use it, I do not and will not.
And are we not accusing Hansen of doing this very thing? Painting his opposition in negative terms as a strategy for proving his point of view?
Pam,
I have tried to inform with links to books and examples and famous quotes. I have received ridicule and insults for my patient efforts.
Your problem with me is that when I am convinced about something I get passionate about it. Sorry, but passion does not equal error. Nor does cold bloodedness equal truth.
I have not attacked anyone in this blog, it is bad ideas I attack.
To show you my good intentions a poem:
bright colors in nature
Redheads are my bane;
I loose all my wits;
I go quite insane.
It’s not really my fault;
I’m just a moth,
drawn to a beautiful flame.
Still, it stands to good reason
that red’s not for pleasing
but to serve as a warning a head.
Pamela,
It’s true that oil prices are volatile, and are currently in a bubble, however, nobody expects the fall when it comes to take prices back to $30/barrel oil, or below.
Most analysts think the new floor is closer to $50/barrel. And that’s a high enough price to justify lots of new development.
poet,
Your problem is not your passion, it’s that you let your passion for an idea override your critical thinking abilities.
Yes, you can find a few cranks who think modern banking is a scam. You can also find hundreds of others who will shred the arguments of the cranks like so much holiday confetti.
Your passion for an idea causes you to read only those authors who agree with the position you want to believe in and ignore all the others.
That’s why I compared you to an AGW believer, and Rothbard to Hansen.
MarkW,
I’ve thought about this for a long time from every angle. I could probably argue the opposing side better than most bankers. But despite all the fancy arguments and justifications, it turns out to be a sophisticated cheat invented long ago. Since then, it has financed wars, caused insane booms ( the Tulip Craze, etc), caused depressions, transferred wealth from the poor to the rich and resulted in the welfare state to compensate the victims of it.
Believing what I do, I would have to be a cold-fish indeed to not be passionate.
But I am willing to listen to reason. Please give me another single culprit that can account for insane booms, depressions, unnecessary wars, the growth in the welfare state and the fact we still have these things in the 21st century.
The difference between Hansen and me is he wants to restrict liberty; I wish to expand it. Get the government out of the money business. Allow competing currencies as Ron Paul suggests. Eliminate legal tender laws. As for FRB, it is dishonest, but good old fashioned bank runs might keep it in check.
I am the libertarian in this discussion unless I have misunderstood you.
Mark: I agree. At $50, the floor of potential profits from hard to extract oil products, we should see development. I see that some companies are doing just that. But it isn’t a boon in development. And I think the volatility of the market is keeping investors away. How long should we wait? I think temporary measures should be taken to stabilize the market, reduce restrictions, and provide temporary incentives to companies and investors to get the ball rolling a bit faster. All such measures, incentives as well as controls, should be temporary, time limited not result limited, and not up for sunset review when the time comes to end these measures.
Poet: Your attacks are subtle yet still inflammatory. Saying I would apparently accept dishonest practices and that I am more European instead of American is the stuff of negative campaigning. And by the way, love the last poem, but I’m full. I need a rest.
Pamela: #B^1
I consider your input to be valuable.
Hang in there.
(And if all else fails, beat it out of the squeeze!)
Amen, Evan. Without Pam, this would be a lot less fun.
Pam get up,
and eat your toast,
and tell us what’s happening
on the left coast.
Let’s see. We are trying to gain back private control from the Government of our forests here in NE Oregon (years ago they were sold to the Feds with a promise of timber revenues – haha). We are trying to prevent city ordinances like event fees and regulations. We are trying to use our water like we used to without interference from conquered nations. You know. Leftist stuff like that.
geez
Pam,
When you say “conquered nations” are you referring to the previous owners before da white man?
When I learned about “Manifest Destiny” in school, I really wanted to believe in it since it was very convenient. I always felt uneasy about it though and this was way before political correctness. I had the same problem with “The Monroe Doctrine” too.
I guess I justified every thing eventually because of the alleged superiority of our culture. I no longer think we are morally superior.
Any excuse for a rhyme:
My country used to be
We used to be a light on a hill
till we lost patience
and set out to kill.
I understand that he has testified as a private citizen and not as a director of GISS and/or a climate scientist. Therefore, any appeal for his resignation would limit his freedom of speech. As a private citizen he is entitled to freedom of speech just like you and me.
At the same time he can be ignored. His private opinion is as good or bad as ours. Maybe he has studied atmospheric science, but failed to like to look outside and check whether his computer model(s) do meet reality.
I am wondering why he is testifying as a private citizen. If I look at the testimony of 1988 it looks like he acted director of GISS. Do rules within NASA no longer allow him and others to testify in a way he did last Monday?
Sigh,
Freedom of Speech has nothing to do with employment rights guarantees. It simply means one cannot be arrested by the government for making statements the government objects to. Private companies and the State are perfectly within their rights to terminate employment of individuals with objectionable positions.
The man is an embarrassment to NASA, whether an embarrassment on the clock or off, he should go.
Also, someone like Hansen cannot testify as a private citizen. When he speaks he carries the weight of his position.
I wish to quote a recent Patrick Michaels article in the National Review to elaborate on my above comment:
Hansen should be fired. He is constantly in violation in the Hatch Act.