BUMPED for visibility. Originally published on 6/24. Bumped on 6/28 and again on 6/30
This poll will gauge reader perception to the issue that Dr. Hansen of NASA has recently raised that I cover in my post here. One vote per computer, and please spread this permalink to the poll far and wide to get a good mix of input across the blogosphere.
Click on a dot, then click the little yellow vote icon. Poll closed.
I will run this poll 1 week until next Wednesday at 9AM PST, at which time it will close. The results will be submitted to a member of the U.S. Senate for distribution, NASA’s director, and will also be mailed to Dr. Hansen at NASA GISS.
You can subscribe to the results of this poll by RSS. Simply copy the link below into your RSS reader.
http://polldaddy.com/pollRSS.aspx?id=49940E93EC30ACAF
NOTE: A couple of Pro-Hansen sites have staged a “crash party” for this poll. This has accounted for a huge increase in the votes for the first question overnight. This sometimes happens with online polls when agenda driven activists decide to skew it, which is the biggest weakness of online polls.
Addendum: Some other sites that are not Pro Hansen have also now linked to this poll, so I suppose it is becoming a battle between opposing views now. Agenda driven activists on both sides are at work now.
Update 7/1 It appears that about 8000 votes were added for question 1 overnight. -Anthony
Update 7/2 9 AM PST Poll is closed, more here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Give him a field job, in Antartica, where he can study the warming climate. Something in the interior, would give him some perspective. I would be willing to bet a large portion of the AGW cheerleading squad, spends the vast majority of their days isolated from the very thing, they claim to have superior insight into.
A couple of winters working outside, would take the edge off his delusions of “tipping point run-away greenhouse”.
We should also tie his pension and those of his cronies, to the accuracy of their forecasts. If it gets cold enough, they will owe us money.
Questions for Hansen? Any prosecutable actions suggested by the following excerpts from a June 13 WSJ article? Maybe the excessive profits mentioned in the third excerpt would serve as a basis for prosecution? Any problem with the retailers that are seeking protection in bankruptcy court? What should be the penalty for engaging in the activities listed in the last excerpt?
… Exxon Mobil Corp., purveyor of one of the most recognizable gasoline brands in the world, is getting out of the domestic retail gasoline business. …
… Retail gasoline marketing profits have been dropping since 1999, and the sale by Exxon, BP and others suggests that some companies believe there won’t be a rebound anytime soon. …
… Through the first six months of the year, gas stations have made an 11-cent-a-gallon profit, but half of that has been eaten up by credit-card processing fees, says Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst at Oil Price Information Service in Wall, N.J. …
… Some gasoline retailers have begun seeking shelter in bankruptcy court. …
… Exxon will continue to be involved in the vast majority of the links in the energy chain. It searches for crude oil, drills wells, pumps crude out of the ground, transports it on tankers to refineries and delivers it in big oil trucks to gas stations. …
You don’t have a button for:
Hansen should be criminally sued for knowingly publishing fraudulent data which has lead the world governments into billions of wasted spending.
Al Gore, the IPCC, and their cohorts should be put on trial for the fraud they are perpetrating about global warming.
Hey, aren’t you all perhaps missing something about Hansen? It seems to me , as a UK citizen, that he is manouevreing for an ‘important position’ in a new Democrat administration. Then he can really let himself go, heaven help us!
I went to NASA’s website to a section called “Ask NASA”, to ask them if Mr. Hansen is speaking for NASA and if not, why he as allowed to represent them when expressing personal opinions?
I think NASA needs to hear from the people because in general, the soft-headed liberals that are touting this climate crisis garbage are NASA’s worst enemy. NASA is alienating it most strident base of support.
To make a comment to NASA, please go to the following link:
http://www.nasa.gov/about/contact/ask_nasa_form.html
By the way, great writing, keep it up!
There seems to be a button missing on the poll, so I’ll just add it here:
“Hansen should be involuntarily committed to a mental institution before he finds a sharp object and causes irreparable harm to himself or others.”
Yeah ofifcally he has lost his mind,what little he had.
Jim Hansen in Hungary’s leading financial newspaper:
http://hvg.hu/vilag/20080624_james_hansen_nasa_globalis_felmelegedes.aspx
The title means: “Reviving the global hysteria: are we will die out or boiled up?”
I believe this expression can show everything about the situation in my country. The media is spreading fear throughout the society about the coming so-called “climate catastrophe”. Interestingly, it doesn’t mention that global tempeartures isn’t increased since 1998, and the net increase in the last 20 years was only about .2°c (.36°F). Of course I don’t doubt that global temperatures rised in the last century, but the recent positive trend is far below the projections.
My favourite is “high crimes against humankind”. He is accusing oil corp. execs with spreading doubt about his AGW hysteria, while he uses the same tools in order to advertise his own theories, which are based on anecdotal evidences and falsified data. Misguiding hundreds of millions of people in the world and spreading fear IS a real crime against the whole humankind…
Dave,
yes, he is. I believe he would be a candidate for that ‘Global Warming Czar’ cabinet position Obama is talking about creating, or maybe he’d be the deputy to Al Gore.
M. Jeff,
That works out to a 2.6% profit. No one stays in business making that kind of profit. Gas stations make their money on the same thing car dealers do, repairs.
funny that Congress isn’t up in arms about the ‘excessive’ profit by the brewery industry, they make the oil bidness look like pikers (along with the six other industries that have higher profit % than ‘big oil’) as far as ‘excessive’ profit goes.
The main problem with this logic with respect to this blog entry is that the current administration wishes Hansen would shut up. Yet, even though they’re paying him presumably a lot of money, any time they try to keep him reigned in they get accused of all sorts of crap which isn’t really true.
Giordano Bruno, however, WAS severely persecuted by the Inquisition, in part for his scientific views, and was consequently burned at the stake in 1600. He was a contemporary of Galileo’s, and his execution no doubt played a role in Galileo’s capitulation until his death.
To all with input towards my request for help…..thank you very much. It wasn’t that difficult to find well credentialed scientists that cast a skeptical eye towards the AGW/CO2 theory, once I got pointed in the right direction. The most difficult time I had was to try to determine whether they’ve received payment from a fossil fuel industry or not. I went with the ones that didn’t seem likely. I know it was a red herring task and I doubt that I changed his seemingly narrow view, but I also know others were/are reading our discussion. BTW, I voted for Dr. Hansen to be fired. If he wishes to express opinions such as he’s expressed, that’s fine. Just wish he wouldn’t do it on my dime. Thanks again.
As a former Federal employee, I know this behavior would not have been tolerated by me, my co-workers, or my supervisors. I see no reason to make a “special” exception for a real jerk that everybody is afraid of offending.
James, all the payment claims are from alarmist sites with their own agenda, please do not ignore these scientists based on this, those claims are pure BS. Sourcewath has no more credibility than Wikipedia and Exxon Secrets is funded by Greenpeace, as for Desmogblog read this : Who is James Hoggan? (Financial Post, Canada).
There are extensive Peer-Reviewed papers discrediting AGW:
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
(Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Volume 12, Number 3, 2007)
– Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, Willie Soon
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
(Climate Research, Vol. 13, Pg. 149–164, October 26 1999)
– Arthur B. Robinson, Zachary W. Robinson, Willie Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas
Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere really dangerous?
(Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology,v. 50, no. 2, p. 297-327, June 2002)
– C. R. de Freitas
Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change?
(Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 94, pp. 8335-8342, August 1997)
– Richard S. Lindzen
Can we believe in high climate sensitivity?
(arXiv:physics/0612094v1, Dec 11 2006)
– J. D. Annan, J. C. Hargreaves
Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics
(AAPG Bulletin, Vol. 88, no9, pp. 1211-1220, 2004)
– Lee C. Gerhard
– Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics: Reply
(AAPG Bulletin, v. 90, no. 3, p. 409-412, March 2006)
– Lee C. Gerhard
Climate change in the Arctic and its empirical diagnostics
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 469-482, September 1999)
– V.V. Adamenko, K.Y. Kondratyev, C.A. Varotsos
Climate Change Re-examined
(Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 723–749, 2007)
– Joel M. Kauffman
CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change
(Climate Research, Vol. 10: 69–82, 1998)
– Sherwood B. Idso
Crystal balls, virtual realities and ‘storylines’
(Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 343-349, July 2001)
– R.S. Courtney
Dangerous global warming remains unproven
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 1, pp. 167-169, January 2007)
– R.M. Carter
Does CO2 really drive global warming?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 351-355, July 2001)
– R.H. Essenhigh
Does human activity widen the tropics?
(arXiv:0803.1959v1, Mar 13 2008)
– Katya Georgieva, Boian Kirov
Earth’s rising atmospheric CO2 concentration: Impacts on the biosphere
(Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 287-310, July 2001)
– C.D. Idso
Evidence for “publication Bias” Concerning Global Warming in Science and Nature
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 287-301, March 2008)
– Patrick J. Michaels
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
(Physics, arXiv:0707.1161)
– Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner
Global Warming
(Progress in Physical Geography, 27, 448-455, 2003)
– W. Soon, S. L. Baliunas
Global Warming: The Social Construction of A Quasi-Reality?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 6, pp. 805-813, November 2007)
– Dennis Ambler
Global warming and the mining of oceanic methane hydrate
(Topics in Catalysis, Volume 32, Numbers 3-4, pp. 95-99, March 2005)
– Chung-Chieng Lai, David Dietrich, Malcolm Bowman
Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists Versus Scientific Forecasts
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 997-1021, December 2007)
– Keston C. Green, J. Scott Armstrong
Global Warming: Myth or Reality? The Actual Evolution of the Weather Dynamics
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 297-322, May 2003)
– M. Leroux
Global Warming: the Sacrificial Temptation
(arXiv:0803.1239v1, Mar 10 2008)
– Serge Galam
Global warming: What does the data tell us?
(arXiv:physics/0210095v1, Oct 23 2002)
– E. X. Alban, B. Hoeneisen
Human Contribution to Climate Change Remains Questionable
(Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, Volume 80, Issue 16, p. 183-183, April 20, 1999)
– S. Fred Singer
Industrial CO2 emissions as a proxy for anthropogenic influence on lower tropospheric temperature trends
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L05204, 2004)
– A. T. J. de Laat, A. N. Maurellis
Implications of the Secondary Role of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Forcing in Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
(Physical Geography, Volume 28, Number 2, pp. 97-125(29), March 2007)
– Soon, Willie
Is a Richer-but-warmer World Better than Poorer-but-cooler Worlds?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1023-1048, December 2007)
– Indur M. Goklany
Methodology and Results of Calculating Central California Surface Temperature Trends: Evidence of Human-Induced Climate Change?
(Journal of Climate, Volume: 19 Issue: 4, February 2006)
– Christy, J.R., W.B. Norris, K. Redmond, K. Gallo
Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties
(Climate Research, Vol. 18: 259–275, 2001)
– Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier
– Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. Reply to Risbey (2002)
(Climate Research, Vol. 22: 187–188, 2002)
– Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier
– Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. Reply to Karoly et al.
(Climate Research, Vol. 24: 93–94, 2003)
– Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier
On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved?
(Environmental Geology, Volume 50, Number 6, August 2006)
– L. F. Khilyuk and G. V. Chilingar
On a possibility of estimating the feedback sign of the Earth climate system
(Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences: Engineering. Vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 260-268. Sept. 2007)
– Olavi Kamer
Phanerozoic Climatic Zones and Paleogeography with a Consideration of Atmospheric CO2 Levels
(Paleontological Journal, 2: 3-11, 2003)
– A. J. Boucot, Chen Xu, C. R. Scotese
Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 112, D24S09, 2007)
– Ross R. McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels
Quantitative implications of the secondary role of carbon dioxide climate forcing in the past glacial-interglacial cycles for the likely future climatic impacts of anthropogenic greenhouse-gas forcings
(arXiv:0707.1276, July 2007)
– Soon, Willie
Scientific Consensus on Climate Change?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 281-286, March 2008)
– Klaus-Martin Schulte
Some Coolness Concerning Global Warming
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 71, Issue 3, pp. 288–299, March 1990)
– Richard S. Lindzen
Some examples of negative feedback in the Earth climate system
(Central European Journal of Physics, Volume 3, Number 2, June 2005)
– Olavi Kärner
Statistical analysis does not support a human influence on climate
(Energy & Environment, Volume 13, Number 3, pp. 329-331, July 2002)
– S. Fred Singer
Taking GreenHouse Warming Seriously
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 937-950, December 2007)
– Richard S. Lindzen
Temperature trends in the lower atmosphere
(Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 5, pp. 707-714, September 2006)
– Vincent Gray
Temporal Variability in Local Air Temperature Series Shows Negative Feedback
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1059-1072, December 2007)
– Olavi Kärner
The Carbon dioxide thermometer and the cause of global warming
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 1-18, January 1999)
– N. Calder
The Cause of Global Warming
(Energy & Environment, Volume 11, Number 6, pp. 613-629, November 1, 2000)
– Vincent Gray
The Fraud Allegation Against Some Climatic Research of Wei-Chyung Wang
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 985-995, December 2007)
– Douglas J. Keenan
The continuing search for an anthropogenic climate change signal: Limitations of correlation-based approaches
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 24, No. 18, Pages 2319–2322, 1997)
– David R. Legates, Robert E. Davis
The “Greenhouse Effect” as a Function of Atmospheric Mass
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 351-356, 1 May 2003)
– H. Jelbring
The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 2, pp. 217-238, March 2005)
– A. Rörsch, R. Courtney, D. Thoenes
The IPCC future projections: are they plausible?
(Climate Research, Vol. 10: 155–162, August 1998)
– Vincent Gray
The IPCC: Structure, Processes and Politics Climate Change – the Failure of Science
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1073-1078, December 2007)
– William J.R. Alexander
The UN IPCC’s Artful Bias: Summary of Findings: Glaring Omissions, False Confidence and Misleading Statistics in the Summary for Policymakers
(Energy & Environment, Volume 13, Number 3, pp. 311-328, July 2002)
– Wojick D. E.
“The Wernerian syndrome”; aspects of global climate change; an analysis of assumptions, data, and conclusions
(Environmental Geosciences, v. 3, no. 4, p. 204-210, December 1996)
– Lee C. Gerhard
Uncertainties in assessing global warming during the 20th century: disagreement between key data sources
(Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 5, pp. 685-706, September 2006)
– Maxim Ogurtsov, Markus Lindholm
http://climateprogress.org/2008/06/23/drilling-off-shore-is-a-crazy-thing-says-hansen-on-20th-anniversary-of-his-famous-testimony/#comments
Interesting……………
The ‘Old’ Consensus?
INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY
http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=275267681833290
If I had a free hand the way I would deal with Hansen would be to let the full weight of the bureaucracy of the federal government land on him. First audit his taxes for the last 20 years with a very very sharp pencil. Then start cancelling his grants one by one with the explanation that this is a cost saving measure. Thirdly, do away with his job since it is not consistent with NASA’s mission. Then if he still wants to remain in government service I would let him be part of the motivation platoon at MCRD Paris Island for a month. Then he needs to be predicting the weather from Afghanistan.
Sadly, I do not have a free hand and it might not accomplish much except make me feel better.
Let’s see: He’s now 67, and reaches mandatory retirement age in 5 years.
We really should pity poor James Hansen: soon, he’ll be but a footnote in history, with no long-term legacy. Just a trail of lunatic mutterings.
Years from now, we’ll see him trying to modify a Delorean…
James Sexton,
You surprise me. I had figured from your first post you were probably a setup. But for lack of evidence I held my peace and suspended my disbelief. However, your followup post seems to indicate that you were indeed acting in good faith.
I encourage you to continue to look at the evidence from both sides, as befits liberal tradition. I am currently a strong skeptic, but I also recognize that I cannot properly own any belief that is not falsifiable, given sufficient evidence.
I’d like to predict the future,
but surely if I do,
the One who owns the future
might pull a switcherroo.
PoetSam,
Some have done so extremely successfully. Herman Kahn (inventor of futurology, though he didn’t coin the term) did it very well. he is the one who put paid (almost singlehandedly) Paul Ehrlich and the Club of Rome. His methods still pertain.
Poptech, you cite Gerhard Gerlich & Ralf D. Tscheuschner. Probably a mistake – the paper is serious junk.
There are plenty of valid reasons for doubting that increasing CO2 will produce warming on the scale asserted by the IPCC, but unfortunately the arguments in this paper are not among them.
This is the lunatic fringe of scepticism, and does healthy scepticism a great disservice.
Hansen isn’t the first to say something like this. Several attempts have been made to put the oil companies on a defence stand in court and explain their actions. Although as a claim for damages, not as a criminal prosecution. Several have been thrown out of court. One is pending:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kivalina_v._ExxonMobil_Corp.%2C_Et_al.
http://climatelaw.org/cases/country/us/kivalina/Kivalina%20Complaint.pdf