Even the very liberal UK Guardian picked up on this. What next Jim, the Constitution? NASA, please fire this man. (h/t to Barbara)
Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA
From the UK Guardian:
Protest and direct action could be the only way to tackle soaring carbon emissions, a leading climate scientist has said.
James Hansen, a climate modeller with Nasa, told the Guardian today that corporate lobbying has undermined democratic attempts to curb carbon pollution. “The democratic process doesn’t quite seem to be working,” he said.
Speaking on the eve of joining a protest against the headquarters of power firm E.ON in Coventry, Hansen said: “The first action that people should take is to use the democratic process. What is frustrating people, me included, is that democratic action affects elections but what we get then from political leaders is greenwash.
“The democratic process is supposed to be one person one vote, but it turns out that money is talking louder than the votes. So, I’m not surprised that people are getting frustrated. I think that peaceful demonstration is not out of order, because we’re running out of time.”
Hansen said he was taking part in the Coventry demonstration tomorrow because he wants a worldwide moratorium on new coal power stations. E.ON wants to build such a station at Kingsnorth in Kent, an application that energy and the climate change minister Ed Miliband recently delayed. “I think that peaceful actions that attempt to draw society’s attention to the issue are not inappropriate,” Hansen said.
He added that a scientific meeting in Copenhagen last week had made clear the “urgency of the science and the inaction taken by governments”.
Read the entire story in the UK Guardian
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This is what you get when you steal a kid’s lunch money.
Now give it back!
Interesting post at Jennifer`s blog.
The Available Evidence Does Not Support Fossil Fuels as the Source of Increasing Concentrations of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (Part 1)
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/
mikef (15:22:02) : Has anyone done the math?
There is math, physics, chemistry, and a lot of hard work. However, there is (was) almost no temperature increase, now it is going down. CO2 by humans can not be the cause. And there are several natural processes that explain the ups and downs. One informative paper is:
Two Natural Components of the Recent Climate Change by Akasofu, here:
http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/two_natural_components_recent_climate_change.pdf
This is funny:
John Coleman at ICCC sings, “Nah-nah-nah-nah, naw-naw-naw-naw, hey-hey-hey, good bye!” to the anthropogenic global warming movement
http://algorelied.com/?p=992
I blame Bush 43. His silence (at least the silence of the NASA leaders) was his tacit agreement with Hansen’s POV. Recall the “addicted to oil” comments and other not-so-Freudian slips. Bush is somewhat of a Greenie in his own rights. Part of that “Austin ambiance” he soaked up as Governor of Texas, although, likely rooted in his Ivy League years being with all the hippies and radicals at Yale. From a political capital perspective, once a lame duck after 2006, Bush could have thrown Hansen out on the street with no skin off his back. That he did not do it speaks volumes. W was essentially greasing the skids for the current crowd of AGW fanatics. The fix is in folks, and we are all going to be taxed out the wazoo for all activity, especially activities which generate CO2.
Anthony,
O/T here, but in one of the threads in the last days,
there was something about BBC re: article about ocean
acidification, ” Setback for climate technical fix”
I e-mailed to the editor of that article,
Richard.Black2@bbc.co.uk
and explained that the right term would be “less alcaline”,
because we’re still above pH 7.0
Respone was:
…. “acidification” is the accepted term now ….
AGW at it’s max, science doesn’t matter, “accepted terms”
do matter. As I read “1984” – still beeing young then,
I did see it at a very worse case scenario.
And I was already ironed by Phillip K. Dick, William Tenn and John Brunner.
Hummh, somehow my nightmares became reality.
KlausB
More like Loki.
John F. Hultquist (15:28:34) :
Bill McClure (12:47:35) : implication of food production:
Solar Cycle 24: Implications for the United States by Archibald (2008)
If it gets as cold as Archibald thinks it will, Canadian wheat farmers are in trouble. This was on the web – can’t locate it now:
John
no argument with the canadian wheat farmer looking at fewer acres. They produced wheat on 25 million acres in 2008. But the ground in the Conservation reserve program CRP in the usa totals 34 million acgeshttp://www.biomassmagazine.com/article.jsp?article_id=1867 . This ground is at a minimum suitable for wheat production. And I agree they produce differnt varaties in Canadia from the central USA. Then we produce hay on 61 millions acres in the USAhttp://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/CropProdSu//2000s/2008/CropProdSu-01-11-2008.pdf. Many of these acge are suitable for crop production at a lower yield. My point is there are loads of acres is the USA that can be used for Wheat production or other crops if the dire prediction of a colder Canadia come true. My own 400 acres used to be 50% in crop production and 50% pasture hay. Today it is more ecomical to raise grass since my particular soils are not as productive as the top soils in Iowa,Illinlois etc. If crop prices move to a higher level sure I can make a management change and grow more corn ,soybeans or wheat.
I’m not worried about these dire predictions or food shortages yet. They are even going to release seed corn that will produce well in a drought.
mikef (15:22:02) Part II regarding “Has anyone done the math?”
Getting a good background on this issue is a tough slog, requiring many hours of reading. This particular thread is a little different, being both a sad and funny (political) diversion while we are waiting to see if Mt. Redoubt really blows its top, if the three folks walking to the North Pole get eaten by polar bears or freeze, or some other weird thing. Actually we are waiting on some new science to fill in some of the things we don’t know, ‘cause the science isn’t settled.
Meanwhile, scroll back to the top of the page and under RECENT POSTS, pick one and start that reading.
Aron (12:01:05)
Absoloutly ridicoulous, studio work guaranteed, in my military service in sweden during late 60’s 40 c below 0 was not unusual, behaving like this guy would have caused you severe freeze injuries. Trick is to have a heavy coat of wool and linen and see to warm it up before you go on your one or two hour guard. City boys trying to play explorers!
You have to hand Hansen one thing, he sure can generate a heckuva comment thread. I thought my link to the Porrit story had been lost in the deluge, but evidently at least one person followed it. This guy makes even Old Dr. Jim seem like a reasonable and moderate fellow.
Anthony;
On another note, you might want to have your moderaters urge a little more prudence on those commenting on those valiant Arctic researchers. Just because the drive by media was willing to give the TOTUS a pass, for his snarky comment about the Special Olympics on Leno’s show, it doesn’t mean they wouldn’t gladly unleash a hoard of rabid investigators to do a full monty Sarah Palin- Joe the Plumber proctoscopy on you, if they discovered how your commenters are heartlessly abusing the mentally challenged.
“JONATHON PORRITT, one of Gordon Brown’s leading green advisers, is to warn that Britain must drastically reduce its population if it is to build a sustainable society.”
As I have posted before, When Hitler killed 10,000,000 people he was branded a monster. When Climate Alarmists want to kill BILLIONS, they are given the Nobel Peace Prize.
klausb (16:12:36) : about ocean acidification
Reminds me of Bill C’s line about the definition of “is”
Anyway, take a break from the BBC and read this:
CO2, Global Warming and Coral Reefs: Prospects for the Future
Craig D. Idso
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/coral_co2_warming.pdf
“DR (15:08:47) : Roy Spencer left NASA for the very same reason Hansen should…..”
I don’t think you have the stories straight.
Is Mr Hansen “stopping off” in the UK from his official trip to Copenhagen? If he is, then even if he is on annual leave he is still in official travel status. He would have to have this deviation in travel approved by his supervisor and he would still be on official travel until he returns to his point of origin. There are also special rules for government officials on travel outside of the US. Even if Mr. Hansen is paying for the deviation in travel he is still on official travel. At least, that is the way it was explained to me for the 32 years that I worked for the US Gov.
It’s not the democratic process that isn’t working. It’s the science of Hansen and others that isn’t working. A lot of people simply don’t believe that they’ve proved their case. I’m one of them.
Yes, I did consider the possibility that Hansen may be right, but with each passing year and each outrageous statement from Hansen it’s become quite clear that there is no evidence to support him.
Listen to the man. Hansen is no longer talking about science. He’s a new-age guru, preaching the evils of western civilization and the green utopia that awaits us if we just do what he says.
Let’s break this down for you. Here are some highlights:
* No greenhouse warming signature in the atmosphere
* Warming precedes CO2 increases by hundreds of years
* CO2 continues to increase faster than predicted, but the climate is not warming
* No runaway greenhouse effect has ever occurred in the past. CO2 has been high after ice ages have begun.
* Hockey stick is a statistical falsification
* Climate models have no demonstrated predictive power. You are no doubt familiar with Einstein’s theory of Special Relativity? You know it was tested by comparing actual observations with the predicted results and you know the results matched the prediction. Had results not matched predictions, Special Relativity would have been falsified and shown to be incorrect. The actual climate has likewise falsified the climate models used by Hansen and the IPCC.
Hope this helps.
“The democatic process isn’t working?”
Yup, read why, here:
“An Enemy of the People” – Hernrik Ibsen,
the remarks of Dr. Stockmann:
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext00/aeotp10.txt
A few hours ago people were claiming Hanson and his supporters were all modifying data in order to continue receiving fat funding checks from their governments.
Hanson now stands up and puts his belief in his research results before any thought of staying in his well paid employment. He and others must be very sure of their research to put their lifestyle on the line.
Is he wrong to stand up for what he truly believes? It cannot be the easy option (unless NASA is fully backing hime)
PS Nuclear is not an option – there are insufficient reservers for more than a few decades of a fully nuclear future – its all about energy balance:
http://www.stormsmith.nl/report20071013/
We pay carbon taxes on everything, NASA goes back to the Moon and then on to Mars. Please take Hansen up there.
After you fire him.
John Galt (12:43:37) :
OT: Scientists in possible cold fusion breakthrough
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.a67cf72fe27770f9ec992da18169937d.a1&show_article=1
There is a whole area of LENR physics (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions), below ground state H2, the Millsian Effect at Blacklight, that is just about to come forward. These scientists at SPAWAR have been paving the way (against severe backlash.) The odd thing is that clean, new energy physics will not make AGWs happy. Which is yet another tip as to their real agenda. It is not to develop clean, renewable energy. It is to control population.
The sad part is they cannot muster the integrity or honesty to admit that. But then, who would want to admit to planned genocide?
The British Democracy is also responsible for Global Warming.
So Hansen leads protests in GB against coal power plants and runways:
http://climaterealists.com/news.php?id=3015&linkbox=true
“bill (17:01:09) : A few hours ago people were claiming Hanson and his supporters were all modifying data”
Have you compared GISS to other data sources?
bill (17:01:09),
Apparently you are unaware of the extent to which James Hansen has cashed in on his position as head of NASA/GISS.
Investor’s Business Daily reported that James Hansen was funded by, among others, George Soros. And when Hansen claimed the story wasn’t true, IBD refused to retract their published report.
If Hansen was telling the truth, he certainly would have an airtight civil case against IBD. Conclusion: Hansen is lying. QED.
James Hansen has been showered with large cash payoffs by other organizations with a pro-AGW agenda in addition to the $720,000 he got from George Soros.
The [Teresa] Heinz Foundation paid James Hansen $250,000 for his “work on global warming.” [Who is Hansen now beholden to? The taxpayers who pay his salary? Or Soros, Heinz and others?]
Hansen pocketed another half a million dollars, cash, from the pro-AGW Dan David foundation — again to promote AGW/CO2 propaganda.
Hansen also received payola from the Gorebot himself. And all those payoffs are just the ones that we know about.
James Hansen is bought and paid for by a cabal of shady anti-science, anti-West groups. As we can see, Hansen obviously does their bidding.
So now you know why the salary Hansen gets from NASA doesn’t matter one way or another. He is paid lavish compensation by the groups he is working for. And they aren’t your ordinary taxpayers.
“Have you compared GISS with other data sources?”
Yes, let’s look at that: click