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.
Manfred (20:19:14) :
correction:
extracting uranium from seawater:
experimental data 350 kg polymer for 1.5 kg uran in 1 year
Energy density in MJ/kg:
natural uranium (0.72% U235): 648000
petrol approx. :40
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energiedichte
uranium: 1.5*648000 = 972000
polymer: 350*40 = 14000
14000/972000 * 365 days = 5.3 days
extracting uranium from sea water has a positve energy balance after approx. 5 days.
(this requires, however, that 100% of the energy stored in uranium is used. conventional nuclear power stations use only approx. 10%)
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernkraftwerk
WakeUpMaggie wrote: “What incredible narcissism we have.”
Very true.
People who want to save the world so that they are the ones who save the world.
May be a deeper emotional drive than just the pursuit of science funding.
Smokey: “If Hansen was telling the truth, he certainly would have an airtight civil case against IBD. Conclusion: Hansen is lying. QED.”
Not necessarily. The IBD is careful to parse its claims: “Hansen was packaged for the media by Soros’ flagship “philanthropy,” by as much as $720,000”; and “That may have meant that Hansen had media flacks help him get on the evening news…”.
In other words, Hansen may have received PR help to the value of somewhere between $1 and $720,000. Lots of wriggle from there for the IBD. And for you.
It’s true that Hansen won prizes from the Heinz Foundation and the Dan David Foundation for his work in science. But many people receive prizes for science, and from some unlikely sources. For example, Rolls Royce the car-maker offers a science prize to teachers.
Hansen’s prizes have been widely publicised. Somewhat transparent “payola”, especially when the information is only a google away.
Well, on a more uplifting note, it appears cap & trade has been scrapped for now, which Hansen probably views as a good thing. Democrats are striking it from the budget:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/25/democrats-knife-obamas-budget/
It’s also becoming clear that Obama’s controversial global warming initiative has experienced a setback, as neither House nor Senate Democrats are directly incorporating into their budget plans Obama’s controversial “cap-and-trade” system for auctioning permits to emit greenhouse gases.
Fired… no. However, I do think his superiors should tell him to tone it down, and begin the due process… process.
Nobody should ever be fired for advocating civil disobedience – so long as they are not under contract to not do so. However, if you are under contract to not go out and, say, advocate for criminals because they agree with you, then y’know what?
Step 2 of Civil Disobedience: There are consequences. Suck ’em up.
I would think that as a government employee Hansen would also be guilty of the charge of misleading the public. When you consider the huge sums wasted on AGW this is not a small offence.
Fast breeders are definitely the way to go in the long run, but let’s not forget that there’s nothing wrong with oil and coal and natural gas.
I want a bumper sticker that says:
CO2 IS GOOD FOR PLANTS, GOOD FOR THE EARTH
AND GOOD FOR YOU!
Back on topic, one of the Amazon reviewers of the aforementioned book writes, “Having been ‘anti-nuclear’ since the French started exploding islands in my part of the world, I never would have picked up, let alone read this book, without solid recommendations: James Hansen and Barry Brook.”
So maybe this answers someone’s query further up this thread, as to whether Hansen is pro-nuke or not.
/Mr Lynn
“evanmjones (20:33:37) : If I understand it correctly, Obama has decoupled carbon credits from the budget bill, which means the thing actually has to rise or fall on its *ahem* merits.”
Do you have links to this story? Thanks.
P.S. – Sorry, forgot to tell you great post!
As you all know by now, I love revealing the hypocrisy and manipulative behaviour of Guardian journalists.
I save all news articles I read as PDFs. This allows me to put a journalist or media outlet on the spot if they try to bury or change a news item, and it also means I can quickly find information I need if I don’t have internet.
Here’s a current example of a news article slyly changed in response to comments by readers.
http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/4924/goldenberg.jpg
Yesterday our dear Suzanne Goldenberg (yes, the sexist, racist, ageist Holocaust exploiter) published an article about an eco-terrorist with the sympathetic headline “Serving 22 years: the environmentalist who fell victim to US anti-terror laws”
Readers quickly commented that the environmentalist in question was moonbat mad and deserved to be locked up.
Goldenberg duly changed the headline to “Activist or terrorist? Mild-mannered eco-militant serving 22 years for arson”
With that headline change Goldenberg felt she covered her backside from looking like a terrorist sympathiser, but the question still remains why does she have to ask us if the convict is an activist or a terrorist, and why does Goldenberg now call her ‘mild-mannered’?
The sympathy for a terrorist remains despite the headline change.
Long time lurker, first-time poster, so have mercy if this is a bit OT.
I’ve been wondering for a while now why scientists – surely intelligent people, surely people one could rely on to have a wide range of knowledge and conviction – can be so narrowly, obsessively, focused on one particular aspect of their field and at the same time be so resilient to anything contrary to the “consensus”.
What also struck me is the sacrosanct nature of peer-review as my own academic experiences have shown me time and again that the emphasis is clearly on “peer”, not on “review”.
Then I came across this astonishing book, which I invite all of you to read because it is truly enlightening (and no, this is not a hidden advertisement of any sort), Disciplined Minds by Jeff Schmidt.
More on Mr Schmidt and his book on his site: http://disciplinedminds.tripod.com/
Ross (20:22:17) :
Roger Clague (12:52:33) :
…
Ross
Britain is not like a crowded theatre. We are not about to stampede anywhere. We are a mature, but flawed, democracy.
…
Britain is, in my opinion, still a great country and the one from which we have derived much, if not most of our system of laws.
Including the US Bill of Rights, see English Bill of Rights, 1689.
To the best of my knowledge, though, Britain does not have a “First Amendment” [i.e., the first of ten of our Bill of Rights] as referred to by Mr. Dias and about which my comments were made.
Actually it does, see for example “Human Rights Act 1998”.
haha
Hansen puts Monbiot straight
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/25/hansen-biochar-monbiot-response
Hmmmm —
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/25/obama-helped-fund-carbon-scheme/
Larry
Today’s The Daily Telegraph notes that Europe’s having its best snow in living memory.
“And the snow just kept on falling….”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/snowandski/5044863/Ski-in-Champery-where-the-snow-just-keeps-on-falling….html
“The exceptional snowfall in the Alps this winter means that you should be able to ski in Switzerland’s Champéry, nestling at the feet of the Dents du Midi, right until the end of the season on April 26.”
I first skiied in mainland Europe in ’85 (IIRC). Went to Andorra at about this time of the year.
Bugger all snow, just a single slope, covered in a miserable, wet/icy snow, with a small river flowing down the middle come late afternoon, surrounded by bare rock.
Current conditions in Andorra?
Lower slopes: 100 cm
Upper slopes: 210 cm
Elsewhere?
Canada
“Large snowfalls fell at some resorts on the western coast of Canada at the end of last week, especially Whistler (244cm). 35cm of powder fell on Friday night giving fantastic conditions for the weekend. The Ski Club rep in Whistler said the weather on Sunday was fantastic and perfect to enjoy the great snow”
Austria
“Snow has been falling once again across some of Austria. Most of the snow either fell on Friday night or Sunday night so conditions are very good everywhere”
France
“The sun is still shining in France. The whole of last week was gloriously sunny and the temperatures varied from very mild to very cold early on”
Italy
“Sauze d’Oulx (120/240cm) also has good conditions but they are typical of spring. Fairly warm weather, with temperatures above freezing, has made the snow very soft in the afternoon sun and hard in the morning. An above average base depth for this point in the season means the coverage is still great all over the runs so there is no need to worry of bare patches developing yet.”
USA
“Colorado is finally receiving some fresh snow on Monday and it is due to get heavier through the week! ”
“The heaviest of the snow in America has fallen in California. The Tahoe resorts especially received loads of fresh snow on Sunday and it is still falling on Monday morning. 61cm of powder fell on Sunday at Squaw Valley (140/432cm) so you can enjoy fantastic snow both on and off piste. Heavenly (224/295cm) also received nearly 60cm of powder.”
“Over on the east coast snow has also been falling. 10cm fell at Stowe (53/174cm) on Saturday night. This brings their season’s snowfall so far to 28ft, which is more common at resorts on the west coast than the east. Four lifts are closed at Stowe on Monday, leaving nine running”
28 feet!!!!!!!!!!! of snow!
Hell’s bells, we get 28mm here & the whole country grinds to a halt.
Still, it’s only weather, isn’t it.
Fact is, Hansen works for the government. His employers should be nervous to hear him make statements such as, the democratic process isn’t “working.” This implies he’d like to see carbon evildoers thrown in prison, much like our friend David Suzuki.
Hansen’s a tax-eater at a failed bureaucracy. Fire the lot of them, this economy doesn’t need more parasites with agendas. In short, get your hand out of my pocket and get a real job, Mr. Hansen.
On a related note, where is our Mencken to point out the idiocies of the power-hungry? I’m tempted to ask why god has forsaken us, then I remember I’m an atheist. Be that as it may, the current crop of what passes for journalists seem to think that reporting consists of whooping and hollering about the predictions of our impending doom uttered by tax-funded “scientists”. All they really accomplish is to stampede the herd, frighten the children and drive the remnant to the internet to ferret out what the truth is.
“I’ve been wondering for a while now why scientists … can be so narrowly, obsessively, focused on one particular aspect of their field and at the same time be so resilient to anything contrary to the “consensus”.”
Schmidt’s book explains why: grad students are indoctrinated with and/or “selected for” please-the-teacher (or the authorities) syndrome.
Anthony Wrote:
“REPLY: Luis, sir you are out of line. I made no call for censorship. That is a fabrication on your part. Hansen as scientist and government employee bound by the Hatch act is overstepping his bounds of employment. The issue is the terms of his employment, not free speech. As a US taxpayer it is my right to make this call for his dismissal. When a US government employee suggests that protests against the government he is employed by should be commenced because “the democratic process isn’t working” it becomes an issue of conflict of interest. I’m not ashamed to do so, nor do I care for your opinion that I should be. In fact you have inspired me to take my complaint to the next level. I urge others to do so as well. – Anthony”
The Hatch Act does not prohibit employees from speaking out on issues or engaging in demonstrations on issues. The Hatch act involves activities related to partisan politics.
http://www.osc.gov/ha_fed.htm#regulations
I haven’t found any activities that Hansen has engaged in that violate the Hatch act.
Uncivil Servant wrote: “What also struck me is the sacrosanct nature of peer-review as my own academic experiences have shown me time and again that the emphasis is clearly on “peer”, not on “review”.”
“Then I came across this astonishing book, which I invite all of you to read because it is truly enlightening (and no, this is not a hidden advertisement of any sort), Disciplined Minds by Jeff Schmidt.”
I am buying that book this week! Thanks for the recommendation.
Chris
Norfolk, VA
In an interview James Hansen made with the Danish newspaer Politiken he says: “Vi kan blive nødt til at finde andre metoder end demokratiet. For vi har valgt regeringer, der siger, de vil løse problemet, men de gør det ikke. Forsøget på at gøre det gennem en demokratisk proces har slået fejl.”
Translated: “We could be forced to find other means than democracy. We have chosen governments who promise to solve the problem but fail to do it. Attempts to use the democratic process have failed”
http://mobil.pol.dk/indexarticle.pml;jsessionid=aqqe27qYAfZc?articleid=667743
Eric (09:42:18) wrote: “I haven’t found any activities that Hansen has engaged in that violate the Hatch act.”
Hatch act aside……how about then….firing this government employee for just being WAY out of line?
Or perhaps malfeasance [overseeing deliberately falsified data]….and even insanity.
There are so many reasons to fire this former scientist turned megalomaniac taxpayer-funded social activist at this point, that the Hatch Act is irrelevant.
Never before has such an important position in the world’s leading science organization, been so egregiously abused.
Fire him.
Better yet….OUST him.
Long live the Republic! [lol]
Chris
Norfolk, VA, U.S.A. [such as it is]
savethesharks (10:34:46) :
wrote,
“Eric (09:42:18) wrote: “I haven’t found any activities that Hansen has engaged in that violate the Hatch act.”
Hatch act aside……how about then….firing this government employee for just being WAY out of line?
Or perhaps malfeasance [overseeing deliberately falsified data]….and even insanity.
There are so many reasons to fire this former scientist turned megalomaniac taxpayer-funded social activist at this point, that the Hatch Act is irrelevant.
Never before has such an important position in the world’s leading science organization, been so egregiously abused.
Fire him.
Better yet….OUST him.
Long live the Republic! [lol]
Chris
Norfolk, VA, U.S.A. [such as it is]”
I haven’t seen a definitive proof that Hansen is wrong about the science behind the theory of AGW. There is a difference of opinon among scientists about the expected temperature rise due to doubling of CO2, but a consensus that AGW is real. There are a number of polls among climate scientists that show that an overwhelming majority of Climate Scientists believe that AGW is a real effect.
Pielke and Bray, and Harris Associates show 84% believe this, and a poll of scientists who published a paper in the last year by Roger Pielke Sr., shows 97% of scientists believe AGW is real.
If NASA attempted to fire Hansen for wrong science, it would be hard to sustain such an action, because most climate scientists believe AGW is real, whatever your opinion or any one elses of the correctness may be. He has a right as a citizen to advocate whatever policy he wants to speak for. This is not prohibited by the Hatch act.
Eric, I’m not sure what polls you are looking at, but real scientists are jumping the AGW ship every day. The globe has not had significant warming in 10 years. It is now in a cooling cycle. Yes, our temperatures actually CYCLE.
The Gore extremists make big bucks on the AGW myth. That is their real reason for pushing their AGW agenda.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ talks.
hotrod (07:53:41) :
Not quite what I thought it would be.
“Eric (11:26:30) : I haven’t seen a definitive proof that Hansen is wrong about the science behind the theory of AGW.”
What exactly is Hansen’s ‘science’ of global warming? Is it that trains carrying coal are ‘death trains’ (“The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death.” ~James Hansen)? Is it that we must take drastic steps immediately or damage will be irreversible (“The climate is nearing tipping points.”, “Our planet is in peril.” ~James Hansen)? Is it extinctions (“As species are exterminated by shifting climate zones” ~James Hansen)? He attributes ALL rise of co2 since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution to man (“The pre-industrial carbon dioxide amount was 280 parts per million (ppm). Humans, by burning coal, oil and gas, have increased this to 385 ppm;” ~James Hansen) but all scientists do not. Does his ‘science’ include using Nazi Holocaust vocabulary?
All of this is part of the ‘consensus’ you are referencing?
AGW includes the Urban Heat Island effect. Also, there are scientists who say manmade co2 does have an effect on climate but it is irrelevant. That irrelevant effect would be anthropogenic. AGW covers a broad range of meaning.
You need to be specific when you talk about consensus. Please do not leave the impression that ALL scientists agree with James Hansen.
reference for the Hansen quotes :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/15/james-hansen-power-plants-coal
His ‘science’ is in this article. Please consider for yourself if he is accurate and voices what the ‘consensus’ thinks.
One last question : is James Hansen a climatologist, or meteorologist?