No longer content to be a scientist, and apparently now a full time protesting advocate, Dr. James Hansen of the NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies joins forces with deep thinker Darryl Hannah.
From commondreams.org
Following this protest, on June 23rd leading climate scientist, Dr. James Hansen, actress Daryl Hannah, Michael Brune, the Executive Director of Rainforest Action Network, and former Representative Hechler will join Coal River Valley residents in a second round of protests in West Virginia.
Your tax dollars at work. I’ve said it before, and I’ll keep saying it: FIRE THIS GUY.
Oh there will be those who say “but he’s doing it as a private citizen”.
I preemptively call BS on that.
Why? Well it’s because the U.S. Taxpayer has been an “enabler” for this. Hansen wouldn’t be there if not for the publicly funded work via NASA.
As a private citizen, his opinion is worth nearly nothing. As head of NASA GISS fancifully acting as a private citizen, his opinion and presence are worth boatloads of publicity.
You can’t separate GISS from his persona any more than you can expect Barack Obama to show up someplace “as a private citizen” and endorse something while he holds office.
The premise is absurd.
AMS, ask for the Rossby medal back too. This isn’t science, its advocacy. Gavin, take note since Gavin once labled me as an advocate over on RC, but I haven’t showed up at any protests like Jimbo has.
At least he’s not going to WV unchallenged:
From the Charleston Gazette:
Massey Energy President Don Blankenship has challenged one of the world’s top climate scientists to a debate on global warming.
Blankenship’s announcement came this afternoon, after word came out that renowned NASA scientist James Hansen would be attending an anti-mountaintop removal protest next week in Southern West Virginia.
” Showing up at power plant protests, defending criminals doing vandalism at trial, and endorsing civil disobedience are entirely something else, and Hansen has done all of those things. That is where he crosses the line”
According to the British press Hansen gave expert testimony on the impact of climate change. He made no statement whatsoever at the trial as to how the case should be judged, nor any comment whatsoever on the actions of the Kingsnorth Six. Also, there was no law breaking as the defendants were found not guilty of any crime.
REPLY: “Not guilty of any crime” also applied to O.J. Simpson. If Hansen had not been elevated to status by the funding supplied by the American taxpayer, he would not have been invited. – Anthony
Ah I see where you’re going: Hansen hasn’t committed any crime either but you think he’s guilty. In the UK we tend to separate the function of accuser, judge, jury and executioner (well, we don’t execute any more).
I find it odd that in “The Land of the Free” you advocate that government employees shouldn’t have freedom of speech.
I wonder if other government employees (current and/or past?), not just Hansen, are also deserving of having their free speech rights abrogated? After all, if Hansen is singled out, that’s unfair.
Firing Hansen will make into a ‘climate change martyr.’
Counter protesters with signs such as ‘Demand Debate’ and ‘Show Me the Warming’ may work, but don’t expect any media coverage of it.
Another idea: Michael Moore him. Follow him around and ask him questions about GISS Temp, about his predictions and the science behind warming. Be sure to get it on film every time he refuses to answer.
“Hansen hasn’t committed any crime either”
You mean, in *your* opinion, he hasn’t committed any crime. You have no idea what crimes he may have committed without your knowledge. I’m afraid that your thinking on this matter is in error because you insist on having the legal conviction of a person before you think they could have committed a crime. A serious (scientific?) person leaves their mind open to the existence of unknowns when they know there are unknowns. 😉
Andrew ♫
Andrew: in the context of this website, Hansen has not been accused of committing any crime. However, it appears that he has been judged and a sentence imposed for speaking his mind.
(BTW fair play to Anthony for posting my remarks.)
Why the obsession with GIStemp? It seems to be pretty much in agreement with the other 3 main indices.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/plot/gistemp/from:1979/plot/uah/plot/rss
REPLY: “Not guilty of any crime” also applied to O.J. Simpson. If Hansen had not been elevated to status by the funding supplied by the American taxpayer, he would not have been invited. – Anthony
It’s utterly ridiculous to compare the Kingsnorth and OJ cases. There was no dispute about the facts of the case in the Kingsnorth case, only about whether the protest was justified and measured. If you want to lock people up for bluntly pointing out the stupidities of your rulers then move to China or Iran.
And all this “elevated to status” stuff is absurd. Should he have bowed down to his Lord and Master George W. and begged permission first?
tulbobroke,
You stated explicity that “Hansen hasn’t committed any crime either”. You should modify your statement if the words you wrote state something that is different from what meant to say.
He HAS been accused of committing a crime because people are pointing at evidence that he has committed a crime. Look! If a person is engaged in public misrepresentations, they are committing a crime. You can attempt to get around that with legalisms, but then again that is why people have issues with lawyers. 😉
Andrew
Humm, if you’re so certain that he is guilty of misrepresentation, then it looks like you believe “the science is settled”, albeit against what Hansen is saying. So much for preaching about keeping an open mind 😉
tulbobroke,
I don’t believe the science is settled at all. He does. Could you try and stay reasonable and not resort making claims about me that you have no supporting evidence for? I know I am asking the impossible… 😉
Andrew
Andrew (07:51:57) :
“Hansen hasn’t committed any crime either”
You mean, in *your* opinion, he hasn’t committed any crime. You have no idea what crimes he may have committed without your knowledge. I’m afraid that your thinking on this matter is in error because you insist on having the legal conviction of a person before you think they could have committed a crime.
In the United States the presumption of innocence demands government prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, you may think anything you like, but in this democracy (and others) a man is innocent until you prove otherwise.
IB,
“In the United States the presumption of innocence demands government prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, you may think anything you like, but in this democracy (and others) a man is innocent until you prove otherwise.”
Legally, yes. But there is a difference between being legally innocent and actually innocent. You aren’t arguing they are the same thing, are you?
This is the “legalism” I referred to in my earlier post.
Andrew
Andrew,
Legally, yes. But there is a difference between being legally innocent and actually innocent. You aren’t arguing they are the same thing, are you?
Perhaps you mean to say that a person may be “found” innocent under the law, even though there is some evidence to the contrary. The difference you speak of arises only after the law is applied. If we are a nation under law (the structure this democracy subscribes to) the law must be openly applied (e.g. by trial) before a claim to the contrary – hence the centuries old tenet of habeas corpus.
In a democracy, if you are legally innocent, you are also “actually” innocent. Sorry Anthony to wander so far afield.
I mean to say that a person can be found innocent, legally, while still being actually guilty, regardless if there is evidence or no evidence of it and no matter what claims have been made.
If I stole a chocolate chip cookie from the cookie jar, and there is no video of it or there are no witnesses and no one had counted to cookies prior, to notice that it was missing, that doesn’t mean I didn’t take it. In actuality, I did take it. It is an event in history that really happened. I am guilty of the crime. Yum! 😉
Anyway, I don’t care much for legal conclusions, if they don’t conform to the reality that is obvious.
Andrew
tulbobroke (10:51:37) :
“Why the obsession with GIStemp? ”
Because GISTEMP is piece of poorly documented FORTRAN garbage, which implements a lame algorithm for “adjusting/homogenizing” temperatures. If you want to look for yourself, here you go…
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/
Make sure to download the source listings. Good luck figuring out what it actually does…
“In a democracy, if you are legally innocent, you are also “actually” innocent.”
What authoritative document of democracy states that?
Andrew
Taking de-bait…
If I stole a chocolate chip cookie from the cookie jar, and there is no video of it or there are no witnesses and no one had counted to cookies prior, to notice that it was missing, that doesn’t mean I didn’t take it. In actuality, I did take it. It is an event in history that really happened. I am guilty of the crime. Yum! 😉
Yours is the position of the strict fundamentalist. An action is judged and criminalized regardless of offending weight. Under the democratic rule of law actions are weighted to gauge their damage to society. Thus we have minor offenses and misdemeanors at the low end of the crime scale. You see your cookie theft as a “crime.” If it is from mum’s cookie jar, whom have you damaged in actuality? If it’s your neighbor’s jar, what weight is the damage?
Now, were it $10k dollars you swiped, a real crime would have been committed. It is then society’s burden to produce evidence of your crime and to prosecute you in an open court of law. Should the prosecution fail for any reason, you would be found not-guilty. However, as you point out, you in fact committed the crime. You are thus legally innocent, which in a democracy is tantamount to “actual” innocence (you are unrestricted by law.*) It is the price of a free and open society that subscribes to presumption of innocence. Just as is the wrongful conviction of an innocent man a similar discomfiting price.
These are the compromises demanded by an “open” society. In a totalitarian state you’d be in jail for the cookie; in a theocracy you’d be fumbling on with one hand. Of course there is always room for personal guilt. In which case you can condemn yourself a sinner, wallow in shame, and expect to burn in Hades.
*There is no authority stating this. It is the common implication of legal innocence.
Well excuseeee,me Andrew. Bit touchy aren’t you.
I said,” tulbobroke (13:44:49) :
Humm, if you’re so certain that he is guilty of misrepresentation, then it looks like you believe “the science is settled”, albeit against what Hansen is saying. So much for preaching about keeping an open mind ;)”
Note that I said “it looks like…”
To which you replied:”I don’t believe the science is settled at all. He does. Could you try and stay reasonable and not resort making claims about me that you have no supporting evidence for? I know I am asking the impossible… 😉
Andrew”
Wow. That’s a bit (passive) aggressive isn’t it?
BTW if you accuse someone of misrepresentation then you must know that they are wrong. The only logical conclusion is that you are certain of the science. If you are not you can’t prove that he is guilty of misrepresentation.
So if for you the science is NOT settled, how can you prove misrepresentation?
“
Frank K. (18:42:55) : “Because GISTEMP is piece of poorly documented FORTRAN garbage, which implements a lame algorithm for “adjusting/homogenizing” temperatures.”
And yet it seems to match the other main indices… so what’s so bad about it being “poorly doumented”, as it’s “lame algorithm” seems to do the job?
Look I know it’s good fun moaning about the siting of US surface stations, but the US only represents about 2% of the globe’s surface. What’s the big deal?
BTW Here’s a link to Hansen’s statement in the Kingsnorth case: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2008/20080910_Kingsnorth.pdf
IB,
It’s clear that you want to blur the legal and the actual together. I don’t. I guess we’re just different that way.
Andrew
tulbobroke,
“The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death.”
*I* didn’t say this. Furthermore, are these statements true? Please, if you would, tell me how they are true.
Andrew
Frank K. (18:42:55) : “Because GISTEMP is piece of poorly documented FORTRAN garbage, which implements a lame algorithm for “adjusting/homogenizing” temperatures.”
And yet it seems to match the other main indices… so what’s so bad about it being “poorly doumented”[sic], as it’s “lame algorithm” seems to do the job?
—
Spoken like a true member of the AGW industry. Youmust work for one of the big climate corporations or universities, who are living large on huge amounts taxpayer money while others in our economy suffer.
Knowing what your algorithm is doing doesn’t matter as long as the plots “look” right (which is the way output from Model E is justified). Except that they don’t. Please examine your graph below and tell me what the delta is between GISTEMP and the satellite data. How do the recent trends compare with each other? Why is GISTEMP, over the past 6 months, going up and others are going down? There IS only ONE universal global temperature (which, by the way, is thermodynamically meaningless), right?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/plot/gistemp/from:1979/plot/uah/plot/rss
James Hansen has that mortuary caretaker in a horror movie look about him.
Frank K. (08:20:41) :
The blue line in the temperature graph at this link is GISS. Even if you don’t know math you can see how different GISS is from RSS and UK Met. The cooling shown in RSS and Met is without the added cooling of ’08 and ’09. The earth is in a clear cooling trend.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n4/images/ngeo157-f1.jpg
Frank K. said “Spoken like a true member of the AGW industry. Youmust (sic) work for one of the big climate corporations or universities, who are living large on huge amounts taxpayer money while others in our economy suffer.
Knowing what your algorithm is doing doesn’t matter as long as the plots “look” right (which is the way output from Model E is justified). Except that they don’t. Please examine your graph below and tell me what the delta is between GISTEMP and the satellite data. How do the recent trends compare with each other? Why is GISTEMP, over the past 6 months, going up and others are going down? There IS only ONE universal global temperature (which, by the way, is thermodynamically meaningless), right?”
Ouch Frank you sure know how to jump to conclusions about people you’ve never even met.
Here’s the last couple of years of the 4 main indices:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2007/plot/gistemp/from:2007/plot/uah/from:2007/plot/rss/from:2007
Interestingly it’s only in the last two or three months that GIS and HADCRUT have a different trend from the satellites. Is that unexpected? Would you really expect 4 different ways of measuring global temperature to give precisely the same result ALL the time especially as the satellite ones are measuring the troposphere rather than the surface.
The delta between the data sets is simply due to the different base years.
You said that the algorithm was poorly documented and lame: poorly documented doesn’t mean that they don’t know what it’s doing. You call it lame, but on what do you base your value judgment: if it’s poorly documented how can you tell?