That headline is NOT a typo, that’s what they say:
If there was even any doubt about Hansen changing from scientist to advocate, that doubt is now shattered.
Meanwhile, amazingly, James Hansen has agreed to a debate. Hansen is going to debate with Don Blankenship of Massey coal company.
This just in, from NASA climate scientist James Hansen, in response to Massey Energy President Don Blankenship’s challenge to debate global warming, the coal industry and the West Virginia economy. I received this note from Dr. Hansen, who asked that I forward the information on to Blankenship.
This is going to become ground zero for the issue. Word has it the people of WV are becoming quite energized.
Hansen has a new commentary on Yale’s Environment 360 blog called “A Plea to President Obama: End Mountaintop Removal.”
Stay tuned. This is going to escalate most likely.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Really bad news. This debate will NOT be about AGW, it will be about ripping the tops off mountains, which is a NO LOSE situation for Hansen – and will reflect badly on deniers everywheres, as we will be lumped together with idiots that rape nature.
Bad bad bad move.
“Hansen is going to debate with Don Blankenship of Massey coal company.”
I do imagine that he wouldn’t debate anyone whose name didn’t have a coal company attached to it.
I would like to see drops of sweat rolling down his face in a debate with John Christy.
Bill Illis (11:26:10) :
Any chance a pinch hitter can be sent in for the debate?
I would pitch in money for a plane ticket to get Monckton here for such.
I think that Blankenship can also argue the futility of the economics on the cost/benefit analysis on this in conjunction with the substantially more than offsetting effect that India and China will have.
rosalind (10:20:17) :
Can’t I be against mountain top removal, a hideous insult to the environment, and also be a climate skeptic?
Yes, you can.
Hansen, et al, are piling on, lumping the good with the bad, and that is ugly.
The ideal climate skeptic separates the chaff from the wheat, and burns it to generate electricity, tosses it in with the biomass, or composts it.
In this case, Hansen should be fired as he is abusing his job description, inciting mob action,
and being a real drag on progress.
Gino Danno Bruno (11:26:08) : They could get into carbon accounting….
Gino Danno Bruno (11:37:02) : Not a chance he’d agree to that (Hansen, not Monckton) but besides that, switching out would be cheating.
David Segesta, I think that the debate challenge was Global warming, Coal Mining, and the W. Va economy. I don’t know just what Dr. Hansen is degreeded in but I very doubt that he is an expert in coal mining or the W. Va economy. I think that he very much is a computer modeler that loves to build models that modify the data to account for differences of temps. I suspect that when all is said and done if you count points Mr Blankenship will win but the MSM will declare Dr Hansen the winner and we will never see any thing but spin from the debate.
Bill Derryberry
Gino Danno Bruno (11:26:08) :
Stopping coal mining will be good for the economy of West Virginia? What else, pray tell, will they be doing for money there then?
Go back to drift and lognwall…. i.e. – underground.
MC (10:54:07) :
Hansen should look at the USHCN gauges in WV… considering where the gauges are.
You assume that Hansen is concerned that stations should not be contaminated by UHI.
I’ve seen a somewhat one-sided presentation on MTR, replete with video of people dying of emphysema, etc. Even allowing for the propaganda, MTR seems to have a pretty drastic short-term effect on the local environment, and is not without some medium term drawbacks, as well.
That is why I strongly suspect that Hansen will try early on (possibly even BEFORE the obligatory ad hominem attacks) to divert the debate onto coal mining, using MTR as a red-herring. He’ll also probably use the “new, unpublished study” ploy, purporting to show that anti-AGW facts are based on outdated information. The studies will, of course, turn out to be the usual poorly peer reviewed Mann-o-matic statistical quagmire. The media will then make obeisance, kiss Hansen’s feet, and declare him the winner.
timetochooseagain (11:42:35) :…, switching out would be cheating
I don’t see how.
Is it a fair fight for Hansen to only debate someone representing a coal company? He should be unafraid to debate anyone.
BTW, I wouldn’t have a problem if Hansen switched who would be debating on his side.
MTR ?!?
Do we really need an acronym for mountain top removal?
I understand that Black Mountain Mining Co. in Harlan county, KY has long term contracts for $80/ton and has plans for opening 3 mines in Black Mountain near Lynch, KY. Residents are concerned because their houses (built on backfill when mining started years ago) are already settling badly. Coal mining provides just about the only significant number of non-minimum wage jobs in that part of KY. There has been interest in building a plant that would convert the waste coal slag into gasoline for less than $1.00 / gallon. Life expectancy is pretty low in Appalachia.
Here’s a question I just posted on the Guardian website. It’s one that I’d love Dr Hansen to answer – perhaps Mr Blankenship may oblige by asking.
When we hear about global temperatures rising, by 3 C for example, what does that mean exactly. If at a particular location for a certain period, the current average low is 10C and the high is 20C then I assume that this would give an average temperature of 15C. If this goes up to an average of 18C then how is this expected to happen?
If the low stays at 10 and the high goes up to 26 – we get an average of 18.
If the low goes goes up to 16 and the high stays at 20 – we get the same 18C.
If the low goes up to 13 and the high to 23 -18 C again
If the low drops to 0 and the high rockets to 36 C – same once more.
I think you get the picture – same increase – totally different outcomes for the future. So I will repeat my question – what does a 3C rise mean?
rosalind (10:20:17) :
Yes you can.
But I do have a question : what are those residents of West Virginia to do instead for income?
rbateman ,
I don’t think that drift and longwalling are feasible in seams that are close to the surface – I could be wrong . BTW , I have nothing against surface mining , except that it gives all coal mining a bad name . Face it , those pictures look really bad .
Gino Danno Bruno (11:48:46) :
“I wouldn’t have a problem if Hansen switched who would be debating on his side.”
I would, it violates the understanding of the “contract” made by agreeing to a debate. Hansen agreed to debate him, he agreed to debate Hansen. Neither made any agreement to debate anyone else. They would be perfectly within their rights to call such a debate a breach of understanding, thus making the debate agreement null and void.
Of course, Hansen is being sneaky in the first place, but the basic rules of a “contract” should not be violated, and that’s what the agreement between these two men constitutes, bad deal or not.
An accountant may be just what is needed to ask the questions most people care most about:
1) An end to mining in WV will cost the average family $$$
2) Jobs lost in mining trickle down to the rest of the economy: engineering suppliers, service companies, local retailers, schools. The cost is $$$
3) Where are your kids going to work?
4) Cap n’ trade = $3,000 per household…
Mine/drill or just close down the US and beg China to send the welfare checks
RoyFOMR (12:00:15) : This is I think essentially a question about the diurnal temperature range. From what I’m aware, the max temps rise more slowly than the min, to a greater degree in observations even than models suggest. That means somewhat higher highs and much higher lows.
(NOTE: Min temps are probably more contaminated by land use than Max-See Pielke et al. 2007 “Unresolved Issues…”)
I’ll leave it to you to decide what that means.
Remember, this will be a public debate and after their respective presentations, they will take questions from the public. We must just inssure that there will be people from both sides of the issue in the room.
Reply: Gak! ~ ensure~ charles the “button just got pushed” moderator
My brother-in-law, an engineer, worked on coal strip mining techniques and economics fifty years ago. This summarizes his attitude.
MTR is just another technique. But it is one that turns the area into wasteland. Nature will recover but that may take a decade or millennia depending on local conditions.
There are two considerations. First the top material originally removed must be moved back and stabilized; but the rock must be put back first, then the soil. A specific contour must be designed so that water erosion will not be great. The area must be replanted, with grasses for immediate effect and trees for the long term.
Our states, and I am rather sure the federal government, have legislated that the areas mined be restored. But fifty years ago there was not such legislation.
I don’t know how vigorously restoration laws are enforced. IMO that is the real issue with MTR and strip mining.
Well, what the “accountant” needs to point out is that mountain top removal is merely the FIRST stage towards renewable energy: The second stage is concurrent: the overburden (cover rock) moved into the valley below.
The third stage is to keep digging the mountain down to make a hole up at the top of the mountain.
Then the hydro-power pumped storage facility can come on line as the lake fills up behind the old tailings and overburden in the dam in the valley below ….
I agree that MTR and the use of coal as a fuel should not be debated or discussed together.
They are separate topics; MTR is a technique and the government should regulate it. Burning coal is a global economic question; when should we stop?
Expect the debate to be chaotic. Hansen will probably equate coal trains with death trains to Auschwitz. And declare the science is settled, etc. The skill of his opponent is unknown. It won’t matter, it debate will not be about facts. And the audience may misbehave too.
The truth will out:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencenews/5599916/Polar-Bears-are-not-dying-out-say-scientists-in-book-on-popular-scare-stories.html
Boss Obama will not ban MTR because doing so would not offer him any particular political advantage. However, threatening to ban it would make a lot of business people very anxious to curry favour with him, which translates into generous campaign donations and a willingness to provide sinecures for friends of the Boss. That’s the Chicago way.
The greens won’t get their way on MTR, and will find that the “death trains” keep rolling as long as is necessary to ensure that the administration doesn’t get blamed for causing an energy crisis. In fact, they will find that almost all “green” legislation is aimed at maximising tax revenues and extending government power rather than actually changing how people live. After all, that kind of thing can cost votes.
So there will certainly be escalation. The greens will become more and more frustrated by public scepticism and political cynicism. Most will not be willing to go beyond peaceful protest, but a minority will escalate to non-violent “direct action”. A minority of that group will escalate to violent intimidation. A minority of that group will form an echo chamber and convince themselves that literally anything is justified in the name of their cause.