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.
Yes, “side track” is Hansen’s goal here I believe. Man-Made Global Warming is about CO2 and temperature and predictions of world-wide doom, not Mountain Top Removal. The latter conflict (long on-going in WV before “global warming” and “climate change” were in fashion) being adopted by Hansen simply proves that Hansen is not at first a scientist, but an environmental extremist. His credentials cannot make bad or inaccurate temperature data go away.
Indeed, as mentioned somewhere above, even if accepted as accurate data there has overall been zero yearly mean temperature rise in the last 100 years in WV. See “Observed Climate Change and the Negligible Global Effect of Greenhouse-gas Emission Limits in the State of West Virginia” at http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/west_va_climate_change.pdf
Considering that Hansen’s beloved temperature gauges in WV are all sitting in less-than-good locations (for instance, there’s the required, building, concrete, air conditioner and barbecue near the temperature gauge at the Glenville, WV water treatment plant http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=40076), I humbly suggest that over the last 100+ years the temperature has possibly trended down in rural WV, i.e., the USHCN gauges and the artificial heat sources around them may have hidden a long-term cooling.
It is my understanding that all the active USHCN stations in WV have been surveyed, while the remainders have been closed in the last 20 (or so) years and are as-yet unchecked. However, after what Mr. Watt’s showed in Hawaii, you never know until checking.
WV being “the Nexus of climate change” (mentioned somewhere above as well) is right on. I’ve always thought of the state as the ultimate demolition derby smack down in the the Man-Made Global Warming debate. Here are some reasons why: It is a rural state in the middle of North, South, East, and West of this chunk of America, it produces much of the county’s coal and has for the last century PLUS has lots of coal-fired power plants supplying power to out of state; parts of the state have been ravaged by 50 years of strip mining and mountain top removal mining (and 130+ years of deep mining), but other parts are absolutely beautiful (most of state is forested, and a large part of the state is National Forest); and, it has an eastern border just 80 miles from Washington DC where cap and trade law is being considered that could demolish the state’s finances.
This time, it will be extremely hard hit (like no other hit in its history) made by the Man-Made Global Warming hoax, as for the 1.8 million people the major business tax base will be lost, mining and related jobs will be lost, funding for infrastructure, services, parks, etc. could collapse–all the while the increasing cost of energy for homes and cars will leave the already large portion of low-paid (by then unemployed) and aged (retired) population with…with what? Who knows, but there’s no good plan in the foreseeable future for this state and its people.
Yet there sit the USHCN gauges, providing the temperature readings which so much of this debate is about, through Hansen’s eyes the accurate scientific instruments bringing in data from afar as representatives of the rural landscape, but in reality as messed up as those in urban sprawls–just as in need of Hansen’s “adjustments” and “fixes”. There in WV sit some of the best representatives of how this whole “Man Mad Global Warming” hypothesis has been foisted upon us by radical environmentalism making its way into science and government. Bad data collection, you know it, but you can’t admit a mistake, so you’ve got to keep making it worse. The best you can do when the mean temperature hasn’t changed in WV in 100 years…tie to the fight against surface mining techniques.
And, I say that as an anti-mountain top removal, former (I guess? Am I banned from the group?) environmentalist. Now I just say “conservationist”.
Blankenship should show a picture of a temperature gauge on the roof at Winfield Lock and Dam to the people of WV during the debate. I don’t care where you are from, from China, to Philadelphia to a hollow in WV, you can easily understand how a temperature gauge works and that putting it near asphalt or buildings, or on roofs, etc., screws-up the readings. There are reasons the government have their own requirements for placement, as illustrated by the work of Anthony Watts. The data is not reliable to the extent it needs to be. Plain and simple, period.
This guy Appell is the typical AGW activist blogger.
He has an interesting take on our friend Watts.
http://oregoncatalyst.com/index.php/archives/2415-Global-Warming-No!-It-Is-Now-Called-Climate-Change.html#comments
“It’s funny how Watts likes the data when it supports his point of view, but criticizes it when it doesn’t: http://is.gd/19sD7
And scientists have been looking at any purported UHI for a long time. The IPCC 4AR WG1 says “Studies that have looked at hemispheric and global scales conclude that any urban-related trend is an order of magnitude smaller than decadal and longer time-scale trends evident in the series.”
Also, surface thermometers and satellites do not measure the same thing. The latter measures the “bulk temperature,” which is the average temperature up to about 8 km.
Finally, Watt’s claims are hardly established (or accepted) science and, as far as I know, have not even been submitted to a scientific journal.
#2.1.3.1.1.1.1 David Appell on 2009-06-22 11:49 (Reply)
REPLY: I suppose Appel assumes that knowledge is static, and that I’ve learned nothing of GISS since then. He also fails to note that in the entry he cites, during that period I cited all four global temperature metrics, not just GISS. But I no longer cite GISS. As I said, knowledge is not static. But you can’t please everyone, nor will I try. Appel also doesn’t know how to run a volunteer project. The only way to do so it to provide regular encouraging updates on the progress, which I’ve done on the census as it proceeded. I can’t publish until the data majority is collected, for to do so would heap huge loads of criticism on me (Unless you are JohnV of course at 33% then its OK) for publishing based on a minority sample. Now I have a majority sample, and publication process is beginning. Good things come to those who wait. – Anthony
“Flanagan (22:46:34) :
Given the conclusions found in the Synthesis Report of the biggest climate conference of the year
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-releases/files/synthesis-report-web.pdf
I can understand why some people feel some urgency. The surface temperature and heat content of oceans is now even above the most pessimistic IPCC projections, and Greenland is melting rapidly. In total contradiction to what has been said here and there, the global temperature is just as predicted by the IPCC projections also. The graph on page 14 is a sort of a summary of the local projections.”
The UK had it’s coldest winter in 30 years. The US and Canada are have also experiensed a very cold winter. Snow in Iran, first in 100 years. Snow in China, snow in Saudi Arabia, in June. You wear some searious BS filters in you believe CO2, and only that from human activities, is driving climate warmer.
Appel’s comment about satellites measuring something different than the surface is in fact technically true…but it is very misleading, since rather than show less trend this should make them show more of a trend. That the surface data are contaminated should really be obvious at this point, and yet the denial (and note the naive IPCC quote) of the evidence proceeds on in the circle…
I wonder will he bring the dice?? Im a huge fan of the dice.. hehe.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/nasas-hansen-humans-still-loading-climate-dice/
Personally I have never seen a mine that didnt trash the surrounding area. Ground mines do considerably less apparent damage then a strip mine. But they leave tailing piles and well they get old and dangerous. Mountain top removals must be a lot like what they did to Idaho City here. They trashed the place with water jets, polluted the streams, killed every tree in sight. (gold) Its starting to come back but the place still doesnt look natural. There has to be a fair trade here. Ridge top wind farms arent going to save the mountains either, they are an disaster of their own..
Flanagan, trust me: in 20 years you’ll look back on this stage of your life with the same intense embarassment that some of us feel when we look back on the days of anti-Apartheid, McGuyver, and mullets.
Your proclamation of Greenland melting, IPCC projections being spot-on, and heat content of oceans is absolutely, stunningly incredible.
I have ocean-front property in Kansas that I’ll sell you for a GREAT price…
Of Trofim Lysenko:
You may not like
HansenLysenko, his political views, or even his scientific views, but I think it shows quite a lot of arrogance to disparage his credentials!If possible I’d simply question people’s commitment to their faith in authority.
Scientists say we must use nuclear energy…?
Scientists say GM is safe…?
Then when people add their own caveats about why they trust some scientists and not others, we can begin to add our own questions about how and why some climate scientists may not be correct in their predictions.
Of course, in the end that only leads to more entrenched positions, as it becomes more apparent that AGW believers only believe scientists who are, ethically and politically, “sensitive greenies”, and don’t listen to any scientist who isn’t. In fact they’d happily listen to any celebrity who comes across as a sensitive greenie, over any qualified scientists who doesn’t. That’s the basic accusation when someone is said to be in the “pay of the oil industry”.
Basically there’s a lot about anti-corporations, anti-capitalism, anti-technology, anti-progress, even anti-evolution in the sense that some greenies believe we are a “cancer” on the planet (even though Nature created us).
Nonetheless, let’s ask them about those scientists who say we need GM… and remove their “we’re only listening to peer-reviewed science” fig-leaf.
Flanagan (22:46:34) :
Given the conclusions found in the Synthesis Report of the biggest climate conference of the year
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-releases/files/synthesis-report-web.pdf
I can understand why some people feel some urgency. The surface temperature and heat content of oceans is now even above the most pessimistic IPCC projections, and Greenland is melting rapidly. In total contradiction to what has been said here and there, the global temperature is just as predicted by the IPCC projections also. The graph on page 14 is a sort of a summary of the local projections.
Ocean Heat??? – Flanagan that’s already been debunked. Get in touch with the evidence.
REF: http://climatesci.org/2009/05/05/have-changes-in-ocean-heat-falsified-the-global-warming-hypothesis-a-guest-weblog-by-william-dipuccio/
A rational scientific minded community knows that strip mining an environment endangers habitat and the life around the mining site, this is a given.
Of course in a REAL world, just like a beaver making a dam. You don’t out law beavers because you disagree with them chopping down trees and then dam up rivers for their advantage.
Our amount of human impact? YES, we can work on that!
But this fight has nothing to do with us.
Generally I am very much against any scientist being fired for following an unpopular course. So many breakthroughs in science were made by challenging the known, to find the unknown. HOWEVER, James has pushed that so far past rational that maybe he needs a reality check.
Flanigan
Please refer to the Blackboard for a better description of why your comments about the synthesis report are wrong based on the recent data and IPCC’s own standards of measurement. Your assertions and that report don’t hold much weight in light of the evidence.
Thanks
Edward
Appel who?
Excuse me, but this “report that doesn’t hold much weight” is the summary of the largest gathering of climate specialists in the world. So, sending links to non-reviewed blabla on some blog seems, a least, ridiculous. Anything more consistent, like a recent published rebuttal of sea levels or stuff like that?
My response to Appel. Firstly, EVERYONE likes data that supports their view and criticizes data that does not. ———————————–Secondly, climate and atmosphere “scientists” have NOT looked at how the surface temperature data is being collected—————————-Thirdly, what exactly do the satellite temperatures show? It seems that there are plenty of different interpretations of the data. I think the data is “inconvenient” for proponents of CAGW. ——————————Lastly, it is difficult in the extreme to get anything published that does not fit the agenda. The fact that it has not yet been published is a ridiculous statement that is clearly made out of fear that Anthony will get published.–My 2 cents on Mr. Appels views.
It’s “David Appell” a frequent alarmist blogger
Who claims to be a science writer.
http://oregoncatalyst.com/index.php/archives/2415-Global-Warming-No!-It-Is-Now-Called-Climate-Change.html#comments
“It’s funny how Watts likes the data when it supports his point of view, but criticizes it when it doesn’t: http://is.gd/19sD7
And scientists have been looking at any purported UHI for a long time. The IPCC 4AR WG1 says “Studies that have looked at hemispheric and global scales conclude that any urban-related trend is an order of magnitude smaller than decadal and longer time-scale trends evident in the series.”
Also, surface thermometers and satellites do not measure the same thing. The latter measures the “bulk temperature,” which is the average temperature up to about 8 km.
Finally, Watt’s claims are hardly established (or accepted) science and, as far as I know, have not even been submitted to a scientific journal.
#2.1.3.1.1.1.1 David Appell on 2009-06-22 11:49 (Reply)
Flanagan, look at the surfacestations project and tell me if this does not raise some questions in your own mind. Many “consensus” theories have been shown to be false. This will be the next.
http://www.survival-international.org/news/4696
Peru’s Indians have more guts than Hansen and everyone else in America–why? They’re willling to go the whole distance and lay down their lives for what they know from their daily lives in the rainforest what’s NEEDED, and it ain’t self righteous idiocy and denial of reality. It’s a long trek from Peru to WV but hey, the Indigenous folks can teach the rest of the world a few things about true environmental action and courage.
There are several psych issues here. One is Hansen is as are his adherents feeling incredible guilt on sin against the planet. His consequences are 2 fold. One he feels additional abject failure for not warning and causing the Gobment to stop Massey. The other is redemption.
Having said all this, we could suggest putting 2-4 wind towers on the site. it would appease the carbon demons. It would also represent indulgences to pay back the “historic” planet crime event.
So Hansen feels like he flunked in being able to teach us science.
So if some wind towers popped up, he should be all better.
James Hansen PBUH
Darryl Hannah, scientist arrested at W.Va. mine protest
NAOMA, W.Va. — Actress Darryl Hannah, NASA scientist James Hansen and more than two dozen other mountaintop removal mining opponents have been arrested during a protest in southern West Virginia.
By The Associated Press
Advertisement – Your ad here
NAOMA, W.Va. — Actress Darryl Hannah, NASA scientist James Hansen and more than two dozen other mountaintop removal mining opponents have been arrested during a protest in southern West Virginia.
State Police said about 30 people were charged Tuesday afternoon after they blocked W.Va. 3 near a Massey Energy subsidiary’s coal processing plant in Boone County.
They were among several hundred protesters who held a rally outside an elementary school that sits about 300 feet away from the plant’s coal storage silo.
After the rally, the crowd marched quietly to the plant and attempted to enter the property. They were blocked by several hundred coal miners chanting “Massey.”
Hannah, Hansen, former Rep. Ken Hechler and 27 others then sat on the road and were arrested on misdemeanor charges of obstruction and impeding traffic.
Here’s what I don’t understand…
The College of William and Mary invited Hansen to debate Dr. Partrick Michaels. Hansen refused. So what I’m wondering is what line of reasoning says to Hansen a debate with Michaels is wrong, but a debate with Blackenship is OK.
I saw that YouTube of the Nightline expose of Blackenship posted earlier, and yeah, I can see where Hansen might think of Blackenship as easy pickins.
His strategy is flawed though, because even if he wins, and one would hope he could at least defeat a corrupt, coal, fatcat like Blackenship in debate, how does he then justify any future refusals of debate invites from more reasonable, and knowledgeable adversaries?
Just Want Results… says:
Well, I am skeptical that he is “the most prestigious professor of meteorology, and atmospheric physicist in the world” but I do agree that he is a very distinguished atmospheric scientist. And, at a thread on Real Climate one time when someone in the comments section did disparage Lindzen’s credentials, Mike Mann responded by defending Lindzen’s credentials (while still saying that some of his statements about climate change have been very wrong-headed).
David Ball said:
Well, I haven’t followed all of the controversies involving your father in full detail but I thought that I recall that he made some claims (such as being the first to receive a PhD in climatology in Canada or something like that) which may not have been correct. And, with all due respect to your father, I don’t think he is in the same league in terms of his stature or accomplishments in the fields of either climate science or atmospheric science as Jim Hansen or Richard Lindzen are. That is not meant as any sort of insult of him; I am not in the same league as Ed Witten, Bob Laughlin, or hundreds (if not thousands) of other theoretical physicists. That’s just the way it is.
George E. Smith (15:01:13) :
Thank you for your reply to my post. I’m still trying to digest your explanation but, and your reputation precedes you here, I know you’ll be spot on and I’ve been saddling-up the cart rather than the horse!
I suspect that the question I asked has merit, notwithstanding my incorrect analysis. The presumed sign and putative magnitude of future ‘temperature’ change is the weapon that the ‘warmists’ wield. My experience of asking this question to otherwise, highly vocal alarmists indicates that, by their silence, they are unsettled by its asking. That may be reason enough to keep pressing for an answer!
If, as timetochooseagain suggests, predicted rises in temperature are distributed unevenly – with Lows taking a Lion’s share of any increase – a significant and, more importantly, easy to understand point of weakness in the more doom-laden prognostications of the hysterics- an accessible Achilles Heel perhaps.
If, indeed, our mid-century evenings will be less chilly than today with slightly warmer days, then my only regret is that I won’t be round to see them:(
Going back to my earlier examples, given a 3C rise what would be your (other opinions cordially invited) estimation of the temperature distribution?
Joel Shore, then tell me who was first? And then tell me why the weather record from Hudson’sBay ( a very accurate and lengthy weather record nearly 400 years long) is not important. Isn’t one of the claims that the arctic is one of the best indicators of supposed global warming? One can understand why they might want marginalize and discredit someone whose DOCTOR OF SCIENCE in CLIMATOLOGY might be a real threat to their position. Spare me your “I’m not familiar with the controversies surrounding your father”. The fact that he has withstood a (snip) storm of attacks, albeit in Canada, for 30 years, puts him shoulder to shoulder with Richard Lindzen, Fred Singer, and anyone else you care to name. Many have stood up to speak the truth because people like my father were brave enough not to fall for the party line. I wonder what you would do if your research in theoretical physics told you the exact opposite of what being spouted in the main stream media on the subject? Would you have the courage to stand up and say “wait a second”? Somehow I doubt it.
David Ball:
Well, here is a discussion of Dan Johnson’s letter to the editor in which he notes the names of others in the field who got their PhD’s earlier: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/dear_tim_ball_sue_me.php I don’t know if the folks listed actually got their PhD’s specifically in climatology, although according to Johnson, your father’s was technically in Geography although his thesis was on a topic in historical climatology. Whatever.
On a MUCH smaller scale, my PhD dissertation was actually coming into a small subfield and claiming that a hypothesis that one could argue seemed to be at least the rough consensus in this small subfield was wrong. (It certainly was not a big enough issue that the mainstream media were involved though!) However, we actually presented compelling evidence to support our claim.
Your father is entitled to his opinions but we don’t all find his arguments to be all that compelling.