Hansen unhinged on G-8 failure – "Waxman-Markey bill, a monstrous absurdity"

From the Huffington Post, Dr. Hansen is more than a little upset over the failure of G-8 to produce any meaningful CO2 cuts. Once again he tries to take the “representing himself as a private citizen” tact while at the same time citing his NASA credentials.

I call BS on that. His opinion would not be sought if he were not a NASA climate scientist. He cannot separate himself from NASA and climate science and the policy springing from it any more that President Obama could write an essay now as a private citizen.  Further, Jim, you started it in 1988 with your address before congress. Don’t insult our intelligence by saying you have been acting as a private citizen either then or now.

That being said, we do agree on one thing: “the Waxman-Markey bill, a monstrous absurdity” – Anthony Watts

Dr. James Hansen

Dr. James Hansen

Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies Posted: July 9, 2009 10:33 AM

G-8 Failure Reflects U.S. Failure on Climate Change

Jim Hansen is director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, but he writes on this policy-related topic as a private citizen.

It didn’t take long for the counterfeit climate bill known as Waxman-Markey to push back against President Obama’s agenda. As the president was arriving in Italy for his first Group of Eight summit, the New York Times was reporting that efforts to close ranks on global warming between the G-8 and the emerging economies had already tanked:

The world’s major industrial nations and emerging powers failed to agree Wednesday on significant cuts in heat-trapping gases by 2050, unraveling an effort to build a global consensus to fight climate change, according to people following the talks.

Of course, emission targets in 2050 have limited practical meaning — present leaders will be dead or doddering by then — so these differences may be patched up. The important point is that other nations are unlikely to make real concessions on emissions if the United States is not addressing the climate matter seriously.

With a workable climate bill in his pocket, President Obama might have been able to begin building that global consensus in Italy. Instead, it looks as if the delegates from other nations may have done what 219 U.S. House members who voted up Waxman-Markey last month did not: critically read the 1,400-page American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 and deduce that it’s no more fit to rescue our climate than a V-2 rocket was to land a man on the moon.

I share that conclusion, and have explained why to members of Congress before and will again at a Capitol Hill briefing on July 13. Science has exposed the climate threat and revealed this inconvenient truth: If we burn even half of Earth’s remaining fossil fuels we will destroy the planet as humanity knows it. The added emissions of heat-trapping carbon dioxide will set our Earth irreversibly onto a course toward an ice-free state, a course that will initiate a chain reaction of irreversible and catastrophic climate changes.

The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere now stands at 387 parts per million, the highest level in 600,000 years and more than 100 ppm higher than the amount at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. Burning just the oil and gas sitting in known fields will drive atmospheric CO2 well over 400 ppm and ignite a devil’s cauldron of melted icecaps, bubbling permafrost, and combustible forests from which there will be no turning back. But if we cut off the largest source of carbon dioxide, coal, we have a chance to bring CO2 back to 350 ppm and still lower through agricultural and forestry practices that increase carbon storage in trees and soil.

The essential step, then, is to phase out coal emissions over the next two decades. And to declare off limits artificial high-carbon fuels such as tar sands and shale while moving to phase out dependence on conventional petroleum as well.

This requires nothing less than an energy revolution based on efficiency and carbon-free energy sources. Alas, we won’t get there with the Waxman-Markey bill, a monstrous absurdity hatched in Washington after energetic insemination by special interests.

For all its “green” aura, Waxman-Markey locks in fossil fuel business-as-usual and garlands it with a Ponzi-like “cap-and-trade” scheme. Here are a few of the bill’s egregious flaws:

  • It guts the Clean Air Act, removing EPA’s ability to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants.
  • It sets meager targets — 2020 emissions are to be a paltry 13% less than this year’s level — and sabotages even these by permitting fictitious “offsets,” by which other nations are paid to preserve forests – while logging and food production will simply move elsewhere to meet market demand.
  • Its cap-and-trade system, reports former U.S. Undersecretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs Robert Shapiro, “has no provisions to prevent insider trading by utilities and energy companies or a financial meltdown from speculators trading frantically in the permits and their derivatives.”
  • It fails to set predictable prices for carbon, without which, Shapiro notes, “businesses and households won’t be able to calculate whether developing and using less carbon-intensive energy and technologies makes economic sense,” thus ensuring that millions of carbon-critical decisions fall short.

There is an alternative, of course, and that is a carbon fee, applied at the source (mine or port of entry) that rises continually. I prefer the “fee-and-dividend” version of this approach in which all revenues are returned to the public on an equal, per capita basis, so those with below-average carbon footprints come out ahead.

A carbon fee-and-dividend would be an economic stimulus and boon for the public. By the time the fee reached the equivalent of $1/gallon of gasoline ($115/ton of CO2) the rebate in the United States would be $2000-3000 per adult or $6000-9000 for a family with two children.

Fee-and-dividend would work hand-in-glove with new building, appliance, and vehicle efficiency standards. A rising carbon fee is the best enforcement mechanism for building standards, and it provides an incentive to move to ever higher energy efficiencies and carbon-free energy sources. As engineering and cultural tipping points are reached, the phase-over to post-fossil energy sources will accelerate. Tar sands and shale would be dead and there would be no need to drill Earth’s pristine extremes for the last drops of oil.

Some leaders of big environmental organizations have said I’m naïve to posit an alternative to cap-and-trade, and have suggested I stick to climate modeling. Let’s pass a bill, any bill, now and improve it later, they say. The real naïveté is their belief that they, and not the fossil-fuel interests, are driving the legislative process.

The fact is that the climate course set by Waxman-Markey is a disaster course. Their bill is an astoundingly inefficient way to get a tiny reduction of emissions. It’s less than worthless, because it will delay by at least a decade starting on a path that is fundamentally sound from the standpoints of both economics and climate preservation.

Former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, who died this week, suffered for 40 years — as did our country — from his failure to turn back from a failed policy. As grave as the blunders of the Vietnam War were, the consequences of a failed climate policy will be more severe by orders of magnitude.

With the Senate debate over climate now beginning, there is still time to turn back from cap-and-trade and toward fee-and-dividend. We need to start now. Without political leadership creating a truly viable policy like a carbon fee, not only won’t we get meaningful climate legislation through the Senate, we won’t be able to create the concerted approach we need globally to prevent catastrophic climate change.

Advertisements

142 thoughts on “Hansen unhinged on G-8 failure – "Waxman-Markey bill, a monstrous absurdity"

  1. Are NASA scientists supposed to be doing this on the taxpayers dime? Or even their own? Isn’t this what you would call a conflict of interest.

  2. oh I love it! The AGW supporters have formed a circular firing squad over Waxman Markey! Oh, I hope, I hope, I hope this helps to destroy it!
    Of course I oppose Smoot-Hawl..er, I mean Waxman/Malarkey for completely different reasons, namely that the entire thing is a pork laden bill of goods based on nothing but moonshine and unicorn dreams – but I will cheer ANYTHING that helps abort that monstrosity before it is born!!!

  3. “ignite a devil’s cauldron of melted icecaps, bubbling permafrost, and combustible forests from which there will be no turning back”
    Whoa – Scary Stuff Jim
    Hyperpole alert

  4. But wait there’s more:
    “Science has exposed the climate threat and revealed this inconvenient truth: If we burn even half of Earth’s remaining fossil fuels we will destroy the planet as humanity knows it.”
    My reponse:
    There’s Klingons on the starboard bow, starboard bow, starboard bow
    There’s Klingons on the starboard bow, scrape em off Jim

  5. Of course, emission targets in 2050 have limited practical meaning — present leaders will be dead or doddering by then
    Unlike Hansen, who’s doddering today.

  6. So, if for all the wrong reasons, the right thing does happen I can be no less happy ?
    Yes, I’ll take it !

  7. Dr. Hansen grabs his Global Warming rifle and then . . . Ready, Fire, Aim.
    So the G8 says they’ll agree to limit temperature increases to a 2 degree maximum gain by 2050.
    Perfect political smokescreen during a period of extended global cooling.

  8. “A carbon fee-and-dividend would be an economic stimulus and boon for the public. By the time the fee reached the equivalent of $1/gallon of gasoline ($115/ton of CO2) the rebate in the United States would be $2000-3000 per adult or $6000-9000 for a family with two children.”

    I’ll bet Hansen forwards every chain letter he gets. Did I mention that I think the man needs to be seen by a mental health professional?

  9. Some leaders of big environmental organizations are at least right in one thing: James Hansen is very naïve.

  10. They should send Hansen for a mental evaluation. He is starting to lose it.
    Crazy old senator Robert C. Byrd has come out against the climate bill.
    This bill will likely fail in the Senate since like Byrd (who is defending his coal interest) many other Senators will have similar concerns.

  11. Rev Algore is facing a church split. Orthodox warmistas like hansen want more punishment and pain for the adversaries. Higher rates for indulgences and what else does Hansen want? Greenpeace is angry. The bill is postponed and Joe romm plays cool. says it is good to be postponed.

  12. I love this global warming but an not sure why it is so much colder now than it was in the 80’s and 90’s. I look at the global temperatures but they do not show that we in Canada are having frosts in July. If I have to listen to one more Canadian member of the government talk about global warming….I may throw up. It is not global. I remember getting a sunburn one April, now I cannot get out on the back porch in April, the snow will not let the door open. Do these guys not go outside?

  13. “He cannot separate himself from NASA” Perhaps he can’t, but firing him would do the trick.
    An equivalent fee of $1/gal would be $2-3K per person or $6-9k per family of 4? Really. Waxman/Markey will only cost $1400 or so. That makes sense, the House bill doesn’t generate enough revenue, so it is bad. Take people’s money away and they won’t pollute as much. At least after their bodies decay.
    A good thread title, Hansen is totally unhinged.

  14. When I was in high school we were taught the composition of air. CO2 concentration was reckoned to be so small that it was, for all practical purposes, zero. Nowadays even a smidgen of CO2 will heat us up and two smidgens will boil our livers.
    Can’t someone design a simple experiment with a constant long wave radition source and air with different concentrations of CO2 in a closed atmosphere to see if adding CO2 actually does warm the air due to a greenhouse effect? Has this already been done?
    Changing the CO2 concentration will, of course, change the concentrations of the remaining gases so in theory one could use fancy mixture experimental designs. But, why bother because in the real atmosphere, increasing the proportion of CO2 will decrease the proportion of the other gases.

  15. . . .The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere now stands at 387 parts per million, the highest level in 600,000 years and more than 100 ppm higher than the amount at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. Burning just the oil and gas sitting in known fields will drive atmospheric CO2 well over 400 ppm and ignite a devil’s cauldron of melted icecaps, bubbling permafrost, and combustible forests from which there will be no turning back. . .

    “A devil’s cauldron of melted icecaps”? Let’s see. Most of that 600 thousand years was filled with ice ages, during which the ‘icecaps’ extended over much of the world we now inhabit. Before then, were there any icecaps at all? What do we need them for?
    What about 6 million years, or 60 million years, or 600 million years ago? There were entire epochs with much higher CO2, during which life on Earth thrived. Is this man completely ignorant of the geological and paleontological history of the planet?
    Perhaps Dr. Hansen is really a ‘young Earther’, but instead of 6 thousand years, his young Earth began 600,000 years ago. . .
    It really is hard to fathom how a man who calls himself a scientist can remain so blissfully ignorant—or is it that, for the sake of an agenda, he is willing to pretend to ignorance, assuming his audience knows no better?
    /Mr Lynn

  16. Hansen is without peer when it comes to Alarmist rhetoric.
    “… we will destroy the planet as humanity knows it.”
    The poor man is hysterical with dread. I feel sorry for him. Raging paranoia is not science — it’s a psycho-pathological condition. He should seek treatment before the men in white coats come to take him away to the Funny Farm.

  17. I hope the leaking ship of AGW will sink before it reaches the harbor.
    The US Senate has the power to torpedo it so I just hope for the best.
    If the Climate Bill is destroyed on the Hill, the Copenhagen Meeting will be doomed.
    The continuing economic crises a fierce winter and a lot of blogging will do the rest.
    Or do you think I am too optimistic?
    Keep calling those Senators.

  18. Someone please hand James Hansen a big microphone to talk into as often as possible. Suggesting a gargantuan redistibutionist tax to fight the “global warming” nobody’s been experiencing for the past decade will set far more independents against it, and removing a lot of the Rube Goldberg-isms and exemptions from the current climate bill will make it far more obvious just how much damage a major new energy tax will do to regional economies, completely entrenching more state delegations against such a tax.
    As it is, only 22 state delegations in the House had a majority of their representatives vote for the “monstrous absurdity”, even when it was crammed full of bribes. Remove those, and make it crystal clear to everyone just how much higher everything will cost due to the new tax, and watch politicians dive for cover as fast as their pork-laden bellies can carry them. No amount of “arm-twisting” is going to convince them to commit political suicide.
    You know what’s really going to be comedy? Watching Joe Romm go after James Hansen because he’s shooting holes in the Titanic (after it’s already started taking on water)…

  19. The numbers disturb me. The amount of CO2 has increased by 1/3 since the start of the industrial revolution? Big deal! And after this 33% increase it will only take a further increase of about 3% from 387 to 400 to doom the earth? How can anyone take this stuff seriously. Its no wonder they have now switched from limiting CO2 to limiting temperature increase as they clutch feebly for something, anything suitably terrifying to frighten people into giving up their liberty and embracing the green police.

  20. If the planet is “recognizable” in 2050, I, for one, will be extremely disappointed.

  21. It is time for Dr. Hansen to resign and run for a major political office, such as the Senate, or as a natural born citizen of the USA he could run for President. I feel ill at ease when jokes are made about scientists; about politicians – not so much.

  22. “The added emissions of heat-trapping carbon dioxide will set our Earth irreversibly onto a course toward an ice-free state, a course that will initiate a chain reaction of irreversible and catastrophic climate changes.”
    What a hoot!
    Oh, well. Hopefully he’ll help kill Taxman-Malarkey. With enemies like this, who needs friends? 🙂

  23. “How can this person be in charge of GISStemp surely its a complete conflict of interest?”
    Yes. Shirley. But I’m beginning to see the patsy in Jim. Here’s a naive astrophysicist from Iowa with a fixation on the Venus atmosphere and how it formed. One day a little birdie whispers in his ear: “Psst, Jim. That could happen to Mother Earth! YOU can stop it!” And Jim is stunned. “Me??”
    Of course it has certainly helped that somewhere along the way he and others got a healthy dose of religious fundamentalism. That’s where language like:
    “ignite a devil’s cauldron of melted icecaps, bubbling permafrost, and combustible forests from which there will be no turning back.”
    It’s dat dam debil agin!
    Gotta hand it to the authors of this stuff. It’s a laugh riot!

  24. And even more joyous news today! Waxman-Malarkey has just hit a double roadblock in the Senate – first, Robert Byrd came back from the hospital to announce that he would *never* vote for it, since it didn’t treat coal with the respect he demands (he is from West Virginia, after all).
    And now the Senate Committee responsible for working on this has said that they won’t even START hearings until September, even though they had earlier pledged to wrap things up by mid-August.
    Every day that goes by and allows voters to hear about this mess is another nail in it’s coffin. They needed to slam this thing through for the plan to work.
    It ain’t workin. Hooray!!!

  25. It’s pretty simple. Jim Hansen is so convinced of his projections and what they mean that he’s willing to descend into civil disobedience. It makes it that much easier to discount him as someone who goes to the extraordinary measure of lawlessness to make a point. Wouldn’t he also be expected to descend to exaggeration and fraud?

  26. Oh my – Hansen unhinged — that happened quite some time ago.
    But look on the bright side, the man shows potential for creative writing: a devil’s cauldron of melted icecaps, bubbling permafrost, and combustible forests. Perhaps he should try some sci-fi with a touch of the medieval. Oh wait – he already does that in his day job.

  27. Oh, oh.
    Hansen’s RealClimate website posted today.
    “Blah, Blah, … warmer than it has been in millions of years (when you only count the ice ages that is), …
    … Nevertheless, we view today’s development as a constructive step.”
    Not quite the same tone it seems.

  28. @ Mike D.
    “Hansen is without peer when it comes to Alarmist rhetoric.”
    Actually Hansen has a peer. The honorable professor Dr. Paul Ehrhlich.
    Dr. Ehrlich is a well respected (adored actually) biologist/climate scientist who, since the early ’70s has spewed all kinds of alarmist rhetoric.
    “Actually, the problem in the world is that there is much too many rich people…”
    “Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
    “We’ve already had too much economic growth in the United States. Economic growth in rich countries like ours is the disease, not the cure.”
    “The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer.”
    Dr. Ehrlich’s most important discovery was that “scientists,” like him, could be completely wrong about virtually everything and suffer absolutely no ill consequences. The good Dr. is still gainfully employed by the University of Stanford and is still adored. He consults with the AGW crowd too.

  29. A modest proposal (with a hat tip to J. Swift) on carbon cap and trade taxes: impose the taxes on those who believe that AGW is occurring; and the more you believe the more you are taxed.
    I’m sure that Al Gore, J. Hansen, and the Hollywood Elite (whose entire existence depends on pumping electrons) would not object to being taxed at a minimum 95% tax rate.
    As the Beatles sang, “Be thankful we don’t take it all”.

  30. Curious how the effect of the last 100 ppm increase of CO2 is arguably difficult to pick out of natural variation but the next 100 ppm, which should have less effect than the last addition, will lead to bubbling icecaps, combustible permafrost and melted forests.

  31. Director of NASA, blah, blah blah, as a citizen blah blah blah.
    C’mon! What a joke he has become.
    He and his Fortran masterpieces (relics?).
    How can not everyone not see these ethical conflicts?
    How can anyone take his science seriously anymore?
    Beware the young scientist who lays down with this man, let alone seek a consult with anyone from ‘The Team’.
    Just like a witness in court who tells a white lie, FOREVER more her testimony will be discredited. It don’t matter if she is right or wrong anymore. She is done.
    To those young climate scientists, practice science and not rhetoric. If you want to be a politician, get out of the science beforehand.
    I am convinced a person can’t do both, practice science and be a politician.
    EJ

  32. Shawn Whelan (17:20:03) :
    “Crazy old senator Robert C. Byrd has come out against the climate bill.”
    I’ve got west Virginia roots deep in them hills and hollers,Byrd may be crazy but
    he is the porkman of W.Va.-and crazy like a Fox-he knows Cap and Tax would kill his beloved state,and he isn’t the only one.What the Greenies would like for West Va. is sort of a Theme park, with folks selling homespun wool and corncob pipes, then the
    tourists would get on their private Jet and fly to Oregon.Which, unlike West Va. has been turned in to a National Park-except for the Willamette Valley…
    -Where most of those Eco Tourists live…

  33. Um — I think it’s “tack” not “tact.” I think it’s a sailing term. You tack this way, then that way. But it’s not “tact” whatever it is.

  34. VG 16:52:56
    How can this person be in charge of GISStemp surely its a complete conflict of interest?
    Well, at least the quality of his work is consistent with the quality of his thinking.

  35. It ain’t over till the fat lady sings, y’all. It’s much too early to be declaring any kind of victory.

  36. James Hansen really missed his calling and could/should of been a evangelist, it’s quite spectacular!
    He starts out screaming from the pulpit with fire and brimstone!
    We will “ignite a devil’s cauldron of melted icecaps, bubbling permafrost, and combustible forests from which there will be no turning back!”
    REPENT SINNERS REPENT!!!!!!
    Then he laments, on a sad story of a sinner Systems analyst
    who for his sins, failed and then DIED.
    “Former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, who died this week, suffered for 40 years — as did our country — from his failure to turn back from a failed policy. As grave as the blunders of the Vietnam War were, the consequences of a failed climate policy will be more severe by orders of magnitude.”
    REPENT BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE!!
    Now that you’ve scared the bee-jebus out of your parishioners, you spring the “GOOD NEWS” on them.
    It’s not to late to repent and be excepted into the kingdom of the god, but only if you give up your sin of greed!
    “With the Senate debate over climate now beginning, there is still time to turn back from cap-and-trade and toward fee-and-dividend. We need to start now. Without political leadership creating a truly viable policy like a carbon fee, not only won’t we get meaningful climate legislation through the Senate, we won’t be able to create the concerted approach we need globally to prevent catastrophic climate change.”
    HALLELUJAH YOU CAN BE SAVED!!
    Then you sing hymn 3:5, pass around collection plate, have a nosh, a little wine and work on next weeks sermon making sure to put in,
    MORE FIRE AND BRIMSTONE!!!!!
    Truly he is gifted with superlative bombastic thought in his writings.
    I almost feel like repenting for my CO2 sins, buying toxic curly light bulbs and trading in my Harley for a Pruis!

  37. I believe columnist Deroy Murdock ‘nails it’ when he writes:
    “It is one thing to have a national debate about a serious problem, with adults differing over which solution might work best. Reasonable people, for instance, can dispute whether growing federal involvement would heal or inflame our healthcare system’s serious maladies.
    But as so-called “global warming” proves fictional, those who would shackle the economy with taxes and regulations to fight mythology increasingly resemble deinstitutionalized derelicts on an urban street corner, wildly swatting at their own imaginary monsters.”
    See: http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/44463

  38. A carbon fee-and-dividend would be an economic stimulus and boon for the public. By the time the fee reached the equivalent of $1/gallon of gasoline ($115/ton of CO2) the rebate in the United States would be $2000-3000 per adult or $6000-9000 for a family with two children.

    So what happens when the tax has the “desired” effect, and people decrease their use of gasoline?

  39. “G8 agrees to limit global temperature increase to 2C.”
    “A goal without a plan is just a wish.”, Antoine de St. Exupery

  40. “I prefer the “fee-and-dividend” version of this approach in which all revenues are returned to the public on an equal, per capita basis, so those with below-average carbon footprints come out ahead…”-Jim Hansen
    This guy obviously lives in some type of wierd alternate universe if he thinks that any politician would ever in his wildest imaginings consider returning 100% of any revenues to anyone. I believe the generally accepted amount that is returned to the states is about 10% or less. Wake up Jim!!! You will be fired if you keep up with these fantasies… how do you think you have been earning the big bucks? Go back to your office, adjust your temperatures, and keep your mouth shut… unless you’re ready to retire.

  41. “G8 agrees to limit global temperature increase to 2C.”
    ARTHUR:
    It’s true! It’s true! The crown has made it clear.
    The climate must be perfect all the year.
    A law was made a distant moon ago here:
    July and August cannot be too hot.
    And there’s a legal limit to the snow here
    In Camelot.
    The winter is forbidden till December
    And exits March the second on the dot.
    By order, summer lingers through September
    In Camelot.
    Camelot! Camelot!
    I know it sounds a bit bizarre,
    But in Camelot, Camelot
    That’s how conditions are.
    The rain may never fall till after sundown.
    By eight, the morning fog must disappear.
    In short, there’s simply not
    A more congenial spot
    For happily-ever-aftering than here
    In Camelot.
    Camelot! Camelot!
    I know it gives a person pause,
    But in Camelot, Camelot
    Those are the legal laws.
    The snow may never slush upon the hillside.
    By nine p.m. the moonlight must appear.
    In short, there’s simply not
    A more congenial spot
    For happily-ever-aftering than here
    In Camelot.

  42. “The essential step, then, is to phase out coal emissions over the next two decades. And to declare off limits artificial high-carbon fuels such as tar sands and shale while moving to phase out dependence on conventional petroleum as well.”
    So when will we see ol’ Jim Hansen protesting in front of a Chinese Coal-fired power plant?
    Or trying to get those poor, abused Chinese coal miners to give up their jobs (which are surely killing millions)?
    Any measures the G-8 take to reduce the CO2 levels will be surpassed by the constant increases by China and India.
    Even if the entire “developed” world were to reduce their total CO2 output to zero, the big two will have us over 400ppm in a few years anyway…

  43. Hey… Lets name the 1970 – 2000 warming period for Jim Hansen. We can look back with reverence at the Hansen Warming and know that posterity is well served. We will never, ever, forget Jim.

  44. chip (17:46:05) :
    The numbers disturb me. The amount of CO2 has increased by 1/3 since the start of the industrial revolution? Big deal! And after this 33% increase it will only take a further increase of about 3% from 387 to 400 to doom the earth? How can anyone take this stuff seriously. Its no wonder they have now switched from limiting CO2 to limiting temperature increase as they clutch feebly for something, anything suitably terrifying to frighten people into giving up their liberty and embracing the green police.

    Again, let me point this out, because somehow it completely gets lost in the message. Every time someone says “CO2 has increased 100ppm since the start of the industrial revolution”, they always try to portray that the entire 100ppm CO2 rise is from human emissions. Even if they don’t think it, they leave out any notion that would reveal that only 3% (3ppm) of that CO2 is from human emissions.
    So, all of the extreme global warming we are seeing right now, is due to 3ppm of atmospheric CO2 from human emissions. I am sorry, but I am just paralyzed with fright from those 3ppm!

  45. The Vietnam comment he concludes with is pretty highly offensive to a lot of people, especially those of us who lost relatives in that conflict.

  46. Indiana Bones (18:01:47) :
    “How can this person be in charge of GISStemp surely its a complete conflict of interest?”
    Yes. Shirley. But I’m beginning to see the patsy in Jim. Here’s a naive astrophysicist from Iowa with a fixation on the Venus atmosphere and how it formed. One day a little birdie whispers in his ear: “Psst, Jim. That could happen to Mother Earth! YOU can stop it!” And Jim is stunned. “Me??”

    Yes, and that someone that said that was Stephen Hawking in 1988, it was taken out of context and has been regurgitated by Gore and Hansen ever since. It is absolutely impossible for Earth to be anything remotely like Venus. The only thing Venus and Earth have in common is their size, period, that is all.

  47. Steve Smith (17:29:19) :
    When I was in high school we were taught the composition of air. CO2 concentration was reckoned to be so small that it was, for all practical purposes, zero. Nowadays even a smidgen of CO2 will heat us up and two smidgens will boil our livers.
    Can’t someone design a simple experiment with a constant long wave radition source and air with different concentrations of CO2 in a closed atmosphere to see if adding CO2 actually does warm the air due to a greenhouse effect? Has this already been done?

    We’ve already done this experiment. Take 2 greenhouses [top vents open], leave 1 at ambient CO2, @390 ppm, and pump CO2 into the other to 1000 ppm [common commercial greenhouse CO2 levels]. Take temperature measurements at different times during the day. You will find that there is virtually NO difference in temperature between the two greenhouses, but the plants in the 1000 ppm greenhouse will grow much better and faster.

  48. Even if they don’t think it, they leave out any notion that would reveal that only 3% (3ppm) of that CO2 is from human emissions.
    I include that, but only half is reabsorbed. The rest accumulates (up to the level of persistence). I do not doubt, until I see something to the contrary that convinces me, that much of the 100 ppm increase comes from that extra 3% per year.
    However I do not see any danger in the amount or current rate of increase of CO2. Actually, there seem to have been benefits.
    The Vietnam comment he concludes with is pretty highly offensive to a lot of people, especially those of us who lost relatives in that conflict.
    FWIW, in my opinion, we should have withdrawn 400,000 from Vietnam. And “deployed” the remaining 100,000 around two hundred miles to the north. (That probably would have ultimately saved around 4 million lives.)

  49. Pete, that’s the first thing that’s caught my eye in weeks. Could you tell us more about the experiment?
    Was it done in a scientific manner? Has anything been published?
    Have you tried to publicize it? Are you willing to repeat it?

  50. Pete (19:48:58) :
    ” Take 2 greenhouses [top vents open], leave 1 at ambient CO2, @390 ppm, and pump CO2 into the other to 1000 ppm [common commercial greenhouse CO2 levels]. Take temperature measurements at different times during the day. You will find that there is virtually NO difference in temperature between the two greenhouses, but the plants in the 1000 ppm greenhouse will grow much better and faster.”
    Thank you for the information.

  51. This is analogous to the Secretary of Commerce doing commercials for a bank in his/her role as a ‘private citizen’. A very thin veneer indeed.

  52. Ron de Haan (17:44:50) :
    “Keep calling those Senators.”
    I’ve called about a dozen democrat senators who are up for election next year, and I plan to call all senators in the near future. However, I won’t call Barbara Boxer, it’s a waste of time–kind of like wrestling with a greased pig, you can’t win and the pig doesn’t know what’s going on.

  53. At the G-8, the Chinese have said they will hold out against implementing any reductions until the major polluting western countries increase their commitment to Co2 reduction. I think this is a very clever move on the part of the Chinese. If western countries agree to do this, their economies will be destroyed leaving the Chinese standing, even stronger than they are now. We western countries have to stop inspecting our own collective colons and smarten the hell up NOW !! Our leaders need to enhance their spines before we end up third world countries ourselves.

  54. Steve Smith (17:29:19) :
    Can’t someone design a simple experiment with a constant long wave radi[a]tion source and air with different concentrations of CO2 in a closed atmosphere to see if adding CO2 actually does warm the air due to a greenhouse effect? Has this already been done?

    Yes and Yes.
    Read here for proof in 1909 by physicist R.W. Wood.

  55. Reed Coray (21:46:38) :
    However, I won’t call Barbara Boxer, it’s a waste of time–kind of like wrestling with a greased pig, you can’t win and the pig doesn’t know what’s going on.

    Wonderful imagery – now I too have another reason for not contacting “ma’am” Boxer, thank you.

  56. in 1947 the UK unilaterally declared it would no longer research the development or manufacture of chemical or biological weapons. It was going to lead the way and put “moral pressure” upon the other nations of the world, to shame them in to doing the same.
    The rest is history.
    If the USA cuts its carbon footprint and damages its economy in the way proposed by Hansen the other governments of the world will see it as a reprieve from making the hard decisions they are being told they must make, breath a sigh of relief and carry on as before because “America is saving the world” for us.

  57. Alright now let’s not go to the “economies are gonna burst into flames” alarmism. Where we are housing prices are up 14% and unemployment is non-existent (Peoples BC).
    What’s highly amusing about Hansen is his uncanny ability to befuddle omnipotence. With these outbursts, followed by prudent warnings, followed by protest appearances, followed by dire warnings, and now a divine lecture – us sober people are left spinning. This guy begins to make Super Barak look tame.
    Better than TV!

  58. Kirk W. Hanneman (19:40:48): The Vietnam comment he concludes with is pretty highly offensive to a lot of people, especially those of us who lost relatives in that conflict.
    Agreed, but consider that the Alarmist Media has branded climate realists as “deniers” and Gore makes Hitler references. The level of derogatory allusion perped by the Alarmists is deeply insulting to the entire human race. “Flat earthers” is a tame canard by comparison.
    Folks like Hansen and Gore know no ethical bounds, are purveyors of venomous hate rants, and wouldn’t know a scruple if it bit them on their backsides. They are beneath contempt.
    So don’t be offended. The Alarmists are so off the wall as to be laughably ludicrous. They are like tiny yapping dogs, nipping at ankles and peeing on everything. The public is bored of them. Jim and Al belong on Jerry Springer, not testifying before the U.S. Congress. They are a freak show at the dark edges of the carnival.

  59. Wouldn’t it be a good idea to invite Mr. Hansen to testify at the senate hearings about the Waxman-Markey bill ?

  60. “Once again he tries to take the “representing himself as a private citizen” tact while at the same time citing his NASA credentials.”
    Montjoie (18:43:20) :
    “Um — I think it’s “tack” not “tact.” I think it’s a sailing term. You tack this way, then that way. But it’s not “tact” whatever it is.”
    You are right, although tack (as in tackle) is also a term for the equipment used to guide a horse. (i.e. reins, bridle etc.)

  61. “ignite a devil’s cauldron of melted icecaps, bubbling permafrost, and combustible forests from which there will be no turning back!”
    Don’t witches have cauldrons? What would the devil do with a cauldron?
    Not sure that it was Hawkins who first suggested Venus’ atmosphere was caused by greenhouse gases, it was a theory in the public domain in the late 50s and maybe before.

  62. David Ball (21:52:31) :
    The Chinese retort of “What you worried about?” comes to mind.
    I hope the West realizes the consequence of us playing to thier tune (promises).
    You go first, we’ll follow as soon as we see you clear the minefield.

  63. Pete (19:48:58) :
    ‘Take temperature measurements at different times during the day. You will find that there is virtually NO difference in temperature between the two greenhouses, but the plants in the 1000 ppm greenhouse will grow much better and faster.’
    Hmm. Are you are saying that my “CO2 Climate Control System” for your average home won’t work?
    So what. I’ll just build a computer program that says it does and get someone like Al Gore to promote it. I’ll need Hollywood backing and “above all” lots of governments grants to hand out to support the claim. Then I’ll need suckers, I mean customers to buy my “CO2 Climate Control System”.

  64. …ignite a devil’s cauldron of melted icecaps, bubbling permafrost, and combustible forests…
    1. How do you ignite a melted icecap? Got it: waterproof matches.
    2. Bubbling permafrost? Ah yes, a great 70’s prog-rock band.
    3. Combustible forests? I thought they were by definition; being made of wood ‘n’ all?
    Cheers
    Mark.

  65. Serious question here. Is it possible that James Hansen has a “Beautiful Mind” (mental illness)?

  66. “ignite a devil’s cauldron of melted icecaps, bubbling permafrost, and combustible forests from which there will be no turning back”
    plot .. lost …
    Though I’m glad to see that he still recognises a Ponzi scheme when he sees one.
    re: greenhouses – I think it was R. W. Wood [1909].
    And the prize for the fastest way to cool a greenhouse goes to .. water vapour.

  67. The “greased pig” as Sen. Thong is clever, but the original is even better. It is, if recall serves, the work of Ramesh Ponnuru, senior editor at NR, from his days at Dartmouth: “Don’t get in the mud to wrestle with a pig. You both get filthy, but the pig likes it.”

  68. The added emissions of jaw dropping hyperbole will set our profession irreversibly onto a course toward an fact-free state, a course that will initiate a chain reaction of irreversible and catastrophic career changes.
    Edited for accuracy

  69. Interesting, it looks like the Waxman-Markey bill has the potential to split AGW politics down the middle (e.g. Hansen and Romm’s diametrically opposed viewpoints).
    Lots of the usual hyperbole from Jim, as many have noticed. I can’t help noticing a hypocritical edge from Jim here though. He dings politicians for making hand-waving statements about stuff that will occur long after they are retired (or possibly even deceased). Isn’t that pretty much what Jim himself has spent his life doing?

  70. I wrote to Mr Hansen recently, and amazingly enough he wrote me back. I wont post that exchange but I will post for you what my answer to him was.. I think you will get the gist …….
    Actually I have read all the writings on http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1 . I have been following your work for sometime… and yes I did read Temple of Doom as well. I thought you were a bit naive to expect politicians to not to jump on a chance to do nothing and collect taxes:). I guess I’m frustrated, because while “manmade climate change” takes center stage, something which I personally believe the jury is still out on.. real world pollution, distruction, and injustices go unnoticed. Desert floors are being bulldozed for huge solar sites, mountain ridges are being clear cut and flattened for wind power using technology that is about 30 years old and more rain forest falls daily, so biofuels can be made cheaply. I fear for the environment even more now because it’s protection has been taken out of the realm of conscience and given to consensus and politicians. Here in the US .. you and Al Gore were the band leaders of that. Now we all get to live with it.
    I used to cross the line for nuclear tests in Nevada. I know how frustrating it is to have a just cause and have it ignored. Playing muscle flex with the Russians gave many people cancers and health problems.. but we did not use scare tactics to achieve our agenda. I remember in the late 70’s the big news was the oncoming ice age, now its the tipping point of heat. Perhaps we do not have the entire picture yet when it comes to climate but in our human hubris we wish we had more control then we actually do. Unfortunately even if the tipping point comes, our current plan for Co2 reduction will not reduce anything. So in that, were all in the same small boat now no matter which side of the debate we fall on.
    May you have a good day.
    katt.

  71. Wood’s experiment might be acceptable to a physicist, but the experiment Pete described would be understandable to the “Man on the Street”
    (And, Possibly even to a Politician – if it were explained to him very carefully in short, simple sentences of monosyllabic words.)

  72. “I prefer the “fee-and-dividend” .. ” -Jim Hansen
    Hansen seems to overlook the considerable transaction costs. These would result from the tension between the incentive to cheat (to be unduly rewarded) and the need to maintain fairness within the rules of the game.
    An army of bureaucrats would grow around this, including new government departments to administer emissions and determine the resulting payments. There would also be the usual advisers, accountants, and lawyers who would be paid by individuals to keep their CO2 liabilities to a minimum and/or protect them from prosecution.
    There would be endless tinkering with this legislation by governments, giving us a moving feast of interference and risk of prosecution.
    A large chunk of the money collected would therefore be lost to bureaucracy. So it is not a zero-sum-game for the ordinary man in the street.

  73. chip (17:46:05) :
    The numbers disturb me. The amount of CO2 has increased by 1/3 since the start of the industrial revolution? Big deal! And after this 33% increase it will only take a further increase of about 3% from 387 to 400 to doom the earth?
    ——-
    Chip – I make it 4%.
    If you read carefully the qoute only *seems* to say that.
    “Burning just the oil and gas sitting in known fields will drive atmospheric CO2 well over 400 ppm and ignite a devil’s cauldron of melted icecaps, bubbling permafrost, and combustible forests”
    Actually says “if we burn all known oil & gas” then …yadayada…
    So there is “semantic/pedantic deniability” (Warmers 101)
    I read it carefully as initially I thought well there’s a measurable proposition for a change but no, it will be un-said. And of course it is patently garbage.

  74. Hansen, as loony as he can be at times, is right.
    Waxman-Markey is a joke (but not in the way he says) and the G8 is pulling a fast one on the greenies. “Cap temps, not CO2!”
    Hansen keeps saying heat-trapping CO2. Someone needs to explain to him that the st 100 ppm of CO2 does 90% of the heat trapping, while what is added today by humans has practically no effect (other than fertilising plant growth).

  75. “This requires nothing less than an energy revolution based on efficiency and carbon-free energy sources. […] As engineering and cultural tipping points are reached, the phase-over to post-fossil energy sources will accelerate.”
    Hansen seems to demand a lot but says precious little on how one goes about achieving any of this.
    If he could just stop a second and really take the point of view of an African villager, or a Indian doctor, or a Russian cafe owner, just stop and start taking these other points of view, and start to wonder about the 6 billion other points of view, he’d immediately realise that what he’s asking for is not going to happen.

  76. Want some more of G8 and CO2?
    According to Allianz and WWF your CO2 sins wont be gone by using nuclear power:
    From the G8 Climate Scorecards 2009 for France:
    http://knowledge.allianz.com/en/globalissues/climate_change/climate_politics/france_scorecard_09.html
    ————-
    Emissions per GDP: 358 tons CO2 /M$*
    ….
    *Adjusted as if electricity from nuclear power was generated from natural gas. Without adjustment: 9 tons CO2 per capita, 276 tons CO2 per GDP, 86 grams CO2 per kWh
    ————-
    Uh, oh … and why is that?
    ————-
    WWF does not consider nuclear a viable policy option because of economic, environmental and safety reasons and so France’s emissions are calculated as if nuclear-generated electricity came from burning natural gas—the cleanest fossil fuel—thus moving France down to third place in the WWF/Allianz Climate Scorecards report.
    ————-
    So, avoiding CO2 is good, but using the wrong source of power is bad … no, worse … no, heresy!
    Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

  77. The joke is on Hansen. He had visions of agenda based on Green philosophy. He and his kind were taken for a ride on the political bus. When no longer found necessary, he and his kind will find themselves under the political bus.
    He was right to voice his scientific opinion. He was wrong to drive politcal agenda by bandwaggoning it.
    When the parade is over, the costumes are destined for the closet.

  78. It’s a pity we can’t tax stupidity. Just think of the revenue Hansen and Gore alone could generate…

  79. Terry (16:46:01) :
    “Of course, emission targets in 2050 have limited practical meaning — present leaders will be dead or doddering by then
    Unlike Hansen, who’s doddering today.”
    Hansenile Megalomania

    I have a ‘hypothesis.’ I reckon Hansen’s mother was prevented from eating coal when she was pregnant. Now he has to take it out on the rest of us.

  80. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthcomment/geoffrey-lean/5789961/Can-Barack-Obama-save-us-from-hell.html?state=target#postacomment&postingId=5794880
    Latest offering from the Telegraph’s new enviro-guru Lean. He has decided to climb into bed with Holdren and Prince Charles. Fortunately those who are commenting appear not to be of like mind!
    I’m not sure how this is going to play out but the warmists do seem to be getting more panic-stricken by the day. Does Hansen really really believe half of what he is saying?

  81. . The AGW climate doomers and gloomers advocate massive misallocation of money[ really borrowed tax payer’s money and a future debt] to address the false crisis of global warming, when real crises that kill tens of millions every year, like lack of health care, lack of food, lack of shelters, poverty and the preparation for future global cooling go wanting. In the US many people live in tents and in poverty without jobs while the governments spent billions of tax payer’s dollars fighting global warming that has not existed for a decade nor is it likely to return for decades. Surely one must sense the waste that is happening here with the tax payer’s money and the massive deception that now is being recognized by the public. Mother Nature has a plan to cool this planet for the next many decades and those who advocate massive reduction of fossil fuel generated energy better get their global warming furnaces running fast because they are going to be in their Bermuda shorts while a severe blizzard is raging outside. The climate of the 1960-1970s is returning as the oceans cool .The 2008/2009 winter was just the beginning of what has already started in many parts of the world.

  82. Even if it goes down in flames in the Senate, don’t think for a minute that the basic issue is dead and buried. We’ve been down that road before, and this sort of thing rises from the grave like a zombie every few years. The true believers in AC3 (or in the profit/political power to be made from it ) will not be dissuaded by what they will view as a temporary setback. They will simply adopt new tactics, don new camouflage and carry on with their holy mission.
    Look beyond this obsession with climate change and plan for the next assault on reason and liberty, whatever guise it may draped in.

  83. A counterfeit bill for a counterfeit problem seems very much like poetic justice.
    Now the prophet of doom is finding out that profits of doom don’t really give a rat’s behind what his holiness has to say.
    It would be funny if it was not going to cost us all so much before the madness ends.

  84. So CO2 is in the cauldron du jour. It wAs ice, then Y2K, ozone hole . Witch doctors always have a medium. They raise a massive threat. Fore tell evil consequences and then promise they have the key, cure or only hope. That explains where hope and change comes from. If there is no wicked ugly evil threat, they can’t sell their nasty medicine.

  85. Jim Hansen is director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, but he writes on this policy-related topic as a private citizen.….Since his job is related and possibly dependent on perpetuating the global warming catastrophe scare, ya sure we believe that he’s writing as a private citizen.
    If he’s truly writing as a “private citizen” then only mention his field of study not for whom he employed with….

  86. We should ignore Mr. Hansen (IMO, he does not deserve the title Dr. He may have earnt it, at some time, but he does not deserve the “prestiege” the title holds).

  87. @ Mark Young (05:01:03) :
    “Curiousgeorge,
    “Forget the fat lady. You’re obsessed with the fat lady.”
    :D”
    I was wondering if anyone would catch that allusion to the movie, and recognize the similarities to the climate change debate. 🙂

  88. Perhaps Jim is a CLOSET CREATIONIST.
    He seems to think the world began 600,000 years ago in the garden of Eden.
    … and he wants to bring us back there.
    If I recall correctly it was a Snake that tempted poor old Eve. Maybe he thinks that this time around it is Snake Oil that we have to fear – and he is right. The Snake Oil of Climate Alarmism is very tempting, especially to the big companies poised to make a fortune out of it.

  89. Jim Hanson does not care if people freeze to death in their houses, as long as the coal plant is closed.
    Obama does not care if families have to pay three times the price of energy, losse their jobs and their houses, as long as he and his elites can jet around the world without limitations.
    Both choose ideology at the costs of the people.
    Hanson opposing Obama…
    It’s a bit like Russia opposing Hitler Germany.
    It’s a clash of ideologies.
    In the end Obama will win unless…
    The people stop him.
    So give all of them a hard time and keep calling those Senators.

  90. John in NZ (22:57:31) :
    “Once again he tries to take the “representing himself as a private citizen” tact while at the same time citing his NASA credentials.”
    Montjoie (18:43:20) :
    “Um — I think it’s “tack” not “tact.” I think it’s a sailing term. You tack this way, then that way. But it’s not “tact” whatever it is.”
    You are right, although tack (as in tackle) is also a term for the equipment used to guide a horse. (i.e. reins, bridle etc.)

    Actually, Anthony’s usage may be viewed as proper. From Webster’s Ninth Collegiate:
    tact (1) sensitive mental or aesthetic perception, (2) a keen sense of what to do or say in order to maintain good relations with others or avoid offense.
    Personally, I would have used tacky: (1) characterized by lack of good breeding.

  91. 40 Shades of Green (06:27:10) : Perhaps Jim is a CLOSET CREATIONIST.
    Well we all consume just by being alive, so we’re all living in
    Green Original Sin.
    (With apologies to Christians everywhere.)

  92. I don’t know what you’re all complaining about. Hansen is doing you all a big favour. He’s come out with a sledgehammer and laid it into the Taxman-Marlarkey bill. His judgment is brutal: “. . . It is worse than useless.” Absolutely right! Maybe this will tip the balance in the senate.
    And what about the poor Goracle himself? He stands at the threshold of acheiving unimaginable wealth if only the carbon credit scam is passed in the senate. And here comes Hansen with his sledgehammer. You’ve got to love it. Gore must be livid with rage.

  93. Curious George is on the mark. It’s too early to break out the champagne — no matter what Senator Inhofe says or what note the fat lady can hit.
    The administration needs the revenues from cap and trade to fund health care “reform,” which is its top agenda item. Democratic Senators will be told to get in line on cap and trade or lose health care and all other legislative momentum.
    IMO, it’s a bait and switch. The issue is money, not the environment, and the government needs the specter (not Phil) of “melted icecaps, bubbling permafrost, and combustible forests from which there will be no turning back. . .” to bring about the promise of this potentially lucrative revenue stream. Simply put, what the science says about AGW is immaterial.

  94. Just a minor stylistic quibble (regarding the paragraph at the top): Hansen is taking a “tack”, not a “tact”. It’s a nautical reference regarding the direction you’re steering when sailing somewhat against the wind.

  95. 40 Shades of Green (06:27:10) :
    Perhaps Jim is a CLOSET CREATIONIST.
    He seems to think the world began 600,000 years ago in the garden of Eden.
    … and he wants to bring us back there.

    Hey! I oughta get some credit for that idea! See: (17:34:12)
    But that’s OK; great minds think alike!
    And you put it better, anyway. 😉
    /Mr Lynn

  96. Sam the Skeptic
    I also read that carelessly unresearched lash up of an article in the Telegraph and, remembered back to when I first subscribed in 1958. At that time it could be relied upon for serious factual reporting, far above the hysterical thoughtless hyperbole of the rest. (Well, OK, it was positioned a tad to the right, but that sat, and still sits well with my politics at the time).
    At lunch today I analysed why I still read the paper after 51 years and decided it was only the crossword that had maintained it’s integrity, the rest of the content and reporting now falling far short of the competence and honesty of a bygone age.
    I now confront the dilemma – is it worth 90P per day, and £2 on saturdays and sundays, just to do the crossword?

  97. All is not lost. ZDNet, which is a technicaly oriented online magazine ran an article on Dr, James Hansen titled “U.S. government whistle-blower on global warming” http://blogs.zdnet.com/green/?p=5913&tag=nl.e019
    At the bottom of the article was a survey asking to finsh the sentence…
    Dr. James Hansen, Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies,
    is a dangerous whacko. (28%)
    should be fired from his federally-supported job. (26%)
    is exercising his right to free speech. (24%)
    is an environmental hero. (21%)
    had to be more circumspect when Dick Cheney ran things. (2%)
    Looks like 54% of tech saavy people believe he is a wacko or should be fired.

  98. Another death blow to Waxman/Malarkey has emerged – Sen. John Kerry has stated that the provision which would apply tarrifs on products from countries that didn’t have similar CO2 limits (ie, China) would absolutely be stripped from the bill in the Senate, because it violated existing international trade treaties.
    This may seem minor, but it is huge – it dooms the entire bill. The reason it was added in the house is that if something like this isn’t done, then it is inevitable that every high-carbon emitting factory in the US (which would be penalized by higher costs under the new regime) would simply shut down and open up shop in non-penalizing nations such as India and China. Unemployment in the US will surge even more while the trade deficit gets worse – this would be an absolute death blow for the economy, especially with unemployment already so high. The ONLY way to stop this would be to add the trade restrictions – but now John Kerry himself has acknowledged that we can’t do that.
    Therefore, Waxman – Malarkey is dead.

  99. Roger
    You and I must be of about the same vintage and continue with the Telegraph for much the same reasons though even the crosswords have been dumbed down in recent years (how on earth can an educated(?) compiler really believe that ‘haggle’ and ‘barter’ mean the same thing?)
    The Telegraph is not alone; most of the British media are as wilfully blind to the extremist arguments as each other. At least they will accept adverse comments on the comment sites or the blogs but it is nigh on impossible to get a letter printed that takes serious issue with the climate change paradigm.
    Their current environmentalist is so obviously pursuing an agenda that he is unreadable. When did the serious newspapers stop being critical of the self-serving rubbish that special interest groups (not just AGW alarmists) churn out on a daily basis?

  100. It’s alive, it’s alive, IT’S ALIVE! It doesn’t matter what Jim Hansen or any skeptical scientist thinks. It only matters that the people accept Cap and Trade as a device to save the planet. From now on raising taxes will be as simple as lowering the caps on CO2 production (all in the name of saving the planet of course). That’s why this thing lives on in spite of the evidence of AGW’s immense bogosity. The government needs the money and they can claim they’re taking it from the evil fossil fuel energy industry in a free market sort of way. The evil fossil fuel energy companies will be the ones paying, never mind that your energy costs are going way up. Hansen and Gore must be stunned by the unstoppable nature of the avalanche they’ve started. It’s going to have to get damned cold for people to suspect they’ve been conned . . . even then many will think it an honest mistake made in a good cause.

  101. Montjoie (18:43:20) :
    “Um — I think it’s “tack” not “tact.” I think it’s a sailing term. You tack this way, then that way. But it’s not “tact” whatever it is.”
    “Tact”, Montjoie, would be to ignore the minor error to focus on the important message!
    …although I am guilty myself at times.

  102. This is a normal tactic of the left to inject themselves into debates they would otherwise not be welcome in. Here in upstate New Hampshire and Vermont, our local Valley News newspaper, as left leaning a rag of World Federalist Society propaganda and Dartmouth Liberal hogwash as you can find anywhere, has as a “local columnist” this fellow Steve Nelson, who is in fact headmaster of the Calhoun School in New York City. He happens to have had a family vacation house in the area for many years, so, like many of the city slicker liberals in the area, likes to pretend he is a “local” when opinion on local and national issues, as if he’s just folks like everybody else in the area and his opinion is a moderate voice in the local community. That many residents of the community have called BS on this obvious farce poses no shame for the Valley Snooze, they continue to claim him as a local columnist, as he opines on his anti-gun, anti-hunting, anti-logging, anti-development, anti-Constitution, anti-War, pro-socialism, pro-single-payer-healthcare, pro-warmist, pro-UN, pro-Islamist, pro-multiculturalism, pro-big-government agenda which is hardly in keeping with the local traditional values.
    I am sure that other readers of this blog from other rural regions can name someone similar that writes for their local left leaning newspaper. This is one of the left’s typical “moving the middle” tactics. Convincing the likely idiots in the community whose opinions come from going along with the crowd that such a person represents the moderate middle is the way to tip elections.
    You are absolutely right that nobody would give a hoot what private citizen Jim Hansen thinks about global warming. His voice only matters because he is a NASA scientist. His voice should likewise be throttled like every other government bureaucrat. He is a public servant, and servants are seen and not heard.

  103. If I am a “hypothethical” family of four, and gasoline has gone up $1/gal, how much gasoline per year would I buy? Let’s assume that I still drive to work, and take the family on vacation each year, and still have enough to visit the grandparents. Even if we don’t cut back (we would), it comes up to about $1500 per year of revenue for the government, who would promptly send it right back to us (even Jim can’t believe that WHOPPER).
    So where does the rest of the $4500 – $7500 come from?
    Oh yeah, the evil coal burners, who will be driven out of business. If they are driven out of business, how will they keep sending me checks?
    I guess it will be the evil oil companies, but that is already in the gasoline bill.
    Looks like we are going to need another villian in this story, to send me the money I was promised. Any volunteers?

  104. “”” Mr Lynn (17:34:12) :
    . . .The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere now stands at 387 parts per million, the highest level in 600,000 years and more than 100 ppm higher than the amount at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. Burning just the oil and gas sitting in known fields will drive atmospheric CO2 well over 400 ppm and ignite a devil’s cauldron of melted icecaps, bubbling permafrost, and combustible forests from which there will be no turning back. . . “””
    Well that 600,000 year record is based on what people retrieved from some tiny samples of ice from just a handful of spots on earth. Ice is well known as a good place to store stuff for geological time frames; we should store nuclear fuel waste in ice.
    Actually over real geologic time scales we are now enjoying the lowest CO2 levels that earth has ever had. I say enjoying, but actually the plants are suffering from lack of CO2.
    You say (in effect) ,we have gone up 100 ppm during the industrial age. From 280 to 387. That is just peanuts; remember that the “climate sensitivity”, the Rosetta Stone of climatology, goes as the log of the CO2; a PhD chap told us so ;( I should get a PhD in ice cream making or something ). So 387/280 = 1.382 = 2^0.4669
    IPCC says CS =3 deg C perdoubling, so industrial age temperature rise is 0.4669 x 3 = 1.4(007) deg C
    Of course we don’t have any idea what the global temperature was prior to about 1980, because what we were measuring was total nonsense, before then; and we can’t fix it.
    Of course the total range of temperatures to be found on earth (surface) is more than 100 times that supposedly serious 1.4 deg rise; not counting the lava coming out of volcanoes and such places.
    Evidently we can’t get above 22 deg C for some reason; well we haven’t in the last 600 million years; which is 1000 times longer than Mr Lynn’s history. After 600 megayears, you might get the impression that something is working to stop us from heating the place over 22 deg. C.
    My guess is it’s those pesky oceans out there; I read somewhere on these hallowed pages, that the SSTs can’t get above 305K. That’s 31.85 deg C
    Even that temperature doesn’t seem to bother anything; and if it does they can always move to cooler water.
    Anyone remember that cowboy song about a howlin dawg, you know the mutt that is sitting on a thorn, and is too darn lazy to move ?

  105. Sam the Skeptic ,
    Thanks for the link , from which I garnered this – ” there is no proff , there is only the belief in the idea , because they haven’t thought of anything else .” Exactly . The Telegraph is worth it for Christopher Booker . Of course , I read it online for free .

  106. ~snip~
    ~dbstealey, moderator
    REPLY: Mr. Bowman, you might want to consider whether your comments to this blog fit within NASA’s “acceptable use policy” during work hours on the taxpayers dime. What is most troubling is that a NASA scientist has not the courage to put his name to his words. But given the wording, I suppose I’d try to hide also. – Anthony Watts

  107. We better hope there is a sensible senator (I know that’s asking a lot) who will invite someone like Monckton to counter every Hansen point. Our Senators would eat this kind of rhetoric up, they live for it, and obviously don’t have the common sense to counter it.

  108. Theo Lichacz (08:03:50) :
    “If Hansen is upset maybe this will make him apoplectic”
    http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/3755623/meet-the-man-who-has-exposed-the-great-climate-change-con-trick.thtml
    Much as we admire Professor Plimer, to give credit where it is due – Michael Crichton wrote “State of Fear” in 2004. While not science or anywhere near the consummate work of Prf. Plimer – Michael did raise the issue of bad AGW science in a particularly hostile atmosphere. And he took enormous heat for it. Fortunately for both men – it is turning out for the best.


  109. ~snip~
    ~dbstealey, moderator
    REPLY: Mr. Bowman, you might want to consider whether your comments to this blog fit within NASA’s “acceptable use policy” during work hours on the taxpayers dime. What is most troubling is that a NASA scientist has not the courage to put his name to his words. But given the wording, I suppose I’d try to hide also. – Anthony Watts

    ….Inquiring minds want to know!!!

  110. George E. Smith (09:29:09) :
    “”” Mr Lynn (17:34:12) :
    . . .The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere now stands at 387 parts per million, the highest level in 600,000 years and more than 100 ppm higher than the amount at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. . .”
    Evidently we can’t get above 22 deg C for some reason; well we haven’t in the last 600 million years; which is 1000 times longer than Mr Lynn’s history. . .

    George! That was HANSEN I was guoting in the blockquote! You’ve got me confused with him! Aaaaagh!
    /Mr Lynn

  111. Dr. Hansen says this about Taxman/Malarkey– “Their bill is an astoundingly inefficient way to get a tiny reduction of [CO2] emissions.”
    He then outlines a more efficient way to get a tiny reduction.

  112. Uh. The failed policy in Vietnam was the failure to support the Vietnamese (as we had promised to do) after we had won the war.
    And just to go a little OT – it looks like we are going down that same path in Iraq.
    When Democrats run the government they seem to be unable to support our allies and snub our enemies.

  113. There is an alternative, of course, and that is a carbon fee, applied at the source (mine or port of entry) that rises continually. I prefer the “fee-and-dividend” version of this approach in which all revenues are returned to the public on an equal, per capita basis, so those with below-average carbon footprints come out ahead.
    A carbon fee-and-dividend would be an economic stimulus and boon for the public. By the time the fee reached the equivalent of $1/gallon of gasoline ($115/ton of CO2) the rebate in the United States would be $2000-3000 per adult or $6000-9000 for a family with two children.

    All I can tell is that Hansen is no economist, whether acting as a NASA scientist or a private citizen.
    There also appears to be a wide gap between his rhetoric on coal and his actions. If coal trains really are to be compared to trains taking Jews to concentration camps (a hideous comparison that I refuse to justify for a second) then the consistent response would be to have them closed down immediately. All of them.
    Its strange that Hansen never articulates the obvious conclusion of his argument.

  114. Yes, he certainly is unhinged. Apparently, nobody ever told Dr. Hansen that forests are far more likely to combust in a highly oxygenated atmosphere than one that has a marginally higher concentration of CO2.

  115. “Hansen unhinged on G-8 failure” – shouldn’t “Hansen unhinged” have been sufficient?
    I do believe in the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis however. Just look at the GISS and Hadley temperatures soar even as I freeze to death (in NZ). Both Hansen and Jones are Anthropods.

  116. Strangely, as much as I don’t share Mr Hansens’ beliefs or rhetoric, I am beginning to admire him. Whatever he does, and however he does it, is underpinned by genuine and unselfish motives.
    Sadly, he’s wagered his shirt on the wrong horse, angered his fair-weather friends and is heading for a future bankrupted by an idealism that didn’t go down well with band-wagon politicals.
    Step down mate, look to your future – you tried. No more could be asked.

  117. Hansen, the sky-is-falling bureaucrat gets more incoherent the more he writes. Bashing the Reps for not reading the energy tax bill is sophomoric. Of course they don’t read the bills, their staffs do, for which we pay them a million bucks per Rep. It’s been like that for decades now. More important, Hansen says nothing about the global cooling this century, and how the CO2 buildup may be influencing that. By the way, what is the global temp we’re trying to achieve, and why would that be better than what we have experienced over the past century?

  118. I would post my Jim Hansen joke, but it would just get snipped — again.
    (By person or persons who have my own best interest at heart!)

  119. By the way, love the “Taxman-Malarkey” epitaph for the energy bill. It should be on everybody’s tongue, as well as everybody’s exhaled breath.

  120. How Hell Tiptoes In….
    “The first official forward pass occurred on September 5, 1906 in a game between the St. Louis University Billikens and the Carroll College Pioneers. St. Louis halfback Bradbury Robinson completed a 20-yard pass to receiver Jack Schneider that he ran in for a touchdown. St. Louis won the game 22-0 and went on to post an 11-0 record that season using the new “open-style” game. They went on to outscore their opponents that season 407-11.”
    This isn’t about football. Football is a game. To borrow a phrase from the kids “Obama don’t play.” People know something is wrong, terribly wrong. They think they know how to fix it. The talking heads on the radio tell them to do it. THEY know, don’t they? NO. The eleven coach’s whose teams played St. Louis that year knew football, but….football had changed. The old tricks didn’t work for them. The old political moves won’t help you either. Obama has found a way around them and somebody better find a defense fast. This isn’t a game; it’s your country and your life.
    “Oh, it only passed the House. We’ll stop it in the Senate.” No, you won’t. See that ball flying over your head to that player way the hell down field? What’s he doing down there anyway? Winning the game. Heck, you don’t have anybody down there to stop him at all, do you? Game over. Learn the new rules, make up some new defenses or just snap on your slave chains, America. Forget “stopping cap and trade”. Once CO2 is declared a “dangerous pollutant” the EPA, an agency in the EXECUTIVE department can create any and all rules and regulations that it wants. Since Obama can fire them, they want what the Fuhrer wants.
    Hey, want to call your congressman about the crazy idea that you kid can’t bring Kool-Aid or Cokes or Cake to a birthday party at her school. The band or the team or ANYBODY can’t sell candy or control the vending machines to raise money? Forget it. Your congressman is as powerless as you and your local school board once the recent legislation has been passed putting the Commerce Dept in charge of ALL FOOD AND DRINK sold, eaten or consumed in a school. That would be —– part of the EXECUTIVE area of ”your” government aka Senor Obama. Too bad.
    Know anything about “treaties”? Probably not much except that the US broke quite a few with the Indians. Well, actually the Indians sued eventually and won quite a bit of money from Uncle Sam. Actually, the Indians sued with more or less success back in the 1800’s. You see TREATIES are LAW. They actually rank above all federal and state laws except the constitution itself. So…… If we sign a law saying that the USA will cut CO2 emmissions by some ridiculous amount or any other silly promise remember…. This AIN’T the 1800’s and if the President wants to enforce it, he will and he CAN. Sorry, nothing much your little friends in “Congress” can do about it very easily. They can’t just pass a law, they have to figure out how to abrogate the treaty. Without the President’s cooperation that would be 2/3 of both houses of congress. How often has THAT happened in the last 10 years? Look it up. It will scare you better.
    Here’s the point people. You and I elected a madman. With absolutely no experience in anything at all except theoretical law — a area where you just SAY something to make it real — he fully expects the word to be your bond. As a matter of fact, he signed a bunch or treaties with Russia the other day and some more with the G8 nations. He announced that we won’t be waiting for that silly old tradition of having Congress OK them. We will just start enforcing them immediately.
    Remember that forward pass. The first game it’s understandable people were suprised, but for 11 straight games team after team lost and lost big. We can’t afford that kind of record against the University of Obama Screws U. but it’s probably coming anyway. Try to explain THIS ONE to your “congressman”. Betcha he don’t get it.
    From http://www.moronpolitics.com

  121. I am sorry to see Dr. Hansen represent the pop culture image of “scientist”: a conflation of theorist, propagandist, activist, and politician.

  122. July 13, 2009
    Last business to leave California turn out the lights
    “Sacramento State College of Business Administration and Center for Small Business have complete a study of AB32 greenhouse gas emissions. According to the study, implementing the AB32 will cost nearly $50,000 per small business in California. They are expected to release the study following a news conference starting at 10 AM in Sacramento this morning. Stay Tuned.
    And the Legislature is scratching their heads as to why the California Economy is not recovering. Are they really that clueless or are we dealing with a global warming religious issue, for which there are no compromises and science does not count.” “The cost of AB32”
    http://ncwatch.typepad.com/media/2009/07/the-cost-of-ab32.html

Comments are closed.