There’s an essay by Dr. James Hansen in the Guardian, the header of which is shown below. Next time people accuse of “big oil” connections for skeptics, point out that the most pro-agw newspaper on the planet is pushing Shell Oil ads.
That distraction aside, Dr. Hansen has some stunning things to say, excerpts below.
“The fraudulence of the Copenhagen approach – “goals” for emission reductions, “offsets” that render ironclad goals almost meaningless, the ineffectual “cap-and-trade” mechanism – must be exposed. We must rebel against such politics as usual.”
…
“Governments are stating emission goals that they know are lies – or, if we want to be generous, they do not understand the geophysics and are kidding themselves.”
…
Cap and trade with offsets, in contrast, is astoundingly ineffective. Global emissions rose rapidly in response to Kyoto, as expected, because fossil fuels remained the cheapest energy.
It is clear that Hansen doesn’t agree with the current direction. The plan that he outlines, while radical, certainly seems less damaging than “cap and trade”, which is primed for abuse and corruption of the system.
Read the complete article here at the Guardian
Hansen the activist:
“Are we going to stand up and give global politicians a hard slap in the face, to make them face the truth? It will take a lot of us – probably in the streets.”
As much as I find myself agreeing with some of his sentiments (he is one smart man)….on the other hand I agree with some of the other posters here…that he is flirting with insanity.
Certainly some narcissistic and paranoid characteristics rule his brain.
QUESTION: What in the blankety blank Sam Hill is a GOVERNMENT employee, a public servant, one who gets his paycheck from the taxpayer, voicing his opinion as he does here, trotting across the globe inciting protests, and blocking coal plants???
Hahaha remember his Global Warming Protest that he organized that was almost shut down by a heavy March snowstorm in DC this year??
Does he ever learn??
No he doesn’t. For all his brilliance….he IS mad.
And he continues as the NASA Goddard director…because this administration has NO qualms whatsoever…of keeping him on.
Madness….and at the taxpayer’s expense.
Hey Jim….GET back to astronomy and do your job (you work for us!).
Or bugger off.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Now THIS is the kind of thing the Australian Libs should be all over. Oppose the ETS/CPRS because BOTH sides of science oppose it – skeptics and warmists alike. You guys may dislike Hansen but what an ally in the push against an ETS.
“This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted. ”
“This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted. ”
“This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted. ”
Man o man. Censorship is ugly. More ugly than death threats or swear words. I’d much rather have a “I am an adult and I want to see mad, sweary or mean comments too” option than have moderators hide comments.
Still at least you can see censorhip at the graun. The Times has been auto suppressing my comments for three years, since I pointed out the Mathew Parris was a liar.
Just Read the Sunday Oregonian-cover to cover-nothing at all except-Our fearless state govn’t has been giving away huge taxbreaks to “Green”-read giant Bird shredders,power companies.Breaking the bank our-taxes in the process.Two,
an article on the declining snowpack-showing pictures of Mt. Hood in 1985, then 2006
in a dry year of course.No mention of the recent abundant snowpacks, of course….
We are being lied to…
Well, Hansen isn’t stupid, and he’s got some talking points on this particular issue. He’s still about 90° off course, nonetheless, but that’s an improvement. I say we ask him to comment here on carbon taxes vs ‘capped&betrayed.
OT: In other unrelated news: “Complexes contain archetypal images that lie latent in the unconscious until being somehow stimulated, at which time they can, in certain cases, take complete or partial possession of the personality.
“The idea and image of (a) Messiah appear to be innate (archetypal) potentialities in the human psyche. When activation occurs, some confused individuals misidentify themselves with this archetypal image, resulting in a dangerous form of ego-inflation seen typically in schizophrenic patients, or those suffering from delusional disorder or severe manic episodes.”
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evil-deeds/200805/messiahs-evil-part-three
I have trouble trusting James Hansen and George Monbiot even if we seem to find occasional common ground. But who knows, maybe they’ll drop their politics and environmentalism one day and see some unbiased light.
Within the past week WUWT ran a piece on New Zealand temperatures with a graph having the past temperatures lowered, prior to 1955ish, and raised thereafter. Looked curiously like GISS temperatures, must be a coincidence. Hansen may be on a different track than the CRU cabal, but I can’t help thinking the kettle is calling the pot black.
I see the grab for cash has started already:
http://en.cop15.dk/news/view+news?newsid=2737
I think the following comment particularly revealing:
“But if poorer nations see too little offered up front, the UN conference could end in discord.”
Now we start to see what this is all about. Herein lies the real problem… the poorer nations have been told there is going to be something in it for them (i.e. a cash grab) but they haven’t seen their money yet and they are getting antsy. Bribes don’t work if you don’t have a bag full of cash…
These scientists clearly have an political agenda.
Noticed a presentation bt Gavin Schmidt that he gave at ICCC Hong Kong Oct 2009.
Not much science in that presentation..
Here it is,,,
http://www.iccc2009.org/ufiles/ppt/ICCC2009%20Presentation%20-%20Mr.%20Gavin%20Schmidt.pdf
Hansen has reached a personal tipping point, the line between sanity and obsession. Can anyone point me to the proof for his claim that 350 ppm of CO2 is the correct amount for a stable climate? A stable climate?
Hansen is no longer an objective scientist, he is an ideologue and a dangerous one at that.
Quoting Mike Lorrey:
“Alaska resident earns $1500-2000 per year from oil revenues…Now, a problem with this whole concept of course is where is the money coming from to pay for all this?”
Commenting:
You are neglecting (as most do) the royalties that oil companies pay to the mineral owners. On state lands and near offshore the state gets 12 to 25 % (before taxing the rest). On federal lands or federal offshore (usually 3+ miles) the feds get that. Alaska can return money to the residents because their population is small compared to the oil production. California, to use a different example, spends all the royalties and more and more, ad infinitum.
Hansen needs to be sitting in front of a Congressional investigation, not running his mouth in the papers.
It’s very simple.
Hansen belongs to the environmental activists that intend to shackle the world population under a communist rule.
Gore’s track is a corporatist approach, read fascist.
Both have the potential to screw up our lives, so I reject them both.
They are pure evil ideologies and both Gore and Hanson belong behind bars.
Just to expand what Nigel S wrote about the Guardian surviving on government job advertising, a considerable part of that is … jobs at the BBC! Media Guardian is the principal route into Al Beeb. Unless you were at Oxford or Cambridge, of course, and therefore already have some little chums on the inside.
How cosy.
The part about The Guardian publishing ads from oil companies doesn’t show what you want it to, unfortunately. You seem to be saying that
1) The Guardian takes advertising money from oil companies
2) The Guardian still publishes stories about climate change
3) Therefore, because (2) is true and (3) is also true, it must be true that the money from the oil companies has no influence on what The Guardian produces
4) Because the money from the oil companies has no influence on what The Guardian produces, money from oil companies has no influence on what any group produces
5) Therefore, because of (4), any study published that refutes climate change cannot be discredited because it was funded by oil companies
The problem is with (4). That The Guardian retains editorial control does not mean that other groups/companies/etc do as well. I’m sure there are ways to argue against the “all the studies denying climate change were funded by oil companies” attack if in fact those studies are reality-based, but this certainly isn’t it.
checking out wordpress…
Can you provide more information on this? take care