Patrick J. MICHAELS: China-style dictatorship of climatologists
NASA’s Hansen prefers rule by decree to fight ‘global warming’
Excerpts: From the Washington Times Monday, January 17, 2011
November’s election made it quite clear that the people of the United States do not want to radically change our society in the name of global warming. Pretty much every close House race went to the Republicans, while the Democrats won all the Senate squeakers. The difference? The House on June 26, 2009, passed a bill limiting carbon-dioxide emissions and getting into just about every aspect of our lives. The Senate did nothing of the sort.
The nation’s most prominent publicly funded climatologist is officially angry about this, blaming democracy and citing the Chinese government as the “best hope” to save the world from global warming. He also wants an economic boycott of the U.S. sufficient to bend us to China’s will.
…
According to Mr. Hansen, compared to China, we are “the barbarians” with a “fossil-money- ‘democracy’ that now rules the roost,” making it impossible to legislate effectively on climate change. Unlike us, the Chinese are enlightened, unfettered by pesky elections. Here’s what he blogged on Nov. 24:
“I have the impression that Chinese leadership takes a long view, perhaps because of the long history of their culture, in contrast to the West with its short election cycles. At the same time, China has the capacity to implement policy decisions rapidly. The leaders seem to seek the best technical information and do not brand as a hoax that which is inconvenient.”
Read the whole story at the Washington Times
h/t to Leif Svalgaard
I don’t think Hansen wants the US to be ruled BY China. He wants us to be ruled LIKE China. The actual ruling would be done by him and his friends who know what is best for the entire world and are more than willing to tell us what to do.
“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”
— H.L. Mencken
From John Brookes, the Apologist, on January 18, 2011 at 6:34 pm:
Pull the other one.
Here in the USA we have the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to determine who is eligible to buy firearms. This check is performed prior to completing the purchase.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics
Refer to the Fact Sheet:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/general-information/fact-sheet
Among the “Federal Categories of Persons Prohibited From Receiving” firearms is the following:
Of course, first one needs to be officially identified as a “fruitcake” then that info must be forwarded to the FBI, before they will get flagged by NICS. As we heard regarding the recent Tuscon shooting tragedy, as we too often hear when such happen, there were numerous opportunities for various officials to have sent the shooter off to a mental health evaluation, as the wording goes “to determine if they are a threat to themselves and/or others,” but the officials didn’t do so, thus the shooter wasn’t officially known as a “fruitcake.”
Meanwhile, for legally possessing automatic weapons (machine guns) there’s another layer of governmental blessing to secure. They are covered by the National Firearms Act (NFA) and other statutes, subject to National Firearm Registration, administration of such by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF). Technically, manufacturers, makers, and importers register NFA firearms, they are transferred to qualifying individuals. Review the relevant ATF FAQ:
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/national-firearms-act-firearms.html
There is a lengthy application process involved, including the submission of photos and fingerprints. Since all such weapons must be thusly registered, and there can be no transfers without ATF approval, there are no allowable private transfers between individuals of these weapons, whereas transfer of non-NFA firearms may be allowable without going through an ATF licensee thus without the NICS check.
There may also be additional state and local burdens to acquiring ownership of automatic weapons.
Therefore, if it is officially known by the US government (FBI) that a person is a “fruitcake,” that person is not allowed to purchase automatic weapons in the USA. You are wrong.
And neither was the fruitcake I ate at Christmas.
☺
John Brookes says:
January 18, 2011 at 6:34 pm
As for this wonderful faith in the USA, do you ever try and see yourselves as the rest of the world sees you?
Well, John, at least the people you say have “this wonderful faith in the USA” are presumeably viewing and judging the USA based upon living there under its fairly unique individualist Constitution, and are not merely Europeans referring to America’s role in defeating Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union’s enslavement of Eastern Europe. While, in contrast, you not only don’t live there, you also apparently think you speak for the whole freaking “rest of the world”! Which seems a bit more narcissistic, don’t you think?
And, John, just because President Obama has declared himself “partners with God in matters of life and death”, please don’t think the rest of us freedom loving Americans automatically share his megalomaniacal totalitarian delusions. You and Hansen might, but we don’t.
John Brookes says:
January 18, 2011 at 6:34 pm
Please obtain some knowledge of the United States before you criticize us. The majority of what you said was substantially wrong.
Is the problem simple ignorance or are you holding some kind of grudge? Who knows, maybe it’s “patriotic blinkers.”
The 2000 election was won legitimately, challenged, the challenger overruled, and the (unofficial) recount won by the same person who won the first time. Assange didn’t just release embarrassing information, he participated in espionage, which is probably even illegal in your country. Your “party of crazies” observation is simply personal prejudice on your part, everyone thinks their political opposition is crazy, without exception. Your minor treatise on subsidies is disjointed and contradictory, but the number of people who “wait to death” in countries with government-controlled medical care is not encouraging. The problem of inappropriate subsidies is hardly an “American problem.”
As is pointed out above, “fruitcakes” are not “allowed” to purchase “automatic” weapons, automatic weapons are heavily regulated and limited to a narrow registered pool – no new ones are allowed to be added to private ownership at all since 1986. There are laws against the mentally ill owning firearms, the law cannot be blamed if an official does not follow it.
There were 23 “pretexts” for invading Iraq (listed in the authorization – I think 2 of them may have been vague or repetetive). Iraq had previously repeatedly used WMDs, and were actively pursuing development of more. We recovered a substantial number of tons of WMDs from Iraq, would you like to swim in it? That’s not counting the amount supposedly smuggled to Syria and later blown up (thanks Israel!) at a weapons research site under construction.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure there’s *something* you know that comports well with reality, just nothing we’re talking about here.
The US is “just like every other country in the world” in relatively few ways, objectively. That is as far away as possible from saying that “a person” anywhere in the world is less valuable nor deserves a shot at freedom and happiness – but that attitude, again, distinguishes us from many countries.
We don’t claim to be perfect, and we don’t have to claim to be different, that much is obvious.
As a token sop to the topic, what Hansen is advocating is tyranny, quite literally, by claiming that imposition of his views is simply more efficient than letting people decide. The problem with this viewpoint is that the people doing the imposing are also people – and just as dumb and error-prone as the people they impose upon.
Not to mention the particularly brutal and bloody history (and current events) of the example he chose.
I’m kind of aghast that anyone thinks this is an appropriate thing to say. It’s some sort of bizarre compartmentalization that thinks you can strip everyone of the protection of law and participatory government and the result *won’t* be massive bloodshed, and the same old mental flaw that causes people to say things like “it would have worked if the right people had been in charge.”
At this point I can only shake my head.
The only defense I have of my huge semi-topical post is that the controversial part of the original statement this is about is essentially political.
/weak defense
‘Mycroft’ said “Perhaps you should read all the article Peter or it is Devionian i get confused when you post under different names.”
LOL, I don’t have a clue who you are, you quite clearly know who I am. I am the one taking the risk by being honest about who I am, you are the one hiding your identity.
Peter H.
We’ve crossed keyboards on netweather i seem to remember,if you “taking a risk” (whatever that means )why not post under the name you’ve posted on here before
Devionain….who’s being honest now!!
Mycroft,
I post here as Peter H, I used to post using my full name until somebody decided to dig about and use what he found against me – I’m not aware I’ve use the other name I use on weather/climate forums on WUWT.
Since using your real name is something you choose not to do, I think it’s rich you lecturing me on what name I should use. I’ve learnt that using your full name exposes one to the kind of post you make but can’t have made of you. So, go away and come back and criticise me when you are in a position so to do.
Anyway, enough, I’m not here to debate who I am with a pseudonym but to point out the barrage of insults a fine scientist is receiving – if that barrage of insults is science then my name is Mycroft…[is this really adding much to the debate? . . Anthony thinks we should all be using our real names and I agree]
The ignorance displayed by the Hansens and the Brookes of the world is disappointing, but quite obviously not correctable.
We can only strive to keep these people out of power long enough for them to prove their ignorance to the public, then time will take care of them. In the meantime, please teach your children not only to obtain, but to try to understand, all of the available evidence before taking a controversial position on a topic. If they do that, they will soon realize how little they actually know, and how questionable any position is.
Peter H
Sorry but it cuts no ice with me, you posted here With both names, the fact you choose to use your real name now is neither here or there and tarring every one with the same brush is not on. I know who you are Peter H or Devionain i’ve no need to dig nor has any one else. And i was not lecturing you i merely pointed out to you to read the article.
No, insults are not science. Nor is pal review,having to adjust raw data to suit the message,or lack of willing to engage in sceintific debate. etc etc etc etc.
people can can change names and pseudonym’s …..how do think i know who you are, if you post under one name……..no problem’ s arise!
This fits in with the Plan B follow up to Cancun – (see Beyond a Global Deal – A “U.N. Plus” Approach to Climate Governance at http://www.brookings.edu/events/2011/0119_climate_governance.aspx
Peter H says:
January 19, 2011 at 5:48 am
I’m not here to debate who I am with a pseudonym but to point out the barrage of insults a fine scientist is receiving – if that barrage of insults is science then my name is Mycroft
The thing that you keep missing is that Hansen is a scientist in name only. What he espouses has only the trappings of science, but which is actually merely a Belief system which you apparently have bought hook, line, and sinker. He makes a fine snake oil salesman, I’ll give him that. In an earlier era, folks like him would have either been laughed at, or perhaps tarred and feathered. His treatment here is the modern-day equivalent to tarring and feathering, and well-deserved.
I wonder what Hansen thought when China torpedoed all the wonderful plans at COP 15 in Copenhagen?
Is this guy really that stupid?? Personally, I just think he’s 100% certifiably nuts. His “Venus Syndrome” stuff gives me the creeps.
John Brookes says:
January 18, 2011 at 9:24 pm
Ah yes, Tom of Florida, I’d forgotten the old dictum, “never attribute to malice that which can equally well be ascribed to stupidity”, which seems to apply in spades to Florida’s electoral laws.
John, I guess you missed Tom’s point about the Fla. recount not being about “stupid” Florida electoral laws, but instead about the Gore/Progressive “win at any cost” to existing law by “whatever means necessary”?
Tom in Florida says:
January 18, 2011 at 7:57 pm
This is when an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was made but not about the recount but rather about the Florida Supreme Court trying to rewrite the law themselves.
Right, and that was my “first clue” that something very bad was up with the Fla. Supreme Court: as I recall, on a thursday they ruled to extend the vote “certification” time of 8 days from the election before they even heard the case on extending the certification time, 4 days later on monday! After all, the weekend was fast approaching, and just who is the Florida Legislature, anyway, to have passed these suddenly inconvenient State election laws?
Then, John, again as I recall, nearly at the end of the whole fiasco, the Fla. Supreme Court struck again and overturned the hearing findings of at least two Democrat Judges who had ruled favorably on the adequacy of the votes in two of the “challenged” voting precincts, and also ruled that Fla. needed to do a total State recount [say what?] – which I don’t think was even asked for[?] in the appeal and which hadn’t been questioned before – which would have made it impossible for the Florida vote per se to seat Fla.’s electors because of too little time, in which case Gore would have won the Presidential election! Except that the Republican dominated Fla. Legislature would have seated Fla.’s electors in time according to its own powers, but which would probably have been challenged by “Gore” up the the USSC, therefore maybe running out the clock as to seating the Fla. electors? So the USSC ruled to put and end to the matter, and the effete Judge Breyer began whinning about the 5-4 decision as the most egregious thing ever done by the USSC, as though the USSC never has 5-4 decisions!
@John Brookes, January 18, 2011 at 6:34 pm
I have a horrible feeling that you may be a Brit. I do hope not. But let me take your last point first. You say:
“The US is a good place, with some flaws – just like most other countries on earth. Actually, given that the US gave us the internet, google, facebook etc etc etc, it must have some really wonderful things going for it. On the other hand, it also gave us Macca’s, KFC and Starbucks, so its not all good…..”
Well, my G*d, aren’t you the most patronising poster!
Not content with displaying your own ignorance and lack of depth in argument and civilised discourse, you run a pretty slimy diversion by taking a poke at American know-how and get-up-and-go. Well, for that you shall be known; and for that you shall be dismissed in the company of serious debaters.
You start your comments by trying to answer the points raised about Dr Hansen’s ‘outrageous predictions’, and you don’t seem to find them outrageous in the least. Instead to try to hang a thread on the word ‘eventually’ – which, as far as you’re concerned means far, far away. But it could just as easily mean soon. However, when it comes to the claim that ‘sea levels will rise 75M when we reach 55oppm’, you seem to welcome this. As if you look forward with relish that this calamitous event will happen: ‘Oh goody’, you say. How very poor, I say.
And let me tell you, you can’t strike the argument by just stating: ‘Could be alarmist, could be true’. That might be the Gore school of science (where you learnt all about the ‘precautionary principle, no doubt), but in the world of real scientists and intellects, the Gallic shrug does not count. You cannot base the spending of trillions of tax dollars on the definition of your ‘could’.
BTW: can you tell us about the ‘extinction of… large animals [caused by humans]’? I mean, other than Gore’s polar bears? You just open your mouth to change feet, don’t you?
You ask if we skeptics are keeping an open mind. Well, I’ll tell you, I tend to find the minds of skeptics to be a darned sight more open and receptive of opposing views than religionists like you. Where you may think you have an open mind, I tend to the belief that you confuse ‘open’ with ‘blank’. That is, you have nothing in it, at least, an original thought outside the construct of Al Gore’s ridiculous claims.
As for ‘(you) guys attacking climate scientists’, you should understand a couple of things: 1. they are not all climate scientists (Hansen is an astronomer), 2. scientific argument and skepticism is the way science works, Where the ‘attacks’ take place is where corruption and anti-science exists. You should be prepared to join with us in that, if you had an open mind.
And then you go on to unfavourably compare Hansen and Trenberth et al with the likes of Monckton: I really, honestly wonder, have you EVER read anything Monckton has written, or viewed any of his lectures? Have you got the smarts to actually (and so arrogantly) even begin to measure the man, who Gore and his ilk REFUSE to engage in any form of debate? And his ‘Lordship’ (as you so patronisingly put it – my, you do have an enormous chip on your very slight shoulders) has had many detractors who have tried and failed in debate with him. He himself, will always tell you (I have seen him do so) that he is NOT telling you HE is right. He just points out the discrepancies in the AGW argument and asks YOU to look for the validation of the proof he offers. You really do know not whereof you speak.
And then you go on to heap your bilious patronage on the country that singularly maintains the freedom of the democratic world (OK, along with Great Britain) and you wonder why the other posters here think you talk out of your rear end (as it happens, as most of what you talk is utter ‘merde’, it’s a good place to have you voice!).
I urge you, once again, in the spirit of open-ness and balanced debate to spend a bit of time researching more on Monckton and Carter. And if you ever dared to post such comments as you have placed here against a post by Willis Eschenbach, I fear you would be talking out of a brand-new orifice when he has finished with you.
Isn’t the word “desolate” just apocalyptic rhetoric contradicted by the optimal evidence?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/desolate
–adjective
1. barren or laid waste; devastated
===
Earth’s Climatic History
[…] By 5000 to 3000 BC average global temperatures reached their maximum level during the Holocene and were 1 to 2 degrees Celsius warmer than they are today. Climatologists call this period the Climatic Optimum. During the Climatic Optimum, many of the Earth’s great ancient civilizations began and flourished.
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7x.html
===========
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/optimum
–noun
1. the best or most favorable point, degree, amount, etc., as of temperature, light, and moisture for the growth or reproduction of an organism.
===========
“Plants are able to use more carbon dioxide than the .03 to .04 percent that naturally occurs in the air. By increasing the amount of carbon dioxide to .10 to .15 percent (1000 to 1500 ppm.), plants grow two to three times as fast, providing that light, water and nutrients are not limiting. […]
The demands of carbon dioxide-enriched plants are much greater than normal and plants require increased maintenance. They use nutrients, water*, and space about twice as fast as normal. A higher temperature range (24 to 30C), will help stimulate more rapid chemical processes within the super plants. […]
In fact, some people get frustrated using carbon dioxide. It causes plants to grow so fast, that unsuspecting gardeners are unable to keep up with them.”
Gardening Indoors (revised ed.), George F. Van Patten, 1995
============
Why do you believers think that the cool and malnourished atmosphere we have today is the ideal condition?
Khwarizmi says:
“Why do you believers think that the cool and malnourished atmosphere we have today is the ideal condition?”
It may not be, but it is roughly what human civilisation has adjusted to. The problem may not be any final new climate state we find ourselves in, but it will be in the getting there.
You do realize that humans have not “adjusted” to the global average temperature, right? We live in an extremely wide range oof climates and can withstand even larger extremes without any effort. I don’t know of any location that is at the average all the time. In fact, the point about warmer being better, when made in reference to an “ideal climate,” has almost nothing to do with humans and almost everything to do with plant life.
Mark
The article written is in response to Hansen’s call to China to lead the way in the fighting global warming. Its not at all the fiction that those at dreamed up at the Washington Times. The Washington Times has a poor reputation for truthful reporting – see Wikipedia “Washington Times”
Anyway, for those that care to read the real essay about what Hansen wrote, its a good positive piece. Its in the November 3 South China Morning Post. Google Hansen and South China Morning Post or follow this link.
http://www.johnenglander.net/sites/default/files/Jim%20Hansen%20China%20OpEd%20110310.pdf
Humm, John Brooks has the temerity to refer to ‘Lord’ Mockton as ‘his lordship’ and make some criticism of the US and Snotrocket replys (a post that is one long ad hom) that John Brooks is ‘patronising’, ‘ignorant’, ‘religionist’, ‘arrogant’ and talking out of you know where (presumably using his ‘blank’ mind). And then (LOL!) Snotrock claims it’s this place is one of ‘serious debate’.
Give the Snotrocket a loud halier – he needs to be heard more widely!
Mark T:
“You do realize that humans have not “adjusted” to the global average temperature, right? We live in an extremely wide range of climates and can withstand even larger extremes without any effort. ”
Yeah sure. We have adjusted in many ways – where we plant our crops, where we’ve built our cities etc etc. The problem is that its kind of hard to move a city, and tough on farmers to realise that what was once arable land is now desert. No doubt plants will thrive in the tropical conditions, and that may help a bit…
Thanks for that Peter H. I try to provoke a little, and it is fun to see just how much abuse comes back. The level of self righteous anger is amazing at times.
Anyway, sites devoted to the idea that AGW is bunkum need the occasional visit from a troll. It spices them up a bit.
@John Brookes & Peter H. And you think your studied naivete had not been spotted? ‘It was only when I read Al Gore’s book that I decided my stance on AGM’ (I paraphrase)! Such innocence John! (NOT) Oh, how we laughed at that one!
The thing is, you both gave me and a lot of other people here a great deal of fun. And, Peter, if you think my post was ad hom, you’ve led a very sheltered life. But then, I’m pretty sure that trolls like you two have been well trained (and I’ve seen the way it’s done) in how to attract/divert attack. You are far from being sheltered and sensitive types. But the thing is, you and your ilk want to make a world to your own ends and will take any opportunity to do that – AGW being just one. You want to ruin the very democracies that give you the opportunity and freedom to express the views that you would curtail – like your champion, Hansen. You want to take trillions from the people to furnish your utopia. Shame. Not for us, but for you. It will not happen. The people here know your guile and know your ways.
Please, be fruitful and multiply.
john brookes said..
Thanks for that Peter H. I try to provoke a little, and it is fun to see just how much abuse comes back. The level of self righteous anger is amazing at times.
Matched nay trounced by the arrogance,self righteous believe that the science is settled and climate scientist know all the answers,feedbacks etc.
As for spicing up this site,i suspect you be leaving here with your balls in a sling
NO made up data here,contributers do their work here.
[snip – over the top]