From LiveScience, another reason for NASA to fire Jame Hansen now:
Here’s the basis for his actions in a nutshell:
If carbon dioxide emissions aren’t reduced in time, the Earth will pass a tipping point with irreversible, catastrophic consequences, including the disintegration of ice sheets and large-scale extinction of species, according to the scientific analysis Hansen provided to the lawsuit.
I think Dr. Hansen has lost it. Earth has had higher CO2 concentrations several times in its history and it didn’t head to runaway roasting. So far, this all hinges on positive feedbacks, and there doesn’t seem to be much conclusive evidence for it. Here’s what Pielke Sr. has to say about CO2 as a control knob for Earth’s climate system.
Read Dr. Hansen’s latest non peer reviewed paper where he justifies to himself the use of kids as legal pawns here:
The Case for Young People and Nature: A Path to a Healthy, Natural, Prosperous Future
Bring it on!
Peer review that doesn’t mean asking a few climatologists whether they want to stop the global warming gravy train.
“Algebra says:
May 10, 2011 at 7:51 am
Can’t wait for him to testify. The cross-examination will be priceless.”
I don’t know about that! They sued the Government, and the Government is interested in keeping the HOAX going as long as possible to try to get tax revenue and power. I would not expect the cross-examination to destroy the illusion of imminent destruction of life on planet Earth unless we eliminate carbon dioxide from the atmosphere!
I like it. All in all, a smart(TM) plan: “…a simple, transparent, gradually rising fee on carbon emissions collected, with the proceeds distributed to the public .”* Yum, yum, yum!
But wait, there’s more; we will want to share a little for a few minor expenses for some necessities: “A gradually rising carbon price is the sine qua non, but it must be combined with a portfolio of other actions: energy research and development with demonstration programs; public investment in complementary infrastructure such as improved electric grids; global monitoring systems; energy efficiency regulations; public education and awareness; support for climate change mitigation and adaptation in undeveloped countries.”** No problem, plenty to go around and with simplicity and transparency, what can possibly go wrong?
The rest of the paper, barring several frightening graphs showing temperatures rocket launching into orbit, is mainly pretty fluff, “poppies red and roses filled with summer rain.”***
* James Hansen et al., “The Case for Young People and Nature: A Path to a Healthy, Natural, Prosperous Future,” p. 21.
** Ibid.
***Ian Anderson/Jethro Tull, “Songs from the Wood,” Aqualung, 1971.
As I recall, during the “enfatata” in Israel, when they ran out of idiot adults to commit suicide for the cause, they went to mentally deficient teenagers.
I don’t know why, but I see a parallel here!
Max
ignore – following comments
I cannot invision Lisa Jackson, et. al., calling any skeptics to testify against Hansen and this lunacy. The government is not an adversary in this situation. It is rigged.
I think we need to start asking those making the wild claims what they actually mean by “climate change”. What constitutes “climate change”? What defines “climate”? Is it just the range of limits of weather during some period of time? What the heck do they actually mean? What are they actually freaked out about? 1c warmer? I’ve lived in a range of 82c from -46c in Edmonton (without wind chill factor) to +38c… what is 1c to me? Nothing but a more pleasant day. So I don’t get it. I do get that a new ice age would be classified as a bit of a major change in climate but that’s happened lots of times before and will happen again. So what is “climate change”? Do they actually think that there is some “normal” climate that is the “desired climate”? If so what is that? Why would they think that? I think it’s important that we PIN them down with specifics so that we can know what the heck they are actually talking about when they say “climate change” along with their doomsday scenarios.
I’m serious. We need Hansen, Gore, Jones, Briffa, Wahl, et. al. to clearly define their term “climate change” in specifics. Maybe they already have? If so then let’s collect up all their definitions of “climate change” and all their wild claims (which require extraordinary evidence) and make a big html table of it all. Let’s see where they stand based upon their own words.
The Weather Clown has a need to seem important and in the news.
The costs for Hansen’s “solution” would impoverish these children and condemn those already in poverty to staying there. A good legal defender would make the case one of competing models (climate versus economic). A jury will fall asleep or laugh the plaintiffs out of court.
Listen very carefully to Richard S Courtney. The UK case he outlines are frighteningly representative of what can happen. Fortunately, in the US, there are many ‘counter-experts’ to be called upon…however: Will they get called?
This obscene use of ‘glurge’ to make the case is all-too-familiar to the spoon-fed TV generation, all I can say is: I hope it backfires soundly. This is wrong on so many levels!
Does anyone know what is the evidentiary standard in a case like this? Is it “beyond a reasonable doubt” or is it “the preponderance of the evidence”?
I agree with many of the comments above. What can we do, individually and as a group, to get this worm discredited and fired from NASA? We can’t just ‘talk’ about this….
How do we take action to stop this ‘expert witness’ from using gullible children and the legal system to set precedence based on his twisted opinions, that then get cited in subsequent cases?
I get the picture. On one side of the argument we have highly acclaimed scientist Hansen, the vast majority of researchers working in climate science and their actual data, supported by virtually all of the Academies of Science and other national/international professional organizations, and on the other side we have Pielke Sr, and a scattering of other well-known deniers and their followers, supported by a well organized industry financed cadre of PR types. When politicians fail to act on clear evidence and the consequences of inaction are catastrophic, a legal remedy becomes necessary.
Where in the Constitution is the Federal Government given the job of controlling the atmosphere?
…then there’s always the government just conceding and entering into a dissent decree which would bind the government to a policy without the benefit of legislation.
I don’t understand Richard Courtney’s explanation of ‘experts’ If the courts only take notice of experts selected by the Govt., and these tend to be warmist, then AGW will be proven in the courts. This needs to be looked at since the appointment of an ‘expert’ can be a political decision. I do not favour courts ruling on politics. This must be the preserve of the legislature. If the courts are willing to entertain suits about science then we seriously need judges who can understand science and it processes. I see no evidence of this although Margaret Thatcher did turn to law after achieving a science degree. (She was never a judge).
The problem is that science presents itself as the truth handed down from high. At best, it is usually the the most workable solution we can come up with at the moment. Yes, it can be tested but passing the tests doesn’t mean the science is right; just that for the moment it seems to work. But a great deal of work and many reputations are staked on the current solution so a new solution always has to work very hard to be accepted. A good example is the theory of continental drift which took many years to be accepted but then suddenly became the norm.
The case for AGW has been so intense that it can be fairly compared to a cult with its proponents even calling for those who oppose the view to be prosecuted. The courts are going to have to step back a little from this if they are to maintain their independence and simply state that this is outside their competence. As much as would like to see the AGWs shot down in court, it is far better that this suit fails at the outset since the courts can provide no remedy since atmosphereis a worldwide phenomenom, thank God.
I rather my grandchildren’s lives not be nasty, brutish, and short, like on Hansen’s side of the Looking Glass.
===========
My granddaughter visited a couple of weeks ago.
She was the one to bring up AGW, Climate Change, whatever the PC term is in vogue today.
She explained how it was a bunch of hooey. For starters, she pointed out we have only been measuring many of trends involved for only a century, at best. Not long enough to draw any conclusions at all, she said.
Not too bad for a 12 year old.
Propaganda will not work on her or any other critically thinking individual.
This is a very odd situation. The lawsuit now has the state requesting/requiring the skeptics to offer contrary evidence to defend themselves. Perhaps this is what Hansen wants, though: an opportunity to have the courts determine the scientific legitimacy of CAGW.
Hansen is crazy, but perhaps crazy as a fox.
Be aware. Be very aware of becoming involved. It would be better if the courts were to dismiss the lawsuit as being outside the courts’ jurisdiction.
Thing that I don’t understand is: How he can get paychek from the government and work in GISS.
Hansen says: “Another ice age will never occur, unless humans go extinct.”
Hmmm….which one do you think he’s rooting for?
I used to think that Hansen was just another political opportunist riding the AGW gravy train. But his panicky shrieks of “Censorship!” back in the Dubya administration when they told him to stop issuing global warming crapola as official NASA positions (note that he was still, specifically, free to publish on his own; he just couldn’t wear the funny NASA hat) seemed a little odd. But some of the protests he’s been arrested at, this weirdness…
Yeah, I think he’s simply crazy.
And the way he’s been self-publishing “papers” without peer review suggests to me that just maybe his fellow warmistas also see him as a nut-case liability now.
“Using kids as legal pawns?” er…hate to break it to you all, but we kids were the ones who started this action. check it out at http://www.imattermarch.org
Most of us are just under 18, so we need an adult to fight for us in court.
Quit it with all your claims of us being “used” or “abused”- its ridiculous. We care about the planet and the many people and ecosystems that will be (and already are) very adversely affected by human-caused climate change.
c.s,
Please don’t just comment and leave. Stay around, I have to get some answers from you about the climate, while you still know everything.☺
Let’s not forget that the species extinction predictions are derived from either a species diversity computer program which is abused and used for a purpose for which it was not designed or a computer program which predicts how many of the species, from bacteria to bugs to larger animals, that we have never discovered that will go extinct before we discover them. They are totally phantom species—only existing in their imaginations. [Just think of all of the millions of dollars that you have lost which you never had; it’s a travesty; you’ve been robbed!] Not only is this logically flawed but it is impossible to put any real or logical values into such a program. And the answer is impossible to test; therefore, this is not science in any form.
This is pure fantasy.