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
D. J. Hawkins says:
So, maybe I need to file a counter-suit against c.s. and Hansen, on behalf of my sons, to keep them from being turned into beggars even before they earn their first paycheck.
Exactly what I was thinking.
Any lawyers out there who can offer insight into this? I would like to know if that course of action is available if Hansen continues with this ****.
TomB says:
May 10, 2011 at 12:53 pm
OJ had a trial by jury where the prejudices of the jurists could be given free rein. This won’t be heard by a jury but by a Judge – big difference.
Not really. In the anti-trust case against Microsoft, the entire case was heard by a judge. That judge at the end of the trial was so well educated on matters of monopolistic behaviors of software companies it was astounding. He ruled against Microsoft (a judgement that was later abandoned by the incoming administration), despite scores of paid-for experts Microsoft had to throw their way. Besides which, the issue here isn’t who hears the case, it is the strength of the argument of experts in court. It doesn’t matter who hears the case, what matters is who has the weaker argument. The CAGW argument is so weak as to not be self-consistent, and to be inconsistent with known historical records.
Sueing the Federal Government, on the basis of highly contentious & controversial science, for a projected future event that may or may not happen – wow, I guess ‘Minority Report’ was on the money. Pre-crime is here, folks –
Me: “But Officer, I wasn’t doing anything!”
Carbon Cops: “No, but you will – the Precogs are never wrong!”
(or, insert favourite substitute for ‘precog’)
(BTW, is this even tenable in law?)
Well, I don’t know how much traction he’ll get. Even the most sympathetic judge can only base their decision on the effect of CO2 on the US climate. Since 1890 that warming trend has only been about .05 C per decade, which is well short of the 1 degree that they claim would be catastrophic unless they’re suing on behalf of people who will be born in 2210.
Mr. Hansen’s status as an “expert witness” can be
legally challenged using copies of his arrest reports
(including proffering the booking sheets with his
fingerprints!) and poster sized pictures of his protest
marches.
Any “scientific evidence” he might submit in court can
be shown to be tainted with his personal unscientific bias.
My daughters, now 20 and 25 years old, have, since they were in their early teens, laughed at the CAGW claims. I have taken great care to expose them to all sides of the arguments about climate and have left it up to them to make up their minds. I have pointed them towards both pro- and con- web sites and I’ve left them to make up their own minds.
When my younger daughter told me that she was going to be shown Al Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth” at school, I went along and asked if the Court-ordered correction sheets were available. The screening of the film was postponed for a week whilst the legally mandated sheets of corrective information were sought.
My daughter subsequently reported that the showing of the film was greeted with derisory calls from the audience. Not one of the children shown the film believed a word of it.
I think that there is a majority of children who recognise only too quickly when someone is trying to fool them. Our children have more ‘smarts’ than we give them credit for.
I’ll be going to see a public lecture of his in New Zealand on Friday. I’m really interested to see what a politically driven scientist off his rails looks like. Should be entertaining
SionedL says:
May 10, 2011 at 9:02 am
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.
What SionedL said and then Roy UK @ur momisugly May 10, 2011 at 1:17 pm fills in the details.
Not good.
I agree with those who think the government will be trying to lose this case.
Some form of counter-action will be necessary.
I would like to cross examine Dr. Hansen with the following questions:
1) What is the present CO2 concentration? Answer: 390 ppm.
2) What is the threshold amount of CO2 required for photosynthesis to begin? Answer: about 90 ppm.
3) So we are about 300 ppm above the threshold where a green planet could not even exist? Answer: yes.
4) Does the world’s recoverable reserves of fossil fuels amount to about 4,000 gigatons? Answer: Yes.
5) If all the fossil fuels were burned and added to the atmosphere, what would be the logarithmic temperature increase? Answer: 1.4C.
6) Wasn’t the CO2 concentration 18 times higher than today 6E8 years ago? Answer: Yes.
7) And hasn’t the world’s temperature oscillated between 12C and 22C, 6% of the time being 12C and 46% of the time being 22C, for the last 6E8 years? Answer: Yes.
8) Isn’t the world’s temperature now about 14.5C? Answer: Yes.
9) So, if we burned all the world’s fossil fuels, the temperature would increase from 14.5C to 15.9C? Answer: Yes.
10) If the world in the past has been at 22C for 46% of the time, how do you figure 15.9C is a tipping point? Answer: D’oh!
Jeremy:
At May 10, 2011 at 11:44 am you say in response to my post at May 10, 2011 at 8:22 am:
“Courts may accept expert testimony as fact, but they are still subject to logical arguments, and the CAGW side has no logical argument to stand on. In short, Experts can be made to look like fools in a court, this is especially true if their argument is weak.”
Perhaps, but who is going to do that?
The US Government employs Hansen, appointed him as as Head of GISS, supports the AGW narative, and will be the defendant. It is not clear that the defence will – or will want to – provide any attempt to make its own appointee look like a fool in Court.
Richard
AngusPangus says:
At May 10, 2011 at 12:48 pm you say to me:
“I would urge you not to be so pessimistic about the weight that courts will necessarily attatch to expert evidence. A good legal team (and I speak, all modesty aside, as a past member of many) can destroy an expert’s credibility through incisive cross-examination.”
I have no doubt that you are right. But I give the same answer to your point as I gave to Jeremy; i.e.
“The US Government employs Hansen, appointed him as as Head of GISS, supports the AGW narative, and will be the defendent. It is not clear that the defence will – or will want to – provide any attempt to make its own appointee look like a fool in Court.”
Richard
Even to someone with absolutely no legal knowledge this smells fishy to me.
If both sides are conspiring together to create a particular outcome then surely the judge must also be involved so that he can hand down the required verdict and penalty.
If as some posters mentioned the judge awards financial damages then would this not set a precedent for the entire US population to be awarded similar amounts. I’ve been to the States several times on holiday, can I have some too.
TomB:
I stand corrected; was chatting about the Aqualung album yesterday and must have had a ….what’s it called..a…a…flashback. As the CO2 levels go up and temperatures rise, such errors will continue to bedevil our lives. Things definitely are worse then I thought.
c.s says:
May 10, 2011 at 9:29 am
c.s, you seem hardly old enough to have justification for making anonymous postings, but you are not old enough yet to have enough courage not to hide behind your anonymity.
I began my growing up during the Hitler regime and was almost done with that when the war came to an end after most of Europe was in rubble and ashes. I listened to my elders and read up enough over the years to understand how the Hitler regime came into power. I suggest you study history before you begin to learn anything about climate science, which latter you have not yet done.
It seems to me that you do not realize that Hitler’s power grew out of a youth movement that was as misled as you and your peers who support Hansen are. I am not talking about the Hitler Youth. That came after Hitler got into power. I am talking about the Wandervogel organization. That is the one that produced many of the supporters and followers of Hitler. You better check that out.
Other than that, believe it or not, all here care about the planet, plus we worry about what it is that individuals like Hansen are doing to the people who live on it. We are the sort of people who have been paying for your life and your education up to now and who, so far, can still barely afford to keep that up, provided the likes of Hansen let them do it.
What is it with looneys who build castles-in-the-air and expect everyone else to go live in them?
If monkeys-making-fire harm planet then why not make-fire-stop now? Stop selling liquid fuels, shut down the power plants and MAKE EVERYONE LIVE IN THE DARK!
Its not difficult is it?
At least I’ll be spared the relentless CAGW nutters banging on about it all.
FFS! Its like sucking diarrhea thru a sock.
Does anyone know where the suit is filed? I googled, but just kept finding the same article over and over. “Federal court” could be anywhere.
Hugh”scattering of other well-known deniers and their followers, supported by a well organized industry financed cadre of PR types.”
Thanks Hugh for that comedic relief.. 🙂
You must have missed all the information for the last 10 years showing most of the “data” used to promote CAGW is poor/falsified or none existent..and an “appeal to authority” with an ad hominem thrown is just.. sad.
I noticed you forgot to mention the vast majority of money is going from industry/govt/UN etc..towards the CAGW pushers….
But ya forgot to mention that..
I was going to ask you where all the industry sponsored money is for the “scattering” of ‘well known deniers..(which is a paradox in itself..a few blogs and books..and thats it)but then realised that you were so clueless that it would be like asking you how CO2 taxes and levies would make the climate “better”…
Please read a bit more than the daily newspaper for facts on this serious subject..
ps..is their a booklet these CAGW clones are reading from..they dont think..they repeat the same mendacious fables..truly sad where this has all gone..
Hansen sues the government through the children, once the case begins the government comes to an agreement with Hansen, admits liability, and can then impose whatever tax it chooses as a “‘legal” obligation. QED.
DaveK:
With respect, your post at May 10, 2011 at 3:02 pm misunderstands the problem. It says;
“If both sides are conspiring together to create a particular outcome then surely the judge must also be involved so that he can hand down the required verdict and penalty.”
There is no conspiracy and no suggestion of one.
The US Government will be the defendent and would desire the case were not brought. This desire is because the US Government would lose whatever the outcome of the case. But if the case were brought then the loss to US Government would be least if the US Government were to lose the case. Therefore, the US Government has no reason to try to win the case.
Richard
Moderators:
My post in response to DaveK has vanished. Perhaps you would be so kind as to recover it.
Richard
From c.s on May 10, 2011 at 9:29 am:
Really? According to this May 7 HuffPo piece a woman named Victoria Loorz seems the most important part of your Children’s Crusade:
Apparently there was some sort of “climate change protest march” scheduled for Mother’s Day, wonder what happened with it. From Ms. Loorz:
Al Gore’s docudrama makes many people on this site weep, due to the glaring inaccuracies, mis-truths, and outright political propaganda statements in it. Read this from 2007 for a sample, other “problems” have shown up since then.
From c.s:
You already have Ms. Loorz, co-founder of this Children’s Crusade. Why is Hansen needed? Or is the reality that Hansen needs you, he can’t go against the government that pays him for his day job? Are you sure you’re not being used?
We also care about the planet. But we also know this planet has a very long history of doing just fine without our help, and humans have really screwed things up in the past by trying to fix “problems” that the planet didn’t even notice.
Did they tell you it’d be a quick fix, we’ll cut carbon dioxide emissions and everything will go right back to normal? The polar bears will be saved? Here’s some climate science from 2009 by noted esteemed climate scientists:
That was followed by this from January 2011:
Got that? Zero Emissions. According to peer-reviewed climate science, if we shut down civilization now and get rid of all carbon dioxide emissions, it’ll still take a thousand years for things to get back to normal.
Also, eventually there’ll be a 4 meter global sea level rise, somewhere around 3000 AD. Al Gore said there will be “up to” 20 feet of rise, which is more than 4 meters, and it’ll happen “in the near future”.
Now, take that info back to the people who got you all worked up about global warming, and ask them what is the great urgency to fix something now that will still be a problem a thousand years from now?
BTW, China is the Number One emitter of Carbon Dioxide on the planet. Why don’t you boycott anything Made in China until they agree to limit their emissions?
In general it is a criminal offense for a US Government employee to appear in a case against the government. There are some exemptions dealing with cases involving yourself and family members, etc. whether Hanson falls under on of those I do not know.
From the office of Ethics Guidelines http://www.usoge.gov/common_ethics_issues/representation.aspx
[quote]Representation to Government Agencies and Courts
Executive branch employees are subject to criminal statutes that prohibit the representation of private interests before the Government. One of these laws prohibits an employee from prosecuting a claim against the United States or acting as the agent or attorney of a private party before the Government in connection with a particular matter in which the United States is a party or has a direct and substantial interest. This prohibition applies whether or not the employee receives compensation for the representation.
There is an exception that allows an employee to represent, with or without compensation —
the employee (self-representation),
a parent, spouse or child of the employee, or
a person or estate that the employee serves as a guardian, executor, administrator, trustee or personal fiduciary.
The matter involved may not be one in which the employee participated personally and substantially or which was the subject of the employee’s official responsibility. Also the employee must obtain approval for the activity from the employee’s appointing official.
There is another exception that allows an employee to represent, without compensation —
employee nonprofit organizations (such as child care centers, recreational associations, professional organizations, credit unions or other similar groups) before the U.S. Government under certain circumstances. The employee may not be compensated. And the employee may not represent an employee group in claims against the Government, in seeking grants, contracts or cash from the Government, or in litigation where the group is a party;
a person who is the subject of disciplinary, loyalty, or personnel administration proceedings.
Another law governing representational activity prohibits an employee from accepting compensation for certain representational services before the Government whether those services were provided by the employee personally or by some other person. Again, there are exceptions that would allow for the representation of a parent, spouse, child or person served in a fiduciary capacity.[/quote]
Actual laws at
http://www.usoge.gov/laws_regs/statutes/18usc205.html and
http://www.usoge.gov/laws_regs/statutes/18usc203.html
Dave says:
May 10, 2011 at 8:21 am
Will the government defend itself or throw the case to promote cap and trade?
=========
DaveK:
With respect, your post at May 10, 2011 at 3:02 pm misunderstands the problem. It says;
“If both sides are conspiring together to create a particular outcome then surely the judge must also be involved so that he can hand down the required verdict and penalty.”
This may not be a conspiracy – although I suspect someone has had a few ‘what if we did this’ conversations.
The government and Lisa Jackson et al will ALL accept responsibility and create a precedent that AGW legally exists and damages children. This will then be quoted ad-nauseam.
I have no doubt that the Circuit where the case will be held will be carefully chosen – the 9th perhaps – to ensure a successful outcome. This Administration by losing – or not defending the case – wins. There will be no legal argument about AGW that will be taken as a given. Hansen cannot win the scientific argument so he is taking the legal route against a friend who will fold without a defense.
I agree, Hansen has lost it, and it’s a sad day for all.
Destroying the basic tools for modern civilization is not progress, it’s back to the Dark Ages with Utopian-colored glasses.