Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Normally, I might not deal with a four year old paper by James Hansen, the NASA doyenne of serial doomcasters. However, I note that this paper has been cited ten times this year alone, so I thought I might comment.
At some point when he was not giving a Press Conference, or getting arrested, or spending time complaining that he was being “muzzled”, Mr. Hansen wrote:
Abstract. I suggest that a `scientific reticence’ is inhibiting the communication of a threat of a potentially large sea level rise. Delay is dangerous because of system inertias that could create a situation with future sea level changes out of our control. I argue for calling together a panel of scientific leaders to hear evidence and issue a prompt plain-written report on current understanding of the sea level change issue.
I love the naked power grab. I mean, what an audacious plan!
First, you unilaterally declare that there is some huge looming disaster a long ways in the future. Using a variety of methods fair and foul, you obtain the full cooperation of other scientists, governments, educational institutions, and the media the world around. With all of you, the whole chorus, baying for skeptic’s blood in full voice, you spend a quarter century trying to convince the people of the oncoming Thermageddon.
Second, after said quarter century you notice that despite having the entire resources of the educational and media institutions of the planet and the blind agreement of other scientists and billions of dollars poured into trying … you have not been able to establish your case. Heck, you haven’t even been able to falsify the null hypothesis. In fact, after a long string of predictions of doom, none of which came to pass, and at the tail end of a 15-year hiatus in the warming, the US public doesn’t believe a word you say. Oops. Over two-thirds of them think climate scientists sometimes falsify their research. Oops.
In response, you say that the problem is that scientists have been too retice … too re … sorry, it’s hard to type and laugh at the same time … you say that scientists have been to reticent, that they haven’t been alarmist enough or aggressive enough in promoting their views.
That’s the problem? After 25 years of unbridled alarm from scientists and everyone else from Presidents to my kid’s teachers, the problem is that scientists are not alarmist enough, they’re too reticent to state their true opinion? Really? That’s the reason the public doesn’t believe you? Is that your final answer?
(Does he really, in his heart of hearts, believe that? Possible, I guess, but it presupposes a level of self-delusion that is scary …)
The real beauty of the plan, however, the sting in the tale, is the proposed solution—a “panel of scientific leaders” to inform the people of the error of our ways. I mean, the IPCC did so well, let’s make a sea level rise mini-IPCC. Staff it with people who will know what to say, who won’t have to be prompted.
Mr. Hansen claims he is a scientist first and an activist second. He and far too many other climate scientists are activists first, and scientists maybe fourth or fifth if at all. He proposes convening a Star Council of Jim and his hand-picked acolytes to lecture us sternly on a radical sea level rise slated to occur when they are dead? He wants us to listen to his pals make predictions they’ll never be held accountable for? And all this from the man who in 1988 predicted a 10 foot (3m) sea level rise putting parts of NYC underwater in forty years? Fuggedaboutit. He probably felt safe with such a long-term prediction. In any case, we’re more than halfway there, and since 1988 the sea level in NYC has gone up by 2.5 inches (6 cm). Would you buy a sea level prediction from Jim?
There certainly are many problems in the field of climate science. Reticence on the part of climate scientists to clean up their own backyard is high on the list.
Reticence on the part of climate scientists to make alarmist claims, about sea level or any other imagined future disaster, is not on the list at all.
The main problem, however, is thinking that it’s a communications problem. It’s not. The problem is that Jim and his Climategate pals lied and cheated and pulled strings and even destroyed evidence in order to advance their views. All of that was revealed clearly in the UEA emails. They stand convicted by their own words.
As a result, lots of folks don’t believe a word that the climate scientists say. And reasonably so. I have seen no reason to believe they are now acting differently. There has been no “mea culpa” from even one individual involved. Noble Cause Corruption appears to have rotted the ethical parts of their brains entirely. They don’t even think they did wrong … and the rest of the honorable, decent, good climate scientists? Well, by and large they played the faithful dog Spot, they rolled over and played dead.
That’s the problem, not communications or reticent scientists. I had hoped that Climategate would lance the boil and the healing could begin … foolish boy, wrong again …
So no, I believe I’ll pass on the brilliant plan for the formation of the Official Panel Of The Sea-Level Wise Men. No need to even read the novel, most of us have seen the IPCC movie, and would prefer not to be forced to sit through a bad sequel.
w.
Naked men, all of them.
I do enjoy, the look of astonishment, when I suggest warmists are the new age conformists. “After all, they are out there agitating for change.” is invariably the response. (sigh). Naked people, all of them. GK
Ira Glickstein, PhD says:
October 24, 2011 at 7:54 pm
Please read my comment again and follow the links I provided for better proof than “any news articles that say Hansen has done this”.
_____________
I saw that you had links to WUWT, but I am skeptical of WUWT’s analysis. I want to see some form of independent investigation.
Willis Eschenbach says:
October 24, 2011 at 5:02 pm
“See here and here. Hansen’s claim is that criminal trespass is perfectly fine if you are saving the world.”
______
Oh, criminal trespass. I thought you said violence. Anyway, you are referring to his protest actions.
“On the other hand, he has publicly said that he wants me (not personally, but because of my beliefs and my occupation at the time) to be jailed for “crimes against humanity” or some such double-speak booshwa.”
_________
What was your occupation at the time when he made this statement? I believe his view is that the high crimes against humanity are against those that know of the risks involved with climate change, yet did not act to reduce CO2 anyway. In your case, you do not see any risks since you are fighting a climate war against Hansen and others.
“So per Jimmy, his criminal mates should go free and instead I should be jailed … and you are defending the guy.”
___________
I wasn’t defending him in that instance. I was skeptical of your statement, but open to the evidence that you had to bear.
otter17 says:
October 24, 2011 at 10:24 pm
Otter, suppose me and half a dozen mates came to your house and started climbing the outside, and you came outside and told us to leave. We said ‘No, we’re on a mission from God’, and we unfurled a banner saying “AGW EXTREMISTS ARE KILLING THE POOR’. We stretched it out and nailed to your roof so it hung down and all the neighbors could see it. Then we chained ourselves to your roof and refused to leave.
I suppose you could say that no violence was done to you. But there was violence done to your privacy, your peace, and your security. The folks were convicted of “Conspiracy to Commit Aggravated Criminal Trespass.” Hansen thinks that someone nailing pro-Exxon banners on your house is perfectly OK on the condition that someone really really believes it is the noble thing to do. If they truly believe, then no harm, no foul, they unchain themselves from your roof and go do it to someone else’s house, or boat, or place of business.
Me, I think different, whether you call it “violence” or not.
I was Chief Financial Officer with a seat on the Board of Directors of a fossil energy company, his exact target. And the idea that I would be exempted because I don’t think there are risks is pettifoggery. Here’s his quote:
He’s already tried us in his mind, he is sure that we “know what [we] are doing”, and that we are “aware of the long-term consequences”. I fit the picture, I knew what I was doing, and I’m well aware of his claims about the long-term consequences. In short, I’m the man in the wanted poster, the guy he wants convicted and thrown in the slammer.
OK, my bad, sorry I misunderstood.
w.
otter17 says:
October 24, 2011 at 10:09 pm
Otter, from the sounds of it you are not skeptical of WUWT’s analysis, you avoiding WUWT’s analysis. That’s not skepticism. That’s deliberate blindness.
Read the dang link, and then apply your properly skeptical mind to the claims. You’re a sharp guy, you can analyze claims. Do they make sense? Did the author cite them? Do they fit with your experience? How much is opinion and how much is verifiable fact? You know the drill, or at least you should.
Then, if you find the errors, report back. That’s how WUWT gets improved, by people who are actually skeptical, as opposed to people who are just avoiding doing the heavy lifting of thinking about and investigating the issues.
w.
Willis said Read the dang link, and then apply your properly skeptical mind to the claims.
OK. I did that. Found two links in Ira’s post on WUWT. One shows a blinking gif between “US temperature 1999” and “continental US annual mean anomalies”. Neither graph is referenced, even though their titles alone indicate that these are two different beasts. That does not withhold Ira from stating that NASA “changes the historical temperature data to make the present Global Warming situation appear worse than it really is”, and refering to a concept Ira calls “CAGW”, which is neither defined nor referenced.
If anyone finds the “verifiable facts” that Willis is asking for in Ira’s post, then please present them. In absense of that, Ira’s post seems to be a heavily biased form of a mix of opinion and ignorance, neither of which have anything to do with the facts that NASA actually present.
“They, the global warming crowd, think US citizens just fell off the turnip wagon and are stupid ignoramuses who will believe stupid things or almost anything. They think all they need to do is find out how to make us believe without proof.”
————————–
We elected, as President of the United States, a man who had no qualifications for the position, and who had several clear disqualifiers which were transparently “hidden” from us by a facially prostituted “press.”
So, while I’m not defending their honesty or intelligence or scientific rigor, I believe that they had at least some foundation for believing that we “just fell off the turnip wagon and are stupid ignoramuses who will believe stupid things.”
In the case of AGW, it so far hasn’t worked, but that by itself doesn’t discredit the belief.
Wombat says:
October 23, 2011 at 7:06 pm
…..The US has leveraged its economic hegemony to propagate intellectual property laws on the rest of the world that are designed to stifle development. The quickest route to limiting their power is, as you suggest, purge the government and preferably schooling system of science.
_____________________________________
It has already been done.
No teacher, but every textbook, left behind
“….More generally, the quality of the twelve most popular science textbooks for middle-schoolers is so low, Hubisz concluded, that none had an acceptable level of accuracy….
An exasperated William Bennetta explained why so many teachers accept inferior textbooks from these publishers, “[T]he major schoolbook companies… have long recognized that the teacher corps in America includes some desperate dumbbells, and the companies have learned to produce books that the dumbbells will like….
We have learned this, if nothing else, from the selective prosecution of Mr. Gossai: con a few people, and it’s a felony; con millions, and it’s educating the youth of America.” http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0804/0804textbooks.htm
“For 10 years, William Schmidt, a statistics professor at Michigan State University, has looked at how U.S. students stack up against students in other countries in math and science. “In fourth-grade, we start out pretty well, near the top of the distribution among countries; by eighth-grade, we’re around average, and by 12th-grade, we’re at the bottom of the heap, outperforming only two countries, Cyprus and South Africa.”
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0804/0804textbooks.htm
“… Surveys of corporations consistently find that businesses are focused outside • the U.S. to recruit necessary talent. In a 2002 survey, 16 global corporations complained that American schools did not produce students with global skills. United States companies agreed. The survey found that 30 percent of large U.S. companies “believed they had failed to exploit fully their international business opportunities due to insufficient personnel with international skills.” One respondent to the survey even noted, “If I wanted to recruit people who are both technically skilled and culturally aware, I wouldn’t even waste time looking for them on U.S. college campuses.”
http://www.edreform.com/_upload/CER_JunkFoodDiet.pdf
“…the U.S. ranks 21st out of 29 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries in mathematics scores, with nearly one-quarter of students unable to solve the easiest level of questions….In 2000, 28 percent of all freshmen entering a degree-granting institution required remedial coursework”
http://www.edreform.com/_upload/CER_JunkFoodDiet.pdf
otter17 says:
October 24, 2011 at 10:09 pm
Ira Glickstein, PhD says:
October 24, 2011 at 7:54 pm
Please read my comment again and follow the links I provided for better proof than “any news articles that say Hansen has done this”.
_____________
I saw that you had links to WUWT, but I am skeptical of WUWT’s analysis. I want to see some form of independent investigation.
___________________________________________
Otter reread what Doctor Glickstein, just said.
The pointers are to articles he wrote and posted on WUWT about the subjects and those articles contain the links back to the original material as well as a much longer explanation.
To save space people will point you to a relevant article at WUWT BECAUSE it has the links (several) and a good explanation OR because in the case of Willis and others like Dr. Roy Spenser, it contains original work.
Please take a look at the linked articles, there is a heck of a lot of good info that gets posted at this site and then reviewed by scientists, engineers and mathematicians.
Rob Dekker says:
October 25, 2011 at 12:30 am
Willis said Read the dang link, and then apply your properly skeptical mind to the claims….
If anyone finds the “verifiable facts” that Willis is asking for in Ira’s post, then please present them. In absense of that, Ira’s post seems to be a heavily biased form of a mix of opinion and ignorance, neither of which have anything to do with the facts that NASA actually present.
__________________________________
AND NOW you understand why the climate gang dances around FOIA requests, wipes the data from computers, lost the data….. Only by screen capture and down loading and saving data did skeptics have a chance of grabbing that data as Ira did.
It is why WUWT/skeptics were so gleeful over the climategate e-mails. We KNEW but could not prove to others they were doing as Hansen did “reworking the data periodically”
This is not limited to climate by the way.
Farmers have caught the USDA/FDA doing the exact same thing.
A judge blocked Mary Zanoi’s FOIA ( http://www.thementalmilitia.com/forums/index.php?action=printpage;topic=8133.0 )
Gizella caught the USDA removing documentation from the web about NAIS. Luckily she has “Captured” all the documentation in the fight that between farmers and the government that started in 2005. http://xstatic99645.tripod.com/naisinfocentral/index.html
I did a copy and paste of a document (including date written) only to go back and find it had been changed WITHOUT CHANGING THE ISSUE DATE!
This type of thing has happened numerous times not only with USDA/FDA but with UN and EU documentation. If we find a nugget the internet copy immediately disappears or changes and farmers are called Dis-Information agents (Bruce Knight)
CAGW and NAIS (Animal Traceability) are two different battleground in the same war and you find the SAME actors such as AL GORE and the World Bank in both.
My Ag Extension agent was an eye witness to this statement by Gore.
“…from the Ag Journal, Billings, Montana: “At a recent ceremony at the White House, Vice President and presidential candidate Al Gore let slip what many have long believed was his real intention as regards to U.S. agriculture.
“While presenting a national award to a Colorado FFA member, Gore asked the student what his/her life plans were. Upon hearing that the FFA member wanted to continue on in production agriculture, Gore reportedly replied that the young person should develop other plans because our production agriculture is being shifted out of the U.S. to the Third World.” http://mi-cherries.com/did2.htm
Kissinger summed up the battle plans in 1970:
“Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people.”
Anthony’s post of a New York Times Article show this is about GENOCIDE! After following these issues since 2005 and seeing the deaths from freezing and starvation and in the case of Friday Mukamperezida burning to death. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/25/they-had-to-burn-the-village-to-save-it-from-global-warming/#comment-751952
Willis is being nice, I call these people MURDERERS. They are no different than those who went up on trial after World War II. Actually I find them WORSE> Hansen Jones Mann and Gore are as responsible for the death of Friday Mukamperezida as the person who lit the fire.,because it is their brutal hoax that lead to his death and they are the one raking in the blood money.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/25/they-had-to-burn-the-village-to-save-it-from-global-warming/#comment-751952
(Sorry Anthony, but the death of not only Friday but that of the children starved to death from 2008 on just so Al Gore and his buddies can rake in more money that they do not need makes me livid!)
otter17 says:
October 24, 2011 at 10:09 pm
“Otter, from the sounds of it you are not skeptical of WUWT’s analysis, you avoiding WUWT’s analysis. That’s not skepticism. That’s deliberate blindness.”
_______________
No, I looked at it. I am on the fence. I would like to see some other expert analysis from outside the WUWT community, just to confirm. I have never heard of this deliberate data fudging claim before or seen it in the news. If it was true, why doesn’t Dr. Glickstein send it to a trusted investigative journalist and to expert scientists for confirmation? Wouldn’t it increase the impact factor substantially if people around the USA saw this in the news? Wouldn’t that likely get Hansen fired? Wouldn’t that help win the climate war you are fighting?
Willis Eschenbach says:
October 24, 2011 at 11:01 pm
“He’s already tried us in his mind, he is sure that we “know what [we] are doing”, and that we are “aware of the long-term consequences”. I fit the picture, I knew what I was doing, and I’m well aware of his claims about the long-term consequences. In short, I’m the man in the wanted poster, the guy he wants convicted and thrown in the slammer.”
__________________
I also disagree with Hansen’s quote. I don’t think it was worded correctly. I would have to see expert psychological analysis on this subject, but it may be more likely that oil company executives have what is known as confirmation bias. They highly favor information that rejects climate science because their pre-existing perception was that fossil fuels are paths to prosperity for the world. For example, say a piece of climate science evidence comes along that indicates sea level is going to rise by a few meters (causing some environmental and economic harm throughout the world), an oil company executive may be likely to discount that information or blame the scientist who created it as being incompetent (even if the statement is true). There could be cognitive dissonance between the idea that climate change is occurring due to their product, and the idea that they are producing a product that brings comfort and prosperity to people.
Quote from Wikipedia:
“Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
A great scientist should always be conscious of confirmation bias. A great scientist should always question his/her own motives and pre-existing beliefs. Nevertheless, slight biases will always occur in even the most honest of humans. The peer review process works so well since it essentially averages the research and conclusions of many different scientists, allowing their individual biases to diminish. Thus, the body of scientific knowledge produced is greater than the sum of its parts. The papers and research that are the cream of the crop are then reviewed by prestigious academies such as the National Academy of Sciences, who then from time to time produce statements on the outcome of the scientific process. One such statement is linked below.
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
I offer a quote from the great scientist Richard Feynman that I apply to myself from time to time. I invite everyone to also give it some thought as well.
“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.”
— Richard Feynman
OOPS, my comment above with the following quote did not correctly attribute Willis Eschenbach. Terribly sorry, pasted incorrectly.
Willis Eschenbach says:
October 24, 2011 at 11:01 pm
_________________
“Otter, from the sounds of it you are not skeptical of WUWT’s analysis, you avoiding WUWT’s analysis. That’s not skepticism. That’s deliberate blindness.”
Is snowfall in August supposed to be a sign that the world is warming dangerously, or that the next Ice Age is coming?
otter17 says:
October 25, 2011 at 5:43 pm
My apologies, then, I misunderstood you to say you hadn’t looked at it.
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
October 24, 2011 at 10:51 pm
“Otter, suppose me and half a dozen mates came to your house and started climbing the outside, and you came outside and told us to leave. ”
____________________
Yes, Willis. I disagree with this form of protest as well. I believe that it turns some people off to the message and that it distracts police forces. I believe that the folks that own the coal plants truly believe that they are doing no wrong by emitting CO2, and thus they will feel further antagonized and alienated by these type of protests. I believe they could have performed a protest just outside the property near the entrance, similar to a worker’s strike.
otter17 says:
October 25, 2011 at 6:07 pm
The twisted, ever-changing logic of the path through your paragraph was lovely. Ostensibly it’s in response to my pointing out that Hansen was calling for my imprisonment. You joyfully segue from Hansen saying I should be tossed in jail, to saying you “disagree” with his quote, then without saying what you disagree with you move on to saying that Hansen’s quote wasn’t “worded correctly”, and then you jump to the idea that you’d need expert psychological analysis for “this subject”, then without explaining just who or what “this subject” is that’s being psychoanalyzed you slide on down to the topic of confirmation bias, you follow that by performing a lovely glissade over to the issue of how oil company executives suffer from confirmation bias relating to sea level rise, and for the grand finale and dismount, you suggest that the dissonance afflicting the oil company executives is collateral damage as a result of their mental gears stripping from trying to follow the twisted, ever-changing logic of the path through your paragraph …
Next time some world-renowned scientist says he wants his opponents, including me, thrown in prison for our beliefs … remind me not to mention it to you. “Missed the point” doesn’t begin to describe it.
w.
Conradg says:
October 25, 2011 at 8:09 pm
I loved that rant, and I haven’t a clue. “Look at your window, it’s snowing in August” could be a new marketing slogan for all I know.
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
October 25, 2011 at 9:46 pm
“Next time some world-renowned scientist says he wants his opponents, including me, thrown in prison for our beliefs … remind me not to mention it to you. “Missed the point” doesn’t begin to describe it.”
_____________
Ok, then. I shall rework it such that we can understand one another.
I disagree with Hansen’s quote since he asserts that fossil fuel company executives know what they are doing and that they should be tried for crimes. I contend that they do not know what they are doing, and thus shouldn’t be punished in a court. I contend that they truly believe they are doing what is best for the world (albeit I say that belief is mistaken). It is possible that in their minds, they have thoroughly convinced themselves that there is no problem with emitting CO2 into the air, and that scientists that say otherwise are wrong and may represent a threat.
What I meant by needing to see expert psychological analysis was that I would like to investigate and see if fossil fuel company executives are exhibiting signs that they may be employing confirmation bias or undergoing significant cognitive dissonance. It seems that they highly favor information that rejects climate change because their pre-existing perception is that fossil fuels are paths to prosperity for the world.
Now, I truly do not want to hurt you personally or harm your reputation by saying this, Willis, but ask yourself if you may be employing confirmation bias to justify your very strong opinions on climate science. Ask if there is some chance that you are fooling yourself. It is ok to admit when one is wrong, everybody is from time to time. I believed that human-caused global warming was unlikely for a while, too, but I took an honest look at my beliefs. It was tough, but I changed my entire perspective on something I was deeply entrenched in since the evidence won out.
“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.”
– Richard Feynman
otter17 says: October 25, 2011 at 10:34 pm
I’ll see your Luke 15:7 and raise you Luke 16:9
otter17 says:
October 25, 2011 at 10:34 pm
otter, I’m a man who was a fossil fuel company executive. I know other fossil fuel company executives from around the world, Brits, Koreans, Aussies, Americans. Put your speculations away, you’re clueless about what they believe. Generally, they think the AGW alarmists have their heads so far up their fundamental orifices that if they removed them suddenly they’d go snowblind.
They also know that they sell the fuel that lets James Hansen live his fine lifestyle, and that if they stopped doing selling him the fuel, little Jimmy would clutch his pearls and have the vapors from the inconvenience and throw a tantrum. As would any of us.
They also know he’s quite willing to abuse them for doing exactly what he wants them to do, supply James with gas for his car and kerosene so he can fly to England to testify in favor of conspirators.
Generally, the executives I knew didn’t have a firm idea either way about whether CO2 will cause Thermageddon in 50 years. They do know that lack of energy will cause starvation in zero years, and that expensive energy today means poor people go hungry tonight. Curiously, they see that benefit today as more important than some possible harm in 50 years, and I agree with them.
Finally, you still don’t get it. Hansen has publicly called for his opponents to be thrown in jail. Decent men condemn that totalitarian call, it is un-American, anti-free speech, and redolent of oppression and McCarthyism. Not to mention that it is a scientist’s nightmare, as it was the habit of the worst historical regimes to imprison people for their scientific beliefs.
Honest men oppose people who call for trials for their scientific opponents, with all their might.
People like you try to explain their statements.
Which is why I said that if someone does it again, I won’t bother telling you. You’ll just stand their and try over and over to tell me how it’s all logical and reasonable and has to do with cognitive dissonance and self-deception on the part of the oil company executives … there’s self-deception going on, but it’s not the executives …
It’s not logical or reasonable to call for the incarceration of your opponents. It is an ugly, divisive, anti-human call, born of a sick desire to see his opponents, including me, punished by the police forces of the very Government that employs him. Making that call is the sign of a vicious man whose ego knows no bounds … spare me your explanations, otter. They are meaningless and depressing. Have you no honor, no outrage, no revulsion at his call for police oppression of his opponents?
Sometimes, I can only shake my head …
w.
Otter17
Willis has, for him, been remarkably restrained in his reply. I assume that you don’t use carbon/co2 in any shape or form. You don’t run a car. You never travel on planes. Your food mysteriuusly appears on your plate without the need for it to be grown, distributed or transported. That you would refuse the services of any vehicle using fossil fiel, be it from police fire or ambulance. I also asume that you don’t use heating of any description.
If you are a user -and whilst much more modest in your habits than arch hypocrites Hansen and Gore who consume more carbon than any of us can conceivre of-you are still guilty of being a user.
Perhaps you can tell us what we REALISTICALLY substitute it with for the next 30/40 years without bankrupting ourselves to no effect?
The plain fact is that DR Manns hockey stick showing a dramatic increase in temperature from 1900 was always sinaccurate. As BEST show, the warming goes all the way back to their start point of 1800. My own research shows, it goes back to 1607.
Either Berkely is wrong or the hockey stick is wrong. Which one do you want to go with?
tonyb
Willis Eschenbach says:
October 25, 2011 at 11:12 pm
“Put your speculations away, you’re clueless about what they believe. Generally, they think the AGW alarmists have their heads so far up their fundamental orifices that if they removed them suddenly they’d go snowblind.”
“Have you no honor, no outrage, no revulsion at his call for police oppression of his opponents?”
_____________
Yeah I was in agreement with you. I’m sure fossil fuel company executives have truly convinced themselves that the climate scientists have their heads up their collective butts.
I said that I disagree with Hansen’s statement about jailing folks. He shouldn’t have said that. He made a big mistake, for sure. I’m sure you have made an accusatory statement a few times in your life so far. Hey, I have too; we let our emotions get to us sometimes. If Hansen starts sending prosecuting attorneys after you, then I think you have reason to complain. For now, let’s just say that his statement is stupid. What about commenters in blogs that have expressed their belief that climate scientists should be jailed without trial? I’m not outraged at them; I realize they made a stupid statement.
Please, have you asked yourself if you may be employing confirmation bias? Have you asked yourself if there is even a slight possibility that global warming due to burning fossil fuels may cause harm that could put a fairly substantial drain on the economy (thus hurting the poor)?
climatereason says:
October 25, 2011 at 11:42 pm
“Willis has, for him, been remarkably restrained in his reply. I assume that you don’t use carbon/co2 in any shape or form. You don’t run a car.”
______________
Well then, I would hate to see him on a bad day, haha.
Yes, I am a user. I live in the United States and I use energy derived from fossil fuels. Nevertheless, my electricity comes from renewable energy since I opted to use Viridian as my generation supplier. My car is a Prius, soon to be a Nissan Leaf or Ford Focus Electric. I don’t own a TV or cable box. I have disconnected all vampire electricity loads. I have LED lightbulbs. I don’t need air conditioning in the summer since my apartment is a basement unit. I also don’t need all that much electricity for heat in the winter. I ride my bicycle to work and often around town within a 5-15 mile radius. I use substantially less fossil fuel energy than the average.American, and I am happy with my life.
“Perhaps you can tell us what we REALISTICALLY substitute it with for the next 30/40 years without bankrupting ourselves to no effect?”
Energy efficiency measures can substantially reduce the amount of energy used, especially in the electricity sector, they also have the quickest return on investment. There are a wide variety of energy efficiency systems/solutions, too many to get into detail here. For generating electricity, a combination of solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear, fossil fuels with carbon capture, hydro, and sustainable biomass. Furthermore, the transportation sector should focus on electric vehicles for cars and light trucks and biofuel for heavier equipment such as semi trucks, ships, airplanes. The biofuel should NOT be grown on arable land, but should be developed from algae on desert or marginal land (or I have heard it could be grown in bio-reactors in a factory setting). The algae biofuel would probably need the most R&D. The USA started a program to fund algae biofuel during the 70’s oil crisis, but it was abandoned after the crisis.
“My own research shows, it goes back to 1607.
Either Berkely is wrong or the hockey stick is wrong. Which one do you want to go with?”
Unless your analysis that proves either of those two wrong is peer reviewed in a journal, I am not going to take your word for it.
REPLY:All the conservation, and yet you are up at 3AM EST running your computer to spout silly comments here. Way to use electricity dude! Go to bed. – Anthony
I am getting other work done in between comments. Plus, I have been icing my knee that I injured recently. Besides, this comment was brought to you by wind power. Why are my comments silly if I present potential solutions to reduce CO2? It seems like intelligent conversation to me.
REPLY: Brought to us by wind power? No wonder it blows! Ha! – I’ll help you get to sleep by putting your comments in the zzz que. Then when you get a good nights sleep I’ll turn them back on. Go to bed kid. – Anthony