James Hansen – off the rails

D. Patterson
were you wearing your tin foil hat whilst writing that?

observa says:
April 8, 2012 at 5:13 am
Bill Tuttle points out that Hansen was opposed to a new proposed Lignite fuelled power station in Slovenia but I’d give him a pass on that given his stance on a switch to broad based CO2E taxing with offsetting income tax cuts.
Three things will then happen:
1. The Libs will scream that it’s another “tax break for the rich,”
2. People below the minimum income level will get a “tax refund” in the interest of *fairness* — even though they pay no income tax (that already happens, so don’t claim it won’t); and
3. Everyone else will wind up with less disposable income.
When the premise for instituting a new tax is based on nothing but bullsh*t, it’s not merely a tax, it’s a *bad* tax.

Sam Geoghegan says:
April 8, 2012 at 5:02 pm
D. Patterson
were you wearing your tin foil hat whilst writing that?

[I posted a response yesterday which failed to appear on the blog, so I’m posting another response today.]
Perhaps you were wearing your own little form of a “tin foil hat” when you attempted your entirely inappropriate and uninformed wisecrack.
The point of the comment was that Hansen is the beneficiary of political patronage which permits him to disregard the rule of law with near impunity. His political patrons, including the Obama Administration, stand accused of numerous gross violations of law which have gone unpunished and unprosecuted, in part because the chief prosecutor, the U.S. Attorney General, is among those accused by a number of state attorney generals who refuse to remain silent about the illegal conduct..
It is a matter of record that changing the Federal Government by electing candidates from the opposition party, the Republican Party, is problematic due to various forms of vote fraud massively employed by the Democrats to impede the normal electoral process. While living in California I was denied the right to vote after the precinct polling place was changed. The Democrats replaced my voter registration name and address with the Hispanic names of a number of people who most certainly did not live in my house at the time of the election or at any time before the election. My attempts to protest the vote fraud and report the unlawful granting of California drivers licenses to people not living at my address or inside my home were met with threats to have me arrested. The threats of arrest came from the poll workers, the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, and the California Attorney General’s Office when I attempted to so much as open my mouth to report the vote fraud and identity fraud. They made it abundantly clear that they would not even allow so much as one sentence to be said in complaint before they automatically launched into a denial of the complaint and and false threats of arrest to intimidate any further efforts to pursue the matter further. This is not hyperbole. It is simply straightforward fact I was forced to experience.
The county voting results I commented upon came directly from the state’s election authority. A candidate for a state legislative office nearly succeeded in defeating the Democrat incumbent in the 2008 general election. The Republican candidate led in the vote results for the most part until one or two counties late in the evening declared they had problems with their automated vote counting machines, and they had to perform a “manual recount” of the votes. The manual recount of the votes resulted in a sudden narrow victory for the Democrat incumbent. Anonymous witness/esin the room when it happened later described how the county recorder staff manually tossed ballots for the Republican candidate until victory for the Democrat candidate was achieved. To avoid the necessity for such heavy-handed tactics in the 2012 election, The Democrats encouraged a former Democrat to run as a Republican in the 2012 general primary election. To ensure their faux-Republican won the nomination, the county chairmen were instructed to get out the Democrat vote in their counties and precincts by having the Democrats vote as Republicans in the 2012 general primary election for this faux-Republican. Having defeated the genuine Republican candidate in the primary election, the Democrats proceed to the general election in November knowing they can either re-elect the Democrat incumbent, or they can elect the faux-Republican in the event there is not enough support for the Democrat incumbent in the political backlash of this election. Either way, the Democrats succeed in putting someone favorable to and beholden to the Democrats in that elected office.
While serving as a delegate to a recent convention, I witnessed many self-described and supposedly former Democrats serving as delegates in favor of Romney. The delegates favoring the other candidates were systematically outvoted by the pro-Romney delegates, until their candidates lost all or nearly all representation among the delegates going to the state convention. The remarkable fact is the way in which the number of participants had more than tripled, and many of them commented upon how they were a former Democrat who voted for Obama in the last election..
Romney’s support of the AGW alarmists is clearly documented in his statements, and his position is clearly contrary to the 2012 election platform of the Republican Party he claims to represent. He is indisputably in favor of the AGW fraud.
Perhaps you would now retract your provocatively offensive comment?

@Some European
>>Just so you’d know: I used to disbelieve the science, too. I became convinced when I saw the mountains of hard and independent scientific evidence.
Please make these “mountains of hard and independent scientific evidence” available here so that I can see for myself and become convinced just as you are. I have been looking for years and have not been able to find what you have found.

Some European says:
April 9, 2012 at 4:48 am
You know, you guys should really listen to his proposal because it is rooted in the free market. Many commenters here are calling Hansen a Marxist. That’s preposterous!
His proposal isn’t rooted in the free market, it’s firmly planted in wealth-redistributionist astroturf. As far as Hansen’s philosophical bent, how do Hansen’s pontifications differ from “Even an entire society, a nation, or all simultaneously existing societies taken together, are not the owners of the earth. They are simply its possessors, its beneficiaries, and have to bequeath it in an improved state to succeeding generations as boni patres familias.” (Das Kapital, Vol III)
Hansen is proposing a system in which the government doesn’t get to pick winners and losers and in which everybody is free to choose their lifestyle.
Hansen is proposing a tax on carbon dioxide. Period.
Since this website is an overtly one-sided political forum, you should really pay attention to proposals that lie within your political spectrum, rather than viscerally rejecting it.
Prove your statement that WUWT is an overtly one-sided political forum. Then be prepared to be savaged by the Libs who comment here as regularly as the Conservatives and Middle-of-the-Roaders.
(The political right really seems to have a big blind spot there: against subsidies, except for the fossil fuel industry.)
That which the left calls “subsidies for the fossil fuel industry” are tax depreciation allowances. *Any* US business may claim them for equipment depreciation — that’s written into the tax code.

Well, I’m blown away again by the pertinent critiques of my comment. What can I say?
You guys are so smart, so good at logical thinking… So unbiased!
I give up!

I can’t help but notice that “Some European” has yet to present his “mountains of hard and independent scientific evidence” as I requested. These guys always lose that argument. The evidence just… isn’t… there. The king has no clothes.