There’s not a whole lot I can say about this, except that I’m looking forward to his retirement soon. Then, he can speak as a “private citizen” as much as he wants.
Here’s the full story.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/apr/06/nasa-scientist-climate-change?newsfeed=true
Related articles
- Gore, Hansen, Trenberth to make Antarctic PR expedition (wattsupwiththat.com)
- Why I must speak out on climate change: James Hansen at TED2012 (junkscience.com)
- NASA’s Hansen tries to tell Slovenia not to build a power plant (wattsupwiththat.com)
- Hey Hansen! Where’s The Beef?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Trouble is if elected will the current front runner in the Republican
Party Mitt Romney have the guts to fire Hanson…?”
Romney, the first king of cap and trade in America? Romney, the first king of the corportist insurance company scam to use government police powers to force the people to give money to the insurance companies, ie, the percursor of Obamacare? No way. Just like when Bush got elected, all the solar scams and similar just started throwing money the Republicans way. Also, the Republicans are running this year on the “Ryan Plan”, another insurance company written scam, which without shame, openly forecasts–with its enactment–40 more years of deficits. That is, continual debt rating downgrades, continual crises.
Nope, Romney,like Obama, is not going to make cuts in anything other than Medicare, Armed Force troop levels (they don’t give much in campaign contributions), and will advocate contiual raids on Social Security.
The AGW scam is there for all to see and they know it…..as their desperation increases they have to face the awful truth. The mantra they backed has blown up in their faces and they are in big trouble. Their reputations will be in tatters, their careers at an end and the politiciians who thought it sounded so credible will take revenge through the courts to leave the blame fairly and squarely with the “scientists” who have created the mess. That is the reason for the increasing desperate statements from the likes of Hansen and the stupid Norwegian woman. The end gane has started!
Slavery alright. We work & earn our money honestly, they take said money away in a dishonest fashion. The UN defines slavery as something along the lines of working against your will for little or no money. Working to pay off an extortionist in the form of the AGW movement & their crony governments is definitely against my will, but I am forced to do it anyway due to government regulation based on a knowingly fraudulent premise. Who’s the slave driver again James?
One other thing Mr. Hansen, can you remember who freed the slaves (Republicans) and who were opposed to it (Democrats)? In fact Abraham Lincoln lost his life in the pursuit of freedom, as he was gunned down by yet another raving leftist nutjob.
Marcella Twixt says:
April 7, 2012 at 1:22 pm
“It is a well-established constitutional foundation of American law…”
And:
“Bottom Line: Regulated markets in commons-degrading chemicals are… plainly constitutional law, as a matter of plain legal precedent.”
If that were so, it would be a simple matter to file a restraining order. I get the impression that Marcella gets her talking points not from farmers, but from heavily biased sources like Mother Jones.
FYI, bee mites are the primary cause of colony collapse, not pesticides. And I note that there aren’t many apple trees in cornfields.
RockyRoad says:
April 7, 2012 at 12:45 pm
Romney’s a businessman and tight as a wad*–he won’t mess around with unsubstantiatable “dreams”, crooked deals, bogus plans, and a plethora of “splendid ideas” people cook up to waste taxpayer money or require additional $Trillion loans from Big China.
The problem is that Romney’s current and past ideas of “good business” usually entail using government to tell you what to buy. For example, Romney mandated the purchase of state-approved health insurance, and the program is now running billions over projected costs. This businessman – did you call him? – has repeatedly said that this was a “good plan” for his state. In fact, he is running his campaign on the success of Romneycare.
He also mandated GHG reductions and renewable energy programs aplenty in Mass, so certainly you can argue that he is a tight businessman – one who has been deeply involved in government coercion in such industries as autobuilding, energy, and health care, claiming it is “good business.”
These are rather bizarre views.
Does he also believe in Hockey Sticks, missing heat reservoirs and perceive Peter Gleick a high-profile climate scientists ?
NASA has given up spaceflight and space exploration robotics. Now, it is only concerned about Global “climate change” and appeasing muslims. The former rightly is the responsibility of NOAA and the latter is the responsibility of … ?
Talk of losing its way.
When, eventually, people give up flogging the dead horse, the scientists will say:
“We used the best information available and changed our minds in the face of further evidence. The scientific process worked”.
The politicians will say: “We followed the best scientific advise available”
Neither will admit that the scientists were paid by the politicians to provide the scientific support they wanted for their own hair-brained schems for further control of society.
Zeke says:
April 7, 2012 at 1:56 pm [ … ]
I could agree with everything mentioned. But compared with the alternative… there is no comparison.
Berényi Péter,
This follows from countless “Communicating Climate Science” seminas. Remember that the Warmistas consider their propaganda is ailing because of a lack of
propagandacommunication.This tack is to equate denialism with racism … and we all know racism is very bad. Hansen is following the script and master plan … hey two can play at that propaganda game. The master plan phrase suggests Hitlerian intent.
I thought the same thing during the last presidential elections, Smokey. I overlooked the Republican candidate’s support of cap-n-tax and ghg regulations because the alternative was obviously a disaster.
Now, four years later, with Europe and Australia implementing carbon taxes and with the full devastation of worthless wind turbines to national economies in Europe on display, I have decided that the right thing to do is vigorously campaign against all green candidates and policies on offer, no matter which party they belong to. It will not be long before the AGW farce collapses. Otherwise, you have voluntarily accepted a two-party system in which the parties do not differ on Energy Freedom.
Smokey says “Bee mites are the primary cause of colony collapse, not pesticides.”
Please see “Pesticide exposure in honey bees results in increased levels of the gut pathogen Nosema” … and a flood of similar recent scientific articles.
Needless to say:
• Tobacco companies denied that smoking causes cancer
• Fluorocarbon companies denied harm to the ozone layer
• Japan’s TEPCO denied the Fukushima reactors had melted-down, and now
• Pesticide companies are denying their products kill bees, and of course
• Coal companies deny CO2 raises global temperatures.
Given the above history, it’s evident that James Hansen stands firmly in the tradition of scientists whose findings were highly “inconvenient” to established corporate, political, and ideological interests. In which event, scientists have a special obligation *NOT* to be silent.
There seems to be a problem. Perhaps a solution is in order.
Marcella Twixt,
Hansen is a pseudo-scientist preaching baseless gloom and doom. Haven’t you read the article and comments here?? And how many times must it be pointed out to you that there is no proof that CO2 causes warming. It may. I personally think it does cause some minor warming. But empirical, testable evidence is non-existent.
Furthermore, the hypothesis that at current and projected levels CO2 is harmless and beneficial to the biosphere has never been falsified. You should save your criticism for actual problems. CO2 is not one of them.
Why should the government let Hansen retire? He should be fired for using tax money to advocate a political position.
Smokey says: “Hansen is a pseudo-scientist preaching baseless gloom and doom”
===================
Smokey, folks who read Hansen’s well-conceived 31-year-old predictions from 1981 mostly appreciate that Hansen’s scientific track record looks better with each passing year. That’s why Hansen’s corporate critics commonly are switching to “Gish Galloping” modes of criticism. It’s because purely on his scientific publication track record, Hansen’s reputation is looking better-and-better, with each passing year.
Robert of Ottawa says: “NASA has given up spaceflight and space exploration robotics.”
=========================
Robert, your burger is somewhat lacking in beef ….
‘Slavers’ is a Scottish word meaning childish gabble, non-sensical utterings and pointless rambling.
Does Hansen have Scottish roots?
Marcella Twixt
You appeal to the principles of the Constitution established by the founding fathers.
Then I encourage you to focus on “the laws of nature and of nature’s God” which all States have mutually required for equal standing in the Union by enabling acts. Science is founded on discovering those laws by objective evidence testable models resulting in validated and verifiable theories – not environmental politics.
You object to lofting “CO2 that heats our skies.”
Then you bear the burden of proof to show that CO2 is in the same category as tobacco smoke, fluorocarbons, pesticides, or (xyz) that causes autism. To do so, you must show that:
1) increasing CO2 causes warming that is statistically distinguishable from natural climate variations, 2) the increase will cause more harm than good, and
3) that mitigating CO2 is more cost effective than adaptation or doing nothing.
None of the current climate models have been validated nor have they been run sufficient runs to account for chaotic climate variations, nor have the systematic biases or the full range of natural variations been accounted for. Search ClimateEtc on those issues to understand more of the details involved.
Earth was most organically productive during periods of very high CO2, as evidenced by the massive quantities of coal that were laid down. Why do you object to returning the earth to those abundant Eden like conditions?
The logical consequence of your objections to “lofting” CO2 is that you seek everyone to:
1) Stop using electricity to post on this site,
2) Stop working as that embodies CO2,
3) Stop eating as that requires farmers to emit CO2, and
4) Stop breathing, as that also emits CO2.
By contrast, I prefer to do all of the above to reduce the higher rate of deaths from colder temperatures over warmer temperatures. I further seek to so benefit the 3 billion poor by:
Increasing their agricultural productivity with higher CO2;
Increasing precipitation, helping them capture water for irrigation.
For supporting evidence, see the NIPCC reports and CO2Science.org.
I wish you a long and healthy life with an abundance of CO2.
Guardian needs to reassess the way it reports this type of extreme ideology which is well beyond the more ‘moderate’ AGW pronouncements.
As he ages he seems to look more possesed by something.
In that brief delusional statement he makes it clear he does not understand slavery and climate change. But at least he’s talking about it. That is the first step to recovery.
My greatest interest is the comparison between the AGW hysterics and the similar responses and actions of the Feminist movement. They both appear to being desperate as they raise issues that are totally without foundation or facts. Relying more on hyperbole and emotions to try and keep their “movement” on the front pages and in the public view. They do however demonstrate their desperation by introducing unfounded and ludicrous statement like Hanson does here and the Feminists have done with the “contraception” hysterics they have introduced. Interesting how both those movement appear to be from the same side of politics.
Marcella Twixt says:
April 7, 2012 at 2:22 pm
“• Coal companies deny CO2 raises global temperatures.”
Can you point where did any coal company deny CO2 raises global temperature?
Can you further point what is your understanding what does CO2 do? What will happen if we continue to burn coal?
Marcella Twixt says:
April 7, 2012 at 2:22 pm
Needless to say:
• Tobacco companies denied that smoking causes cancer
Not all persons who smoke suffer from cancer. Not all cancer sufferers smoke.