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.
Marcella Twixt says:
April 7, 2012 at 4:52 pm
“James Hansen is warning us that a similar dynamic is in-play with atmospheric CO2. Except that CO2 doesn’t wash out of the atmosphere nearly as rapidly as pesticides … nor do humans reproduce as fast as bees … and so the possibility of a CO2-induced “Civilization Collapse Disorder” is exceedingly sobering.”
Now we’re equating Hansen’s illogical positive water vapor feedback theory with pesticides, calling it “similar dynamics”. Are you a political scientist? You know nothing about chemistry, physics or thermodynamics.
He uses that word, but I don’t think he understands what it means. Slavery is defined by some combination of involuntary exploitation and restricted liberty. In many societies, it is realized in progressive steps. Unless he is capable of supporting the merits of his position with respect to his claims concerning human influences of climate change, then he is, in fact, advocating for those progressive steps. Presumably for the same reasons as have others, including: wealth, power, and stature.
No. A comparable moral imperative to rejecting slavery, which was ended when society deemed (and sacrificed several hundred thousand lives) it appropriate to assign universal dignity to all human beings, is the current tragedy where mothers choose to terminate a million developing human lives annually in America alone. The next moral imperative is not to whom dignity is assigned, but when it is assigned. It is principally a philosophical question, since we have not yet been capable of defining consciousness, let alone identifying its cause.
Marcella Twixt says:
“Hansen’s scientific track record looks better with each passing year.”
That is totally wrong. Wherever are you getting your misinformation?? Hansen’s prediction was wrong, and as time goes on it is becoming increasingly preposterous.
You also stated that “CO2 doesn’t wash out of the atmosphere nearly as rapidly as pesticides…” That may be true of pesticides like Malathion, which oxidizes in under a week. But in general your claim is flat wrong, as these 36 peer reviewed papers show.
Finally, there is no evidence — none — that CO2 is harmful. It is a trace gas that is absolutely necessary to life on earth. More is better. If you can produce verifiable, testable evidence that CO2 is globally harmful, then produce it. Otherwise, think about the enormous amounts of money flowing into the “carbon” scare. That is the real motivation for the false alarm over CO2.
_Jim, Romney is the author of the bill. He said in a 2008 USA Today column that it would make an excellent model for a federal program. He said when he started his campaign for 2012 that it was good for his state. His aides helped draft Obamacare. And it is a fiscal disaster:
“Former Romney/Obama advisor Jonathan Gruber has written that RomneyCare was already costing the state $50 billion more than projected by 2009. Of course, supporters have been hiding RomneyCare’s costs (and exaggerating its benefits) all along.”
This isn’t that difficult. The facts about your global warming/Romneycare candidate are there for anyone to look up.
Hansen says we have a moral duty to protect our children and grandchildren from disaster.
We must also protect them from multi-trillion dollar defecits as well.
Hansen is a collectivist and a historical revisionist. There’s nothing like centralised power to enhance slavery, social degradation and cartelism.
Take the great emancipator’s words -Abraham Lincoln for example:
‘I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say, in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.’
The AGW alarmists accept the extreme AGW paradigm without questioning. James Hansen’s role has become that of priest as opposed to scientist. The observations do not support the hypothesis that Hansen is promoting.
Hansen has become Lord Kelvin, an old man who is incapable of objectively seeing that new data does not support his extreme AGW hypothesis. Hansen is an old man who is incapable of changing his belief. Hansen’s believe have become dogma for his followers. The extreme AGW supports appear to be unaware that current observations and the paleoclimatic record does not support Hansen’s dogma.
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/2008/4/mistakes-were-made
Mistakes Were Made
“To the Editors:
“Great men,” wrote science philosopher Karl Popper, “often make great mistakes.” The great Lord Kelvin made more mistakes than just the Earth’s age (“Kelvin, Perry and the Age of the Earth,” July-August 2007). Another one, less known perhaps, made near the end of his life (after tenure as Royal Society secretary) was that the Sun was isotropic (that its magnetic waves are issued in all directions, all of the time). This turned out not to be the case, either observationally or mathematically. Mathematically, he wrongly assumed that the field strength of the magnetic waves decreased as an inverse of the distance to the cubic power. It is actually less rapid and perhaps an inverse of distance squared. Less is known about how he responded to solar observations that falsified isotropic behavior….
…Kelvin never replied to Maunder’s address and it is not clear if he was even aware of Maunder’s speech. Lord Kelvin’s mistake still showed up in textbooks 40 years after he made his claim. Some say it held back solar science research in some crucial ways for years. In more modern times Eugene N. Parker, delineator of the solar wind, said that Kelvin “ignored the suggestion that the geomagnetic variations might be the result of a beam of corpuscular radiation” (which today is often called plasma).
Great men make great mistakes. It is perhaps inevitable: so much good comes with some bad. Lest we make much of any person’s catapulting to fame and, hence, become target for invective, Kelvin was great, nonetheless. He arguably was the father of electromagnetism, giving Maxwell his basis for further study and research. Like all the true “greats” (such as Newton and Galileo) Kelvin was inventor, theorist and pragmatist all in one. An invention of his made the transatlantic telephone cable work: American and English stock markets became connected in an instant. Being one of the few ranking physicists then alive who was able to understand what Nikola Tesla was talking about in terms of alternating-current motors, Kelvin applauded it and told Westinghouse to invest in it. From Niagara Falls’ distance, Tesla and Westinghouse lit up New York City. Alternating current has been economically lighting the world ever since.”
This is the fourth published paper that supports the assertion that planet’s response to change in forcing is negative. This paper analyzes top of the atmosphere radiation changes using satellites as compared to changes in planetary temperature change. The conclusion of the paper is clouds in the tropics increase or decrease thereby reflecting more or less sunlight off into space to resist (negative feedback) planetary temperature change.
The IPCC models assume positive feedback which amplifies CO2 warming. Based on the analysis of Lindzen and Choi the warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will be roughly 0.8C as compared to the IPCC predicted 3C to 5C.
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf
“On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
We estimate climate sensitivity from observations, using the deseasonalized fluctuations in sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the concurrent fluctuations in the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) outgoing radiation from the ERBE (1985-1999) and CERES (2000-2008) satellite instruments. Distinct periods of warming and cooling in the SSTs were used to evaluate feedbacks. An earlier study (Lindzen and Choi, 2009) was subject to significant criticisms. The present paper is an expansion of the earlier paper where the various criticisms are taken into account. ….
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2009JCLI3461.1
Why Hasn’t Earth Warmed as Much as Expected?
The observed increase in global mean surface temperature (GMST) over the industrial era is less than 40% of that expected from observed increases in long-lived greenhouse gases together with the best-estimate equilibrium climate sensitivity given by the 2007 Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Possible reasons for this warming discrepancy are systematically examined here.,,,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2012/02/09/understanding-the-global-warming-debate/
“The problem for global warming supporters is they actually need for past warming from CO2 to be higher than 0.7C. If the IPCC is correct that based on their high-feedback models we should expect to see 3C of warming per doubling of CO2, looking backwards this means we should already have seen about 1.5C of CO2-driven warming based on past CO2 increases. But no matter how uncertain our measurements, it’s clear we have seen nothing like this kind of temperature rise. Past warming has in fact been more consistent with low or even negative feedback assumptions.”
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html
Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years. Some attribute the trend to a lack of sunspots, while others explain it through ocean currents.
Just a few weeks ago, Britain’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research added more fuel to the fire with its latest calculations of global average temperatures. According to the Hadley figures, the world grew warmer by 0.07 degrees Celsius from 1999 to 2008 and not by the 0.2 degrees Celsius assumed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And, say the British experts, when their figure is adjusted for two naturally occurring climate phenomena, El Niño and La Niña, the resulting temperature trend is reduced to 0.0 degrees Celsius — in other words, a standstill.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html
Even though the temperature standstill probably has no effect on the long-term warming trend, it does raise doubts about the predictive value of climate models, and it is also a political issue. For months, climate change skeptics have been gloating over the findings on their Internet forums. This has prompted many a climatologist to treat the temperature data in public with a sense of shame, thereby damaging their own credibility.
“It cannot be denied that this is one of the hottest issues in the scientific community,” says Jochem Marotzke, director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. “We don’t really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point.”
Just a few weeks ago, Britain’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research added more fuel to the fire with its latest calculations of global average temperatures. According to the Hadley figures, the world grew warmer by 0.07 degrees Celsius from 1999 to 2008 and not by the 0.2 degrees Celsius assumed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And, say the British experts, when their figure is adjusted for two naturally occurring climate phenomena, El Niño and La Niña, the resulting temperature trend is reduced to 0.0 degrees Celsius — in other words, a standstill.
http://blogs.forbes.com/jamestaylor/2011/07/27/new-nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-in-global-warming-alarmism/
New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism
NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.
Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA’s Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.
“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans…
http://economics.com.au/?p=7780
I set readers of this blog a challenge – tell me the objective of the Gillard government’s carbon tax. From the many responses I think that there are seven broadly claimed objectives:
1. The carbon tax is driven by the politics of minority government (the objective is political);
2. We need to carbon tax because it is morally the right thing to do (the objective is moral);
3. We need the carbon tax to reduce domestic carbon emissions (the objective is domestic emissions reduction);
4. We need the carbon tax to prepare us for when the rest of the world acts on carbon emissions (the objective is to ease transition in the future);
5. The carbon tax is a solution (or part of a solution) to global climate change and its terrible consequences (the objective is reducing global emissions);
6. We need the carbon tax to be an example to other developed nations or to avoid claims of hypocrisy by developing countries when global solutions to carbon pollution are being mooted (the objective is reducing global emissions by setting a global example); and
7. We need a carbon tax to help maintain a (Pareto superior) solution to the repeated n-player international prisoners’ dilemma of carbon pollution (the objective is reducing global emissions through strategic behaviour).
‘We’re handing future generations a climate system which is potentially out of their control’
What a priceless quote from Hansen! What on earth makes him think it would be possible for us to hand future generations a climate system they can control? Has he never heard of hubris?
The Op-ed piece for USA Today was written in 2009. And here is his statement on Global Warming: In June 2011, Romney stated said that “[the
U.S. should] reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors.”
His book advocates for a carbon tax, offset by a pathetic cut somewherre else, I believe in the payroll tax. In that case you may be Julia Gillard’s fan as well.
Zeke,
I share your concerns. But the only credible vote will be for either Obama or for Romney. Anything else is a wasted vote — and a vote for Obama by omission.
Given the choice between Romney or another four years of Obama, what’s your verdict?
I’d like to propose a worldwide tax on James Hansen whenever and wherever he speaks.
Every time he opens his mouth, he should be taxed or fined, possibly both.
There are a lot of great scientists at NASA, how on Earth is he a “leading” NASA scientist?
Oh Marcella Twixt, I don’t get it at first “scientists” thought that global warming was causing the decline in bees. Then they found out that is not true, so now here you are arguing not that global warming causes the decline, but that pesticides causes it, and that somehow that proves global warming is a concern. Gee. No matter what has caused the decline in bee population, global warming is to blame, even if it isn’t to blame. No one can win that argument.
The right thing to do Smokey, is to continue to campaign against ghg regulations (farming, cattle, and energy restrictions), carbon taxes, mandates and subsidies for worthless wind turbines and solar, anti-coal efforts, federal coercion in “car technology,” expensive and unwanted low carbon products, expensive additional processing of coal and oil, and binding agreements with the UN to dictate where and how the US gets its energy – and also to continue to raise awareness about anyone who supports these destructive policies. The AGW scientific fraud will collapse shortly.
And now a question for you: Once you have accepted the elimination of the difference between the parties on energy security and freedom, do you honestly think you will ever get it back?
Think Obummer will call Hansen out on these obviously offensive remarks?
Zeke,
All I know is that another 4 years of Obama’s anti-American policies would be the worst of all possible worlds. Romney was never my choice, but he is infinitely better for America than the Muslim community organizer, who has hobbled the country with $Trillions of new debt, and sold us out to the UN, and who is the total puppet of George Soros and the enviro-fascist crowd.
Like every reasonable American citizen, I will vote for the lesser of two evils. Because one evil is much worse than the other.
1. Hansen and his close supporters will have a large chapter in the voluminous history called “How climate science got side tracked by snake oil salesmen”. The published text ought to be dedicated to Hubert Lamb who had a sober and balanced view of these matters. Unfortunately this history will only be commenced by the brightest and best of our young researchers when funds become available as it becomes generally accepted that the climate science wars of 2000 to 201? have been decided and that the planet won. My guess is that this point will be reached in about 2025 when the climate change global temperature indicators have registered a history of no statistically significant change or of significantly sustained cooling.
2. In Australia the worm is already turning. The MSM has commenced polling on public attitudes to the views expressed by Professor Tim Flannery who heads up our Climate Commission. The Commission is required to barnstorm the country supporting the government’s carbon tax legislation. The tax, payable at the rate of Aus $ 23 per tonne of CO2 emitted, will be payable by the top 500 corporate emitters from 1 July 2012. This is an astronomical impost when compared with other schemes internationally.
Flannery has a well earned international scientific reputation in the fields of mammology (especially kangaroos) and paleontology. He has no training in meteorology or climatology. But in his public utterances and popular writings he has chanced his arm on Hansen type scaremongering: hence his appointment as Chief Commisioner. But the first published poll confirms that he has a credibility problem. It is reported on 2 April 2012 that:
A QUARTER of Australians say Tim Flannery is an unreliable source of information about climate change, a new survey reveals.
A Galaxy poll for the Institute of Public Affairs found 18 per cent of people regard the country’s official climate change spokesman as “somewhat unreliable”, while 7 per cent consider him “very unreliable”. Less than a third, 31 per cent, found him somewhat or very reliable.
NSW residents are among the most dubious in the nation, with 28 per cent of those polled saying the Climate Commissioner was an unreliable source of information.
“By regularly making predictions that have turned out to be false, Tim Flannery is doing the carbon tax and the Gillard government more harm than good,” the Institute’s James Paterson said.
Last night, Prof Flannery said: “This issue isn’t about opinion. It is about facts. We know climate is changing and if we don’t act there is likely to be serious consequences.”
Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national/tim-flannerys-like-the-weather-unreliable/story-e6frfkvr-1226316094295#ixzz1rPkZf13b
3. I admire Flannery as a scientist in his areas of expertise. But I think he is extremely foolish to have fallen into the climate change controversy without a scientific background in any of the relevant disciplines. This has led him in recent years to make a series of crackpot predictions about rainfall, water and storage dams which have already proved to be incorrect.
4. I would be interested to see the results of an American poll concerning public attitudes to the views of Hansen. If these exist please advise me on this thread. I would be worried if his views command significant respect. Happily the state of the current US legislative process is preventing any carbon tax/emission control legislation from being enacted at present. And, it appears likely that this situation will not change in November. So perhaps it doesn’t really matter what Hansen is saying.
Several points
As indicated by others, I think it is good that Hansen’s radical positions are revealed to the public. The more he bloviates the more people with common sense distrust NASA and the CAGW mantra. WUWT is doing a service as I can spread the message to my friends that are on the fence re the global warming mantra.
Second, the more Hansen’s massive carbon foot print is exposed and his hyprocrisy revealed the less credible his message becomes. People with common sense understand when the message is so extreme it is probably has no basis in Science. This is along the lines that Gore has little credibility with the public because of his stupid exaggerated claims.
Finally since Hansen is obviously a hyprocrite re his carbon footprint, one begins to question his sincerity along the lines of Gore, Biden, (and Obama until recently) who give almost nothing to charity while constantly harping about increasing your taxes to help the disadvantaged. Is Hansen spreading his wealth around as he demands that we spread our wealth around the world with a carbon tax?
That is your choice. But I will never voluntarily elect a global warming advocate. The policies will turn deadly for Europeans and Australians. Energy is too vital. Every one has a line they cannot cross.
Marcella Twixt, I forgot to add that you are completely entitled to your own opinion. I happen to believe that technology will save us from the things you seem so afraid of. To clean our planet. To me, that is a truly progressive way to think. Positive, too.
Smokey nailed it, on the POTUS. Politicians need to be chosen by lottery. Anyone who actively pursues a political career is untrustworthy by default. IMHO.
RE
David Ball says:
@ur momisugly April 7, 2012 at 8:54 pm
————-
It has been clear to me for some time now that Smokey is one of the brilliant thinkers amongst us. This is an example of ‘lateral’ beauty. I have not been unusual in thinking: the last people you want to govern you, are those who want to govern you. So: a lottery. That is, frankly, mathemtically beautiful! Mathematics, meet political economy.
Post-script: everything I said above I meant sincerely. The only question remaining for me now is – how do resolve the problem of random clumping?
Marcella Twixt says:
April 7, 2012 at 4:52 pm
Steve, the assumptions of your post are verifiably incorrect: the plain fact is that wild bee populations are collapsing too.
North American wild bees are solitary. Wild bee colonies — except in Africa and Asia — are founded by escaped domestic bees, and since young queens seem to prefer the attics (and walls) of houses as sites for their new colony, your friendly Orkin man is responsible for most of the decline in “wild” bee populations.
… and one implication, which increasingly many scientists are wondering about, is whether the accelerating incidence of male autism disorder may have similar chemical origins.
Autism is the most overused diagnosis in America. If a kid’s attention wanders in school — *boom* — he’s suddenly declared autistic.
Except that CO2 doesn’t wash out of the atmosphere nearly as rapidly as pesticides …
CO2 is a necessary component of our atmosphere — if it “washed out,” the only thing left alive would be anaerobic bacteria.
Personally I’d defend certain aspects of what Hansen advocates, albeit the CAGW/slavery analogy is out there with the best of the loons, but he is a true believer in the warmist religion. Nevertheless Hansen essentially advocates a shift to reliance on fossil fuel taxation with countervailing reductions in other forms of taxation, largely income tax and at least that is a sensible departure from the thin air derivatives trading advocates, not to mention their attempts to pick winners, reshiftable energy programs and the like.
Taking Hansen’s advocacy to its ultimate conclusion and leaving aside the argument over the absolute level of taxation as a separate debate, we could rely totally on fossil fuel taxation(indeed CO2E methodology if that satisfies warmists in particular) and we could easily envisage some positive outcomes in doing so. Think administrative simplicity, neutrality (business, private, religious pursuits), extremely difficult to avoid (collected at the mine and well head), equity (the rich consume the most energy) as well as not penalising entrepreneurship, initiative or plain sweat and toil. When you think about that (imagineering if you like), there is no particular sound basis for believing that reliance on the current milieu of taxation is optimal. Indeed Hansen may well have stumbled on a much better paradigm for constituting our ‘free’ marketplace than the one we have inherited from creeping incrementalism or the science of muddling through over the years. There are many ways in which taxation can impact the general level of pricing and concomitant factor rewards and economic outcomes so Hansen may well be on to something worthwhile in that regard. I’ll keep an open mind on that, particularly as he appears to want to get out of the business of picking winners and interfering in our lives like so many of his brethren.
“… issue of inter-generational justice on a par with ending slavery,”
Hansen has spent to much time at NASA inhaling rocket fuel fumes…