Though, he still thinks we are all funded by some sort of “machine”. It never occurs to him that he’s fighting a guerrilla war and that most skeptics are self motivated.
Update: the UK telegraph has a similar story here
Scientist hits climate change skepticism – UPI.com
EDINBURGH,Scotland,April 9 (UPI) –Environmentalists and climate scientists, facing public skepticism, are losing the debate on global warming, a U.S. scientist who first raised the issue says.
James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who issued warnings about man-made climate change as early as the 1980s, said public skepticism is increasing even in the face of growing scientific acceptance of the reality of global warming.
“There is remarkable inconsistency between the scientific story and public story,” Hansen said in Edinburgh, Scotland, where he will receive the Edinburgh Medal at the Edinburgh International Science Festival this week, The Daily Telegraph reported.
Hansen said those opposed to major social and economic changes needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions were attempting to undermine the scientific evidence.
“The science has become stronger and stronger over the past five years while the public perception is has gone in completely the other direction. That is not an accident.
“There is a very concerted effort by people who would prefer to see business to continue as usual. They have been winning the public debate with the help of tremendous resources.”
Without a dramatic change in public opinion, Hansen said,he fears future generations will inherit a world where global warming is out of control.
“Our parents honestly did not know what the consequences of continued development and reliance on fossil fuels as an energy source,” he said. “We can no longer claim that, as the science is now clear.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hansen is both a megalomaniac and delusional!
@Kosowski: The first 2 of your points are recognized, established, peer-reviewed scientific predictions. They are based on the current evidence at hand, which is always subject to change.. I have no idea what you mean by mainstream, since all that matters is evidence, not public opinion.
As to point number 3, I do not believe any scientist is predicting boiling of the oceans in four centuries, or ever, until the sun explodes a few 1,000,000,000 years from now.
This a joke, the pronouncement of a lunatic or exaggeration for effect, and I would like to see a source for it.
You wrote Hansen “predicts as follows based on continued increasing CO2 emissions:
1. 5 meter sea level rise this century. 2. Mass extinction event this century. 3. Boiling of the oceans within four centuries.
None of these predictions/projections are mainstream. Hasen is a contrarian
Maurizio Rovati says:
April 10, 2012 at 1:33 am
He looks pretty like this guy… 🙂
http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/l/U/iraq_denial.jpg
========================================================================
If that’s Baghdad Bob in the link, can Dr. Jim be MadDad Jim?
“These are not great souls who alert us to troubles but tiny minds who wish us suffering if we have the presumption to refuse to listen to them. Catastrophe is not their fear but their joy. It is a short distance from lucidity to bitterness, from prediction to anathema. — Pascal Bruckner via Steve Hayward at Powerline today.
John Whitman @ur momisugly 6:27 am –
John, the war terminology is perfectly appropriate. The CAGW proponents are making war on western civilization, attempting to lay it to waste. Other than the lack of direct civilian casualties, the draconian laws and regulations proposed and enacted by Western governments in the name of reversing CAGW are destroying the industrial capacity of Europe and the U.S. almost as effectively as WW2 aerial bombing did. A power plant or factory closed by insane laws and regulations is no different than a power plant or factory closed by bombing – it’s still closed.
Jay Davis
Hansen’s bigger computer suggests more robust modeling for funding agencies. Like a bigger car suggests more massive equipment for the ladies. In both cases, there are hidden shortcomings. In reality, we’re just getting screwed.
Alex The Skeptic (1:26AM) -Those who have seen the light: “Epiphinates”. I just made that word up.
Pointman (4:48AM) – When a liar believes his own lies, he becomes a Pathological Liar.
Tim Mantyla says:
April 10, 2012 at 7:09 am
The comments against established science on this site, again as I have stated in other places on this blog, are ridiculous…..Hansen is talking about American conservative public opinion, not public understanding globally…..Many Americans live in a bubble of consumerism, and all align their beliefs in opinions along political lines.
Except that no kind of science, nor what you may call “the science,” is ever established, and in this case it’s not much of a science other than flashy wizardry and repitious appeals to authority to obscure a massive investment, funding and global taxation racket. Follow the real money, including that from oil companies…the biggest corporate donors to the “greens”… which delight in this artificial, regulations-induced scarcity where they can avoid new competition, produce far less and earn much more. That’s how you make the trite “less is more” line into a reality.
And, with all the attention on CO2, have you ever wondered about where the evidence is that even the most dramatic warming would have a bad effects on the world? History shows exactly the opposite. Al Gore’s Hollywoodish phantasmagoria of droughts, floods, hurricanes doesn’t count as evidence.
Also, what do you know about “public understanding globally”? We don’t know how the majority of people in the world think simply because they live under tyrannies and cannot express themselves honestly.
To the man who triumphantly shouted that April in Scotland was very cold this month, it is not evidence for global cooling. People who post on this site who are knowledgeable should be noting this, from skepticalscience.com:
” To conclude that global warming has ended based on recent cold snaps is another example of the misleading practice of focusing on small pieces of the puzzle while ignoring the broader picture.”
I left Edinburh this morning – it was snowing
Has anybody got the F.B.I’s number
Bob the Swiss says:
April 10, 2012 at 12:23 am
“How can this guy remains director of the NASA GISS ?”
Obama’s in charge. Harry Reid, accomplice.
It is telling that the site claims to be the most viewed, not the mostscientific or authoritative , site on global warming.
I have experienced the unscientific echoing of recycled myths, and stooping to attempted smears and bullying first hand, when I posted comments about this another article regarding monkton of benchLey’s
Pointman says:
You can’t help but feel it’s only a matter of time until he pulls a Gleick. He’s such a driven fanatic.
Then again, I’d rather have him pull a Gleick than a similarly named Austrian product. Fanatics on a mission to save mankind are unpredictable.
Ive asked this question many times, How does glowbull warming always have to be bad gloom & doom results? The fact is everything in on or about the planet is a natural thing. Granted much of it like a snakes poison can harm or kill organic life. You cant take something and make it into nothing. and cant take nothing and make it into something. And for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. So it should eventually come out Even Steven. Hansen will eventually self sabotage.
The recent work, or at least a recent presentation, by Richayhrd Lindzen has been revealed as false; look at realclimate.org.
His work in the real science community has long been regarded as relying on the flawed data and conclusions. Again, many on this site are failing to do adequate research. This makes your conclusions flawed.
Any 1 of you could get a climate science degree, but on this site is anyone doing it?
REPLY: You don’t have a climate science degree either, so what is stopping you? And, what makes you more qualified to make pronouncements? Goose gander, and all that. And, Dr. James Hansen of NASA GISS doesn’t have a climate science degree either, in fact, his degree is in astronomy and physics.
Education:
BA with highest distinction (Physics and Mathematics), University of Iowa, 1963
MS (Astronomy), University of Iowa, 1965
Visiting student, Inst. of Astrophysics, University of Kyoto & Dept. of Astronomy, Tokyo University, Japan, 1965-1966
Ph.D. (Physics), University of Iowa, 1967
Source: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/hansencv_201201.pdf
Not even training in meteorology. It seems that many people at NASA see Dr. Hansen and GISS as an embarrassment:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/10/hansen-and-schmidt-of-nasa-giss-under-fire-engineers-scientists-astronauts-ask-nasa-administration-to-look-at-emprical-evidence-rather-than-climate-models/
So Mr. Mantya, please stop your pointless blathering about things you know absolutely nothing about and go write some articles on brains or something. http://timmantyla.wordpress.com/tag/brain/ .
– Anthony
After killing our manned space program and starving the unmanned programs into oblivion, all that’s left of NASA is Hansen’s alarmism. Truly the Dark Ages are impending.
Alex:
How bout “climate realists”?
Jimbo says:
“On the issue of “tremendous resources” need I remind him that the self-confessed liar, Peter Gleick, thought the same thing too until he inadvertantly revealed a relatively poorly funded empherically based science machine. I want to see evidence of the tremendous resources on the sceptics side.”
Peter Gleick still thinks there’s a well organized and funded Climate Denial Machine, as evidenced by his confession. These people have no ability to evaluate evidence objectively, even we they fraudulently obtain the evidence themselves. Somehow $X to Heartland = Climate Denial Machine BUT $X^2 to Greenpeace = Objective Science. These are the “experts” we’re supposed to trust to evaluate the evidence pertaining to climate policy? I don’t think so.
Really, this is a good sign.
Sun Tsu teaches “Know your enemy” and “All war is based on deception.”
As long as we can keep Hanses and the Hockey Team believing this error (atop all his others) he is doomed. His efforts against rational science will continue to be mis-directed.
“The science is now clear”
Another case where they believe that if it’s repeated often enough it will become true.
The problem is that the debate is over but in the UK the Government is ignoring all debate, and just following a policy of ‘Carbon is bad’. As a democracy it’s frustrating to hear what constitutes a lie at this level. There was even a member of the ‘Committee for Climate Change’ on BBC Radio 4 last week saying that China was complying with the need to reduce carbon emissions…how deluded is that?
Hansen says: as the science is now clear
Says who?
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
It is not over until the phat lady sings….
One of the things that amused my wife and I during a two week Edinburgh stay in late June 2002 was the concern of the locals regarding Global Warming. They were “dying” from the heat wave that had descended on them, and many took us to task for not supporting the Kyoto agreement.
Cause for amusement: the high during our two weeks – that was killing them – was 68⁰F. Us dumb Californians (and other Americans) were freezing in our cut-offs and short sleaves! After all, it was summer!
How did he get to Scotland from above Tom’s Restaurant? Walk? Why doesn’t he cut back his carbon footprint first?
@Wellington.
“Then again, I’d rather have him pull a Gleick than a similarly named Austrian product. Fanatics on a mission to save mankind are unpredictable.”
Sadly, I think it will come to that when the real fanatics realise “the cause” has had its day.
Pointman