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.”
Tim Mantyla said:
“…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…”
Yet at the same time, to conclude that global warming is CONTINUING based on recent WARM weather seems to be the norm. You can’t ignore recent cold snaps simply because they don’t fit the current theory.
In the 70’s, weather like these recent cold snaps would have been the support for the “global cooling” theory.
And, the mainstream press (such as CNN) is beginning to see the light:
“…Short-term weather patterns such as the one that affected the United States are poor indicators of global climate trends, however. Parts of the world, most notably Eastern Europe, experienced below-average to extreme cold temperatures this winter…”
Yet 97% of climate scientists agree with the consensus yet it’s apparently growing in acceptance. ;O)
“They have been winning the public debate with the help of tremendous resources.”
Tremedous resources … such as the truth.
Jay Davis,
Thank you for commenting.
The scientific/intellectual dialog surrounding the topic of our climate is not a military conflict. Open and free discussion of climate is essential for conforming to and continuing the traditions of our Western Civilization. Freedom to discuss climate is being opposed by the efforts of some climate activists and we have seen serious ideological environmental NGO attempts to block the open and free discussion of climate, no doubt. It is paramount to use intellectual, scientific, ethical and legal challenges against those within Western Civilization who attempt to block discussion; dialog to block attempts to silence skeptics is crucial to our survival. But it is not war. It is much more difficult than war; it is a crucially important test of human dialog on a grand scale with reason, reality and integrity being the final judge of correctness.
On the other hand I would agree with you that interdiction by government economic policy against its citizen’s private wealth and freedom has negative physical results that can be as damaging as an actual war. But such interdictions that are sanctioned legally within a society are not war. Any dialog used to justify such interdictions within the society is not war. The dialog preceding such interdiction is more important than referring to it as war. The dialog is more difficult, more comprehensive and serious than war. For the dialog to precede then the use of reason, science and integrity requires far far greater achievement than that needed in war . . . I think.
I suggest that if skeptics continuously use many references to war, it weakens the actual scientific/intellectual dialog from the skeptic side. On rare occasional reference to war could be useful, but restraint is needed in my view.
John
“There is remarkable inconsistency between the scientific story and public story,”
Which is exactal what the ‘team’, of which Hansen is a part , showed in their e-mails.
Looks like we picked up a new troll- and a boring troll at that- linking to SkepSci as some kind of truth…
lol
NASA is the machine, we are the rebels.
Whenever I think of Hansen or the “Hockey Teamsters Union”, for some reason I always think of Younger Bear:
@Pointman 11:02 am
Yes—all the more worrisome considering Mr. Hansen’s apocalyptic and messianic visions.
John Whitman says:
April 10, 2012 at 11:52 am
Pure poppycock, Mr. Whitman. It isn’t “skeptics” that are closing down coal-fired power plants or making nuclear plants nearly impossible to build; it isn’t “skeptics” that are wasting taxpayer money (what, $60 Billion by now?); it isn’t “skeptics” that are promising that our electricity prices will “necessarily skyrocket”; and it isn’t “skeptics” that are pushing for high gas prices, have admitted they’re pursuing the redistribution of wealth, and have closed down drilling in the Gulf while funding Brazil’s efforts to drill in the same place.
It is you and your ilk. (And the above list is just the beginning of aggreviances.)
You are so out of line with your holier-than-thou rhetoric it is simply unbelievable. Because this really isn’t a “scientific/intellectual dialogue” after all–it’s a ruse to reverse Western Civilization and thwart Capitalism, and if you deny that, you are abjectly clueless (or a paid tool).
I suggest you go read what the UN has planned with Agenda 21. Go read the list of objectives from recent COP pronouncements. Or just use common sense to see who’s on the “offensive” in this stuggle.
To say the “skeptics” want this war is laughable, but like the original colonists, we will take it to armed conflict before being subjected to tyranny and stupidity.
“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.”
What a revealing comment! Our parents knew more than Hansen will ever know. They knew that continued development and use of fossil fuels would provide their children with prosperity and a better world. Hansen, on the other hand, wants to discontinue development knowing full well what the consequences of that will be. But he has no problem with sacrificing our children to poverty, cold, and disease, all in the name of his goddess, Gaia.
“Without a dramatic change in public opinion, Hansen said,he fears future generations will inherit a world where global warming is out of control.”
As long as future generations do not inherit a world where James Hansen is out of control they will be just fine.
He is lying again. We are loosing. Money continues to flow to them.
Sorry John Whitman, it is war. And you should thank whatever deity you worship that we in the U.S. have a chance at the ballot box this coming November to change things around and win the war, or at least a major battle.
Jay Davis
@ur momisuglyjayhd @ur momisugly 2:12. Amen to that.
Pointman
“self motivated” you bet! all I want is the truth, is that to much to ask for? We have send climategate 1 & 2 how are you motivated? By money?
– – – – – –
RockyRoad & jayhd,
Your very direct comments were enjoyed, as I often have. Thanks.
I support your spirit to kick the CAGWist supporting clowns out of public offices. : )
I can see that advocating authoritarian government public policy based on activist CAGWism (a la the IPCC & Hansen, etc) is harmful to actual people. It is theft and extortion for sure. But I disagree it is similar to a war in any sense. When someone with CAGW leanings speaks out against me at a local public meeting on such topics as climate it is not war. If you multiply that kind of one-on-one dialog 400 million times in the US it is still not war. It is an intellectual/scientific dialog, war terminology I find lacking in that context.
John
@RockyRoad
Though your suggestion, climate dissidents, is certainly applicable, I think “climate apostates” is somewhat more appropriate. Alex was asking for a label for those scientists who once toed the alarmist line, but have since become public skeptics. You are correct that a dissident is someone who rejects an established belief system (though in general usage it is more often applied to POLITICAL beliefs than to religious beliefs). The term “apostate”, however, is not only more uniformly applied to religion, but also specifically refers to someone who once believed (or at least professed belief) in a religion, but subsequently rejected it.
Of course, the term was used derogatorily by the early Christian church, and usually referred to someone who only accepted Christianity when a Christian emperor ruled in Rome, and quickly changed when a non-Christian took the crown. Such apostates didn’t REALLY believe either religion, but publicly professed belief in whichever religion was most likely to put them in the emperor’s favor (and perhaps avoid a trip to the floor of the colliseum). So, from your standpoint and mine, the scientists in question are not what is generally meant by apostates, because they certainly are not doing what is in their best interest in terms of gaining favor with the rulers. But my impression of Alex’s request was that he was looking for a DEROGATORY label for scientists who were once alarmists but had converted to skeptics, a label that the remaining alarmists would use for them, and I believe “apostates” fits to a tee.
@ur momisugly Tim Mantyla:
Jesus, TIM. Yes, we know that one cold snap (or even an entire year of exceptionally mild temps, like 2010) doesn’t prove global cooling. We just like to poke fun at the ” gore effect”, which has a habit of popping up whenever noted alarmists have a big event.
But TEN YEARS of no rising temperatures, despite constantly increasing carbon dioxide “pollution” does start to make it look like maybe there’s a flaw somewhere in the theory of AGE. The complete FAILURE of the models to predict what happened over the last ten years does make one wonder if the models aren’t missing an important term. The ADMISSION (in private) by leading alarmists of DOUBT does tend to belie the certainty of their public pronouncements. The CONSPIRACY to keep skeptic papers out of the journals, and to even HIDE their own data and work, leads one to believe they can’t really defend their hypotheses.
It’s all falling apart, TIM, and Hansen knows it. But he won’t go down without a fight.
Pointman says:
April 10, 2012 at 12:14 am
You can’t help but feel it’s only a matter of time until he pulls a Gleick. He’s such a driven fanatic.
He does this all the time when he puts his grubby fingers on the historic temperature records.
Oh, it’s occurred to him that we’re all self motivated: he’s just a professional, professed, scammer of science using GISS credentials, and a liar, and a thief.
And no: I do NOT ‘have to have’ some respect for someone I hired to go do a job for me, who then told me I’m too stupid to own GISS then be told the TRUTH.
THAT is what his ‘activism’ is: he HIRED ON then TOOK OVER the COMPANY for his OWN PERSONAL agenda.
Pointman says:
April 10, 2012 at 12:14 am
You can’t help but feel it’s only a matter of time until he pulls a Gleick. He’s such a driven fanatic.
He does this all the time when he puts his grubby fingers on the historic temperature records.
Tim Mantyla. Where is this evidence of global warming you speak of? You say I ignore it.
I say, WHERE IS IT? It is no warmer at my home. I’ve lived here 50 years.
Roald Amundsen sailed the Northwest Passage in 1903. The Vikings used to keep cattle on Greenland. Grapes were once grown in Britain. It has been warmer and colder than now many times in Human history.
The climate changes, that’s what it does.
You cannot show that a trace gas , CO2, at .038% concentration , can drive the climate. You would say it’s not the Sun, not the mighty oceans, No It’s.038% trace gas, essential to ALL life on Earth. That drives the climate.
Mankind, in its evil, is responsible for about 10% of it.
Over there at REALCLIMATESKEPTIC.COOM (whatever site it is that you tout,),
Do they ever mention the “Scientific Method” there? Do they ever talk about the “Carbon Cycle”?.
Do they ever question the validity of those assumptions about water vapor feedback?
(They use these assumptions in the models, you know. If these assumptions are wrong, The CAGW Theory and the need to limit CO2 is wrong.)
Do they ever discuss why the “Tropospheric Warm Zone” doesn’t exist? The climate models say it shoud be there, but it’s not. Where is that heat?
These are plain, simple questions. No special college degrees are required.
You’re all talk, no substance.
Try a little skepticism. It’s healthy.
@Tim O'Donovan Mantyla
Tim says: “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. ”
Yes, I think I am going to agree with you. It is the pronouncement of a lunatic. Watch the lunatic speak:
“you can get to a situation where, it just, the Oceans will begin to boil…”
@2:05.
@Tim O'Donovan Mantyla
Tim says: “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. ”
Yes, I think I am going to agree with you. It is the pronouncement of a lunatic. Watch the lunatic speak:
“you can get to a situation where, it just, the Oceans will begin to boil…”
@2:05.