Obama’s climate policy is ‘practically worthless,’ says Dr. James Hansen

From MSNBC.

During his big emotional climate speech this week, President Ovbama said:

“I don’t want my grand-kids to not be able to swim in Hawaii or not be able to climb a mountain and see a glacier because we didn’t do something about it,That’d be shameful of us.”

But for some who study climate change the only shame is this: Obama’s plan does not go nearly far enough. It’s meek and dangerously self-congratulatory, sapping the movement of urgency while doing almost nothing to maintain the future habitability of the earth.

“The actions are practically worthless,” said James Hansen, a climate researcher who headed NASA’s Goddard’s Institute for Space Studies for over 30 years and first warned congress of global warming in 1988. “They do nothing to attack the fundamental problem.”

“You’ve got to be kidding,” he wrote, when asked if the plan would make continued climate activism unnecessary. Obama’s plan, and for that matter the proposed plan Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton, he continued, “is like the fellow who walks to work instead of driving, and thinks he is saving the world.”

Hansen suggested a gradually rising fee for fossil fuel extraction, collected at the port of entry or, in domestic cases, the place where the material actually comes out of the ground. “As long as fossil fuels are allowed to (appear to be) the cheapest energy, someone will burn them,” he wrote in an email to msnbc. “It is not so much a matter of how far you go. It is a matter of whether you are going in the right direction.”

The right direction is away from a global temperature rise of 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial times. If that grim milestone is reached the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that irreversible damage to society would be the likely result.

In Copenhagen in 2009, world leaders agreed to work together to keep global temperatures below that mark. In Paris this coming November and December, climate ministers will gather again in hopes of negotiating a new agreement, one that puts the world on a path for less than 2 degrees of warming.

The White House is reviewing the criticisms and told msnbc that it would respond shortly.

More: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/obamas-climate-policy-practically-worthless-says-expert

You gotta love the single mindedness on display at MSNBC in the poll that accompanies the story:

msnbc-poll

There’s no option for a simple “No, I don’t support it”. Typical.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Dawtgtomis

President Ovbama – You type like me.

joelobryan

““I don’t want my grand-kids to not be able to swim in Hawaii or not be able to climb a mountain and see a glacier because we didn’t do something about it,That’d be shameful of us.”

Translation: I want my grandchildren to enjoy elite uber-rich values of private jets to exotic vacation locales, filled with yachts and chalets. The little people and unwashed masses in the 3rd World cannot be allowed to use up all that hydrocarbon my grandchildren will require for an oppulent lifestyle, one that I and Tom Steyer and our Watermelon elitist pals enjoy today.

Kevin Kilty

Why will they not be able to swim in Hawai’i? Let’s begin with the basics. Can they swim at present?

LeeHarvey

Racist joke?

knr

Given they have no grand-kids the question has no meaning .

Because the oceans will be boiling and the acid seawater will eat the skin off his grandkids?

Auto

Let’s do a mind experiment.
The Big O’s daughters are teenagers, roughly [can’t be bothered to Wiki their actual ages].
in fifteen years time, they will – reasonably – have children of their own.
Another decade, and O’s grandkids will be – ish – teenagers.
But if the fathers of the Big O’s grandkids – and so spouses of the daughters – are Iranian, there may be some restrictions on swimming for religious reasons; possibly more so – if the grandkids are also grand daughters.
But if – mind experiment – the fathers of the Big O’s grandkids are similarly connected military-politico-economy scions – Gateses, perhaps, or Kennedys, possibly even Gores – then I think they will be able to jet to Hawai’i [Airbus’s new SST (another mind experiment?) will do that in a couple of hours from anywhere in the ConUS, and I assume they’ll have their own personal planes], swim, surf, and return in a day.
Auto

timg56

I had the same thought. It is almost impossible not to be able to “swim in Hawaii” unless the entire chain were to be submerged by rising sea levels. Not even Hansen is predicting that.
Lee Harvey – what is racist about the ability to swim? Either you can or you can’t.

Michael Jankowski

It’s bad enough that a PUSA would make such an ignorant statement. But considering that this PUSA spent a good deal of his time in Hawai’i, this has to rank as one of the most inexplicable statements ever uttered by someone in his position.

hahaha

David Chappell

timg56 – “..unless the entire chain were to be submerged by rising sea levels. Not even Hansen is predicting that.” Yet…

dp

Does he even have children? Who would mate with a person like that? Creepy.

george e. smith

Actually you can’t swim in Hawaii, but you can swim in the Pacific ocean which is nearby, and will always be there.
And you don’t need to climb a mountain to see a glacier. Some of them come right down to sea level, and are likely to continue doing so; even in New Zealand.

Auto

No public pool in the entire state?
Blimey.
Hawai’i needs aid!
Auto

Walter Sobchak

The ocean within 12 miles of the mean high tide line is part of Hawaii

Chris Bryan

Beautifully stated, Joel Bryan. I have a nephew with that name.

george e. smith

Well on that Hansen is the expert; after all he is the one that spawned the Obama policies on climate.

Retired Engineer

Here I must agree with Hansen, as I think most of Obama’s policies are worthless,

davidgmills

Jeeez. Scientists come up with bad science and somehow it is always the poltician’s fault for listening to them. I hate that argument no matter whether the politician is conservative or liberal.

John Boles

How can they swim in Hawaii unless they fly there first? Hey no more flying allowed, right Jim Hansen?

simple-touriste

They could try to swim to Hawaii…

Bob Lyman

John Boles. I was scratching my head trying to figure out why Obama’s grandchildren would not be able to swim in Hawaii, and you have hit on one of the logical possibilities. Still, it should be possible to get there on a sailing vessel, just as they did originally. What a perfectly ridiculous example for a President to use.

yuuuuuup

Here’s a clip, Obama discussing his grandchildren not being able to swim off Hawaii. Go to minute 1 and 45 seconds
http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4547062/want-grandchildren-swim-hawaii

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7

Well, we (mostly) agree on something, but I would have said “… totally worthless”.

bit chilly

james hansen and totally worthless should always be used in the same sentence.

Menicholas

Hey, first belly laugh of the day!
Gold star to Mr. Chilly.

asybot

@ bit chilly?, man that was down right COOL!

MCourtney

Journalists never ask a question unless they know what the answer will be. That’s how they create a narrative to explain complex issues in bite-sized chunks.
The questions aren’t meant to find the truth. They are a means of relaying a version of the truth.
The same applies to their online polls too.

george e. smith

Well the MSNBC poll might very well be the sound of one hand clapping !

Menicholas

I remember when I was a kid, and listening to politicians.
I would listen to the questions asked of them, then listen to their answers, then look to the faces of any adults in the room I was in…and was amazed that they seemed not to notice that the answers did not actually answer the question…EVER!
That and that the entire manner of their speaking was completely slippery and non-informative.
They were talking…a LOT…but not saying anything!
But no one seemed to notice, except me!
Eventually I heard someone address this and other perplexing mysteries of the adult world:
https://youtu.be/yX6FsTIq6ls?t=1m21s
https://youtu.be/LftzRjilTEI?t=1m32s
https://youtu.be/obAtn6I5rbY?t=35s

Menicholas

Somewhere along the line, many people are brainwashed into thinking that replies are the same as answers, and that parroting people who are bat-shit crazy is, somehow, sane.

old construction worker

“But no one seemed to notice, except me!”
I noticed. That’s when I know the politician is a B.S. artist.

timg56

Courtney,
It is a good attorney who never ask a question unless they know the answer. Journalists ask all sorts of questions they don’t have a clue about what the answer will be. Hell, a lot of them have trouble asking any type of intelligent question, whether the answer is known before hand or not.

Reed Coray

Anthony suggested the poll should have contained the option: “No, I don’t support it.” I suggest the option: “This poll stinks.”

I finally agree with him on something.

Jeff Mitchell

Perhaps, but I’d hate to use him as an authority on anything. In the cases where he is correct, people may not believe him on reputation grounds.

Gerry, England

The poll is typical of politics today and the lack of true democracy. People often say that if you don’t like something you can vote them out but what do you do when they are all the same. All the parties in parliament voted in favour of the UK Climate Change Act in 2008 with only 3 honourable MPs who voted against it. Not voting at least reduces their legitimacy if their support is low.

Mike the Morlock

Gerry, England.
Write, E-Mail, the sod that if he/she does not oppose these types of wasteful actions you will vote against him/her. It does not matter what their Opponent states, make it clear that It will cost them their job. Then inform their replacement exactly how they came to sit in their chair and what they must do and not do so as to continue enjoying its comforts.
Make it clear who is buttering the bread. It is after all you the voter. Make it clear that Green money is the kiss of death. Also make clear that if they support the Greens and AGW in any way, they will never ever get your vote. AND mean it.
I know this sounds difficult, impossible, but then how do you think the Greens came to control your(and my) governments.
If enough do this, you (and I)will have our governments back.
michael

Auto

MtM
“If enough do this, you (and I)will have our governments back. ”
Well – ish.
Ish-ish
A bit more than we do now – say up to 0.3%, up all the way from 0.22% – or some other meaningless and made-up pair of decimal fractions.
[Whoo-hoo – Channelling the Mann?]
“If voting could change anything, they’d make it illegal,” often attributed to Emma Goldman.
That’s going too far.
But all we’ve done in the UK is change the rascals – and a few who really want to make a difference – who sit on the Government side in the House of Commons.
[And they’ve fouled up the House of Lords . . . .]
Auto – rather cynical after fifty years (I supported a Liberal in 1964 – but couldn’t vote until the ’74 election which saw the return of the Twister Wilson, he of more faces than the Town Hall Clock) of watching politics – and its hand-maidens – in this “Green and Pleasant Land”.
Glad the poet isn’t here to see it now.

Dawtgtomis

Mike, you are right, if it can be done before a world council of bureaucrats removes our rights to vote.

spetzer86

We could try the old Aztec method for the winner and the loser gets the seat: http://www.aztec-history.com/aztec-ball-game.html Might not change anything, but it’d make the debates really interesting.

Menicholas

Easy to think of the solution, nearly impossible to put in practice.
(These days anyway, what with votes bought and paid for by the lavish dowry of borrowed money being showered on various factions of the populace.).
The solution?
Vote out every single incumbent…and do it for every election…for a few cycles. Then insist that they do what they say they will do when running and getting elected, and let those that follow through remain…the rest hit the revolving door…out they go.
That would get results… I guarantee it.
As long as thieving liars and lying thieves are re-elected time after time, nothing can possibly be expected to change.
As lo g as cronyism and shady dealing are allowed to be the norm among our elected officials, why would they change one single freakin’ thing?

Auto

Me Nick
Again, to a point.
Somewhere we need the people to have some control over constituency sizes, shapes, borders and that.
While the politicos get to approve constituency margins, elections will continue to be decided in twenty per cent of constituencies, where the other eighty per cent will return the appropriate donkey, cactus or pile of sharp sand – provided it wears the right-coloured rosette.
An exceptionally egregious member might revulse enough to get the boot – but even that would be in the next ten or fifteen per cent close to the marginal twenty per cent.
Out in the boonies, where they weigh the votes, being caught in bed with a lobbyist, your suitcase full of her/his 500 Euro notes, their underage German Shepherd dog, rubber wear, and a kilo of cocaine would barely dent your majority.
See – for example – FIFA where Blatter was elected- yet again – with the world talking about endemic corruption in FIFA on his watch.
I don’t think he was corrupt.
May he have been complicit – maybe.
Ahhhh – but his terms and conditions meant that he had no need to be corrupt.
And make of that what you will. And – like me – dream of a job that remunerates so fabulously!
Today, given the power of the computer, it would be possible to allocate voters to a notional constituency by random number generation.
But if there is no continuity, seeking to get the rascals to – try to – do what they promised – on pain of not voting for them next time – becomes utterly null and void.
I shall give more thought to this.
Auto

Mike the Morlock

A page from the Green “play-book” will have to be used; that is to be an international party-organization. Transcending our own parties and politics. Remember all that money buys is air time and paper print. The only vote that can be bought is the one a citizen sells.
Can it be done. Yes the Greens did it. It took time and commitment. Here in the States the Tea party has had some success. Steal a page from them.
michael

mwh

what poll – normally a poll at least gives you a yes or no – this one gives a yes and a not yes enough!! how long before the results of the poll show that 100% of respondents agree, even though a lot will probably think they are answering ‘no’ because its the first word of the devious second question

David S

I find it strange that they criticise Obama now for not doing enough but didn’t seem too fussed when he reached agreement with China to do nothing for the next 15 years. How you can criticise western countries for crippling their economies whilst the biggest emitters are free to do nothing. Hansen is totally ingenuous .

knr

Because it not about what you are for but what you are against, so China gets a free ‘do not go to jail’ card from the watermelons. Which tells us, as if they did not already ready know, that the politics is the main driving force behind much of CAGW not science .

Menicholas

They knew what China would say to any attempt at arm twisting, so they declared a unilateral freeze on our side only, and hailed it as a great victory to have this historic agreement with China.
Knowing that the base he is pandering to consists of large numbers of incredibly low-information numbskull knuckleheads… people to whom facts mean less than nothing…even if they took the time to review any facts…which they do not.
Clear now?
Hint: Do not try to make sense of the half-witted shenanigans and galling jackassery of warmista politicians, or any other warmistas for that matter.

Auto

Me Nick
Or any other politicos either.
Auto.

Bruce Cobb

Burning piles of money is “practically worthless” too.

Paul

“Burning piles of money is “practically worthless” too.”
Worthless? You mean the money, the heat output, or both?

Bruce Cobb

To use another anology, burning my house down would be “practically worthless”.

Chip Javert

…unless it’s your friends getting the money (Solendra, anybody?).

Spending 2.5 Trillion on the plan is nothing, then I wonder what the true price is to do something that is going to do something, in there eyes. Yikes. It’s only other people’s money, so who cares?

Dave P

I don’t understand the disappointment in President Obama. Before election, he said “this will mark the moment when the seas stopped their rise, and globe began to cool.” Well, he was right. We realize now that that was about halfway into ‘the pause’. And since that point we’ve had an expedition of global warming alarmists frozen in ice. Thanks Obama!

spetzer86

Don’t forget the “electricity rates must necessarily skyrocket” comment.

asybot

And his wife’s statement:at the inauguration” All this for a damned flag”

Dave P

He hasn’t achieved that yet, but if the new plan just released is allowed to stand untouched by the next couple of administrations and Congress, it is assured.

LeeHarvey

Give MSDNC a break… they’re polling people who would honestly answer that the atmosphere is 10% or more CO2. Given the stupidity of the pollees, the polsters should get a pass on this one.
/removes tongue from cheek

rogerknights

“MSDNC”! I bet most readers missed that!

Eustace Cranch

…2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial times. If that grim milestone is reached the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that irreversible damage to society would be the likely result.
Based on… exactly nothing.

LeeHarvey

Now now…
It’s based on Hansen’s delusions. They’re not nothing.

Joe Zeise

What a self aggrandizing pompous person, so full of himself that he hasn’t taken time to check his own work result from the 1988 Senate forecast. If he could only turn himself into a lump of coal so as to claim a useful purpose in life.

kim

Quaff deeply of the Karma Coala below; an artisan brew.
===================

Latitude

A loon critiquing a loon…..the irony hurts

LeeHarvey

The irony isn’t half as painful as the stupid.

phaedo

An semblance of intelligence left the building a long time ago.

James Fosser

I do no understand this obsession with with Dr Hansen. Everytime I look at WUWT there seems to be an article about him.

LeeHarvey

Squeaky wheels, grease, so on and so forth…

Mumbles McGuirck

Because he is the gift that keeps on giving. He’s like Bill Nye with a PhD. You can always count on him for a quote of such blazing ignorance that it will warm your heart (by 2 degrees C).

timg56

You give too much credit to Nye.
While what Hansen believes may be way out there, the guy is a real scientist and also held the responsibility of being an agency head. Nye is what? A tv personality who let the exposure go to his head and think he was some sort of expert.

David Ball

I am of the opinion tat Neil DeGrasse Tyson be ridiculed for his “Venus is an example of runaway greenhouse” crap. So sick of that guy.

asybot

@ timg56, the guy was a result of the “Peter Principal”.

Chip Javert

James:
And your comment means exactly what?
That you believe Hansen’s silly stuff? That you don’t believe Hansen’s silly stuff but don’t think anybody ought to call him out on it? Good grief…maybe there’s a correlation between the number of times Hansen says silly stuff and the number of time it’s discussed on WUWT…I could go on but I doubt I’m helping you.

Menicholas

Because Hansen was the head of a large portion of NASA for several decades, and as such has credibility with certain brands of idiot. Those credentials are better than actual facts to this crowd, you see…because such authority cannot be wrong, and to suggest otherwise is to engage in loony conspiracy mind-freak stuff.
And, ore to the point, Hansen has somehow become deluded in such a way that he sees death wherever there is life, disaster where there is success, truth in a cesspool full of lies, boiling oceans of acid where pleasantly warm to freezing cold seas exist and, basically, escalating turmoil and doom around every happy corner of a same-a-it-ever-was world brimming with hope and happiness.
AND…..He has never seen a pot of yummy soup he did not need to excrete himself into.
Next question!

fred4d

Just looked up the phone page for GISS, about 150 names. Far away from a major portion of NASA. Hanson certainly had credibility from being its head, but many people in NASA have as much or more power.

Menicholas

I suppose when any of those many make climate news, we will talk about them here as well.
Who can name, just from memory, not looking it up, five other people at NASA who hold top positions in the bureaucracy?
Name even one currently at NASA, who is not a Hansen crony, who is well known by name and position?
BTW, how is that Mars thing shaping up?
When is the USA’s new launch vehicle getting a test, or getting anything except cancelled?
Why is NASA even in this business, when we have NOAA?
Why is NASA now in charge of climate and Islamic relations?
When did it become impossible to believe that, nearly as I can discern, nothing that government does makes even a tiny bit of sense?

Mark from the Midwest

Why is any of this relevant? All of us in the telecom biz know that no one except a few people on the Upper West Side really views Massive Socialist National Broadcasting for Comrades.

Goldrider

Exactly. And with “climate change” currently occupying 49th priority in the recent Pew Research poll about Americans’ political concerns, personally I think all of it’s being shouted into a vacuum.

cnxtim

Gotta love the “When did you stop beating your wife?” poll.
Q: Is everyone in the USA presumed stupid unless proven otherwise?

It doesn't add up...

Was Hansen hoping that Obama would pledge to destroy China’s coal fired economy?

Kyle K

It’s time for Obama to audit the temperature record, which Dr. Hansen so graciously controlled for so many years.

David Wells

Total energy demand is targeted to be 820 quadrillion btu’s by 2040 based on our current consumption now of 160,000 TWh’s. What exactly does Hansen suggest we replace this with? As usual with all climate freaks they endlessly pontification about what we shouldn’t and fantasise about what might happen if we don’t stop but never quantify exactly what the options are and how long it would take to put them in place and in a finite world don’t even begin to estimate the volume of resources needed to enable the process. Jeremy Clarkson said in one Top Gear episode that having tested a battery powered SLS at least when the oil runs out we can still drive fast cars, wrong. When the oil runs out exactly how do you move billions of tons of iron ore from Brazil or Australia to anywhere else across the planet or even dig it out of the ground. Hansen’s mawkish addle brained fantasising beggars belief.

spetzer86

When there’s only 300-400 million people left on earth, the power demand will drop.

Bob Lyman

I have changed my tactics when debating with climate alarmists. Of course, first I have to get back the incessant ad hominem attacks that they use as a substitute for civil dialogue. After that, instead to trying to present evidence about what is actually happening in terms of average global temperatures etc. and comparing this to the IPCC’s projections, I focus on the economic and social consequences of doing what the alarmists recommend. Hansen’s comment about Obama is right to the extent that what Hansen and the IPCC are advocating is the complete elimination of fossil fuel use within 85 years, and the substantial elimination of fossil fuel use (i.e. 70% below 2010 levels) in the industrialized countries by 2050, just 35 years away. Unless one makes heroic assumptions about the pace at which the transportation sector can be completely electrified and the pace of scientific discovery of new non-carbon technologies and their lightning-like dissemination in the economy, Hansen is basically recommending a return to the world of the 18th century. It sounds quite romantic to the environmentalists, but of course it means transportation by horses on land and by sailing vessels on sea, lighting by candles (would kerosene lamps be permitted in a zero carbon world?) and several other deprivations from the lack of modern energy services as we know them. As the environmentalists despise nuclear energy and would ban it as a generating option in their carbon free world, the supply of electricity would be dependent on wind and solar energy which, being intermittent sources, would offer only limited availability for uses that the government, in a very non-18th century way, would undoubtedly step in to regulate. I live in a cold country where the winters are long and dark. The non-fossil fuel world does not seem so romantic to me.

Menicholas

“Total energy demand is targeted to be 820 quadrillion btu’s by 2040 based on our current consumption now of 160,000 TWh’s”
Wow, big numbers.
How much is that in electron volts?

thisisnotgoodtogo

David S said:
“I find it strange that they criticise Obama now for not doing enough but didn’t seem too fussed when he reached agreement with China to do nothing for the next 15 years. ”
I thought they agreed that China would ramp up emissions as quickly as they possibly can? 🙂

Resourceguy

Translation—My next gig is in Hollywood.

Bruce Cobb

Of course, he’s wrong, as usual. It isn’t worthless in any way shape or form. It will strike a serious blow to the U.S. economy, and hurt the middle class and poor. Thanks, Obama.

Menicholas

Two degrees warmer is a “grim milestone”?
Where the heck are they even coming from with that garbage?
Large portions of our planet are frozen wastelands, even in summer, and during winter, most of the surface of our planet has conditions cold enough to kill an unprotected person very quickly…minutes to maybe a few hours. A couple of days with warm clothing but no shelter.
And in these places, people must subsist on stored (Counting hunted animals as “stored food”.) or transported food, because it is impossible to grow food when the temperature is that cold.
But two degrees will kill…who?
That is the part no one explains.
These days, people flock to the hottest climates they can find.
Sportsmen and women travel to harsh and extreme deserts to engage in days long ultra-marathon running races. The only equipment needed to survive in these places is whatever one needs to store and drink water.
Go to the South Pole at the warmest time of year, and you better leave in a hurry…if you even survive to get there. When they find your corpse, it will be colder than a block of dry ice.
On another rant thread, what is this malarkey about not being able to swim in Hawaii?
Why not?
It will be too hot in the water?
Or it will be underwater?
Both notions are so stupid a ten year old knows enough to debunk them.
We are being led by people who are either detached from reality, or have so few scruples that the truth is like a foreign language to them.

…what is this malarkey about not being able to swim in Hawaii?

Ocean acidification aggravates asthma, maybe?

GeeJam

Ocean acidification, nahhhh. Inhaling acetic acid fumes when pouring lots of vinegar on your freshly fried piping hot chips* causes severe breathing difficulties . . . . and choking . . . . and lots of coughing . . . . and . . . . help me, where did I leave my ventolin spray?
Latest: World Governments to include banning dangerous ‘vinegar’ on Paris agenda, AND those toxic fumes you get when frying scotch bonnet chillies, and, oh, you know, that strange gas that bubbles up from carbonated drinks, and, while we’re at it, PEELING ONIONS causes severe eye irritation and can lead to blindness – WHICH KILLS MILLIONS OF PEOPLE EVERY DAY. And as for that propellant used in fire extinguishers, well . . . .
We’re all doomed. Children won’t know what vinegar is. Vinegar will just become a thing of the past.
/sarc off.
*US = ‘fries’

David Chappell

Whenever I see a declaration that 2C more means death and destruction I like to check the current day’s recorded range of temperature. In the preceding 24hrs to 0400UTC today 8 August Kuwait tops the poll at +49.8C and Plateau Station Antarctica a chilly -79.2C. It’s probably not as cold as that at the summit of Mt Everest.
So, with a range of 129C, what is the global average temperature?

GeeJam

David, I expect the global average temperature to be tolerable and pleasant to most living organisms. Say around 24 degrees centigrade. However, I’ll apparently die if it gets to 26 degrees centigrade.

It’s actually about 15.5C I think. Which seems low enough that an extra 2C could be tolerated. Especially if concentrated on the poles.

Mumbles McGuirck

“I don’t want my grand-kids to not be able to swim in Hawaii or not be able to climb a mountain and see a glacier because we didn’t do something about it,That’d be shameful of us.”
OK, so his grandkids in Future Warmmy World will not be able to swim in Hawai’i because the oceans will be too acid their nail polish will corrode. And they won’t be able to see a glacier because they all will have melted into the acid seas. But why in the HECK won’t they be able to climb a mountain??? For idiotic hyperbole this sets a new bar.
“I regret that if we do nothing about carbon dioxide my grandchildren will not be able to pick their toes in Poughkeepsie.” There, I fixed it for ya.

Menicholas

Tell ’em, Popeye!

lee

But all the melted glaciers will dilute the acid. Or is Obama on acid.

David Wells

Total energy demand is targeted to be 820 quadrillion btu’s by 2040 based on our current consumption now of 160,000 TWh’s. What exactly does Hansen suggest we replace this with? As usual with all climate freaks they endlessly pontification about what we shouldn’t and fantasise about what might happen if we don’t stop but never quantify exactly what the options are and how long it would take to put them in place and in a finite world don’t even begin to estimate the volume of resources needed to enable the process. Jeremy Clarkson said in one Top Gear episode that having tested a battery powered SLS at least when the oil runs out we can still drive fast cars, wrong. When the oil runs out exactly how do you move billions of tons of iron ore from Brazil or Australia to anywhere else across the planet or even dig it out of the ground. Hansen’s mawkish addle brained fantasising beggars belief

So in Obama-world you have to climb mountains to see a glacier?
Must be the same one with a 57 state America.
Actually it is fun to see Hansen badmouth the Zero, especially when he is right, Nothing will be done, at vast expense to the taxpayer and destruction of private industry.

William Astley

Which of the following statements concerning Obama’s ‘clean’ climate power plan do you support?
1. There is no CAGW problem to solve, so why is the Obama administration forcing the US to spend trillions of dollar on green energy scams that do not work (significantly reduce CO2 emissions.) It is a fact that commercial greenhouses inject CO2 to increase yield and to reduce growing times. CO2 is a gas that is essential for life on this planet, not a poison. There has been more than 18 years without warming.
2. The US has run out of money to spend on everything and hence there is no money to waste on green scams that do not work. Where is the money going to come from to waste on green scams that do not work?
3. We have an idiotic government that is encouraging our scientific agencies to manipulate temperature data and to ignore analysis that supports the assertion there is no CAGW problem to solve, to justify forced spending on idiotic green scams that do not work.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-renewable-energy-fantasy-1436104555

Recently Bill Gates explained in an interview with the Financial Times why current renewables are dead-end technologies. They are unreliable. Battery storage is inadequate. Wind and solar output depends on the weather. The cost of decarbonization using today’s technology (William: Solar and wind power rather than nuclear) is “beyond astronomical,” Mr. Gates concluded.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/22/shocker-top-google-engineers-say-renewable-energy-simply-wont-work/

The key problem appears to be that the cost of manufacturing the components of the renewable power facilities is far too close to the total recoverable energy – the facilities never, or just barely, produce enough energy to balance the budget of what was consumed in their construction. This leads to a runaway cycle of constructing more and more renewable plants simply to produce the energy required to manufacture and maintain renewable energy plants – an obvious practical absurdity.
A research effort by Google corporation to make renewable energy viable has been a complete failure, according to the scientists who led the programme. After 4 years of effort, their conclusion is that renewable energy “simply won’t work”.

emsnews

The money will come from hidden taxes piled on present energy systems.

Menicholas

I would likely support #’s 1 & 3.
#2 seems a little too contrived. So far anyway, the borrowing spigot is still open.
So to say we have run out of money is sort of meaningless.
Not that all the debt is unimportant…I hate it.

With the Dead Parrot Talks in Paris already a failure, it was just a matter of time before the climate extremists started attacking each other.
https://youtu.be/4vuW6tQ0218

Jeff in Calgary

Here is a question I would liked asked at a political debate: “In light of the fact that the satellite recored show that the globe has not warmed for 18+ years, what percentage of the nation’s GDP should we sacrificed attempting to reduce our CO2 emissions below the current 1.5% of the global total.” 1.5% is Canada’s number, insert your own (US=16%, UK=1.5%, Australia=1.1%…)

PiperPaul

Tim

Just another political effort to paint Obama’s efforts to destroy the U.S.A. as reasonable by comparing them to crazy ideas of people like Hansen.

jorgekafkazar

The MSNBC “poll” reminds me of : “Marijuana, threat or menace?”

brians356

“When did you stop beating your wife?”
MSNBC can truthfully say “100% of respondents think climate change is a serious threat.” That’s why most polls are worse than useless.

Bruce Cobb

Obama’s economy-destroying plan is already being challenged by 16 states.

whiten

It is a pity to see a Dr. that worked for so many years at NASA and learned nothing useful, either in science or otherwise.

n.n

He’s not very optimistic, is he? If the prophesy comes to pass, and the oceans rise to inundate the land, then his grandchildren will do nothing but swim in what remains of Hawaii. He should be more concerned about the golf course, than the swimming pool.

rgbatduke

Wow! I actually agree with James Hansen about something! I would have bet a substantial amount as late as this morning that this would never happen!
But then, even a broken clock lying on the ground smashed to pieces is right twice a day, right?
Well, not so much. I suspect that we agree that it is worthless, but disagree pretty strongly about why it is worthless.
However, I’m tickled pink that we agree, because it illustrates perfectly the enormous disconnect between measures sufficiently draconian to (according to Hansen) matter (which would bring down civilization now, why bother waiting until 2100) and the pissing-into-a-category-five-hurricane waste of time and money that Obama is attempting to foist onto the country by royal — I mean “executive” — fiat, the even more expensive waste of time and money being proposed for the country in a slightly more democratic way by Hillary Clinton that still risks creating a global depression and which, if we believe the models and “projections” of dire climate doom, won’t even substantially delay the disaster that Hansen expects/models/projects.
In order to delay Hansen’s disaster, we have to stop using CO_2 cold turkey, because we haven’t even realized the lagged warming due to the CO_2 we’ve already got, because sooner or later powerful positive feedbacks will kick in, because we’ve already altered the climate to the point where Greenland and Antarctica will melt and the oceans will boil and sea levels will rise by five meters if we go any higher.
Here’s a fun fact. The Duke Marine Lab shares Pivers Island with NOAA. You’d think NOAA and Duke would be all about conservation of electrical energy — after all, NOAA is one of the groups that predict climate disaster and are willing to bend data in ways that are statistically extremely unlikely to be free from bias in order to reinforce confidence in that prediction. Yet NOAA is the brightest single object in my field of view across to the island at night. It is all lit up outside. It is blasting energy out into the night, all night long, when the only things there to see it are dolphins in the bay and people like me sitting out on their back deck. Duke (for liability reasons) is in the process of installing street lights all over their end of the island, so I can look forward to it being all lit up by next summer.
If NOAA, or the federal government, even thought about taking their own warnings seriously, one of the first and easiest ways to save both money and energy would be to turn off the lights at night! Street lights — off. Neon signage — off. Billboards — off. Stop blasting photons out to space when nobody is there to see (or can carry their own light with them if they are). Pivers Island is already isolated by NOAA by water on all sides and a big, solid, gate. This isn’t about preventing crime — cameras take your picture every time you drive over the bridge as it is, and there are 24 hour guards that walk the island. It is pure, wasteful, show.
Hansen, at least, is honest in his conviction that it is all about saving the world. That’s why he has been the perfect catspaw for those seeking to make money from CAGW/CACC.
It’s all about the money. Even Hansen can see that.
rgb

mkelly

If many of the companies that bow to the climste change gods believed then they would not have drive thru, not be open all night, keep the AC at 76 F, etc.

John F. Hultquist

… NOAA is the brightest …
One ought not use NOAA and brightest in the same sentence.

Louis Hunt

“You’ve got to be kidding,” he wrote, when asked if the plan would make continued climate activism unnecessary.

Ah, so that’s the reason. Hansen will never admit that continued climate activism is unnecessary, any more than community organizers will ever admit that their activism is no longer necessary. It’s a way of life to some people, so the underlying problem can never be solved. Solving it would end their purpose for being.

Auto

Louis,
Yes.
Just like poverty statistics.
If household income is below some wholly arbitrary figure [in the UK, I think it’s 60%, but not at all sure) of mean [not mode, nor median – but mean] household income – you’re in poverty.
If everyone – over twenty years – becomes, uniformly, 100% richer, there is still that tail of povertands, if you like, under 60% of the new doubled mean income.
And yet, if a couple of billionaires, with huge annual incomes, leave the UK – for tax reasons, or they’re persecuted by a Russian president [who may not be the richest individual on the planet], or they like sunrises in Botswana more, all of a sudden – then mean household income drops, and hundred or thousands are – miraculously – taken out of poverty.
Without an actual extra penny income.
Shazzam.
The wonderful world of he leftist econo-dirge.
So – by definition – continued persecution of wealth-makers is necessary.
So sad – but as noted the lo-info folk can’t see this much of the time.
Auto

PiperPaul

Exactly (Louis Hunt comment).

Neville

Here is Indur Goklany’s summary in response to the Pope’s nonsense. In fact human well being has never been higher and deaths from extreme events have dropped by 97% since 1920. And here is the link to his full report.
http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2015/07/Vatican-compass.pdf
Summary
This paper is a commentary on the opening four sentences of the pontifical academies’
joint declaration, Climate Change and the Common Good: A Statement of The Problem
and the Demand for Transformative Solutions, echoes of which resonate in the recent
papal encyclical. The paper finds that the premise behind the academies’ call for deep
decarbonization and a rapid reduction in fossil-fuel use is fundamentally flawed.
The academies claim that fossil-fuel use has reduced theworld’s sustainability and
resilience. But despite record human numbers and carbon-dioxide emissions, human
wellbeing has never been higher, by virtually any measure whether climate-sensitive
or not. The average person has never lived longer or been healthier or wealthier. Living
standards are at their highest ever; poverty, hunger, malnutrition, and mortality
from vector-borne diseases and extreme events are at record lows. There is no indication
that these trends are being reversed.
Prior to the Industrial Revolution virtually all of humanity’s basic needs – food,
fibre, fuel, energy, materials – were met by the rest of nature. Fossil-fuel technologies
and associated economic development increased the terrestrial biosphere’s natural
productivity to provide these basic needs, shifted humanity’s demand for energy
away from biomass and animal power, and increased its reliance on man-made
fibres and materials. Consequently, the share of humanity’s demand for life’s basic
necessities filled by the rest of nature has never been smaller despite exploding demand.
Also, because of carbon-dioxide fertilization, nitrogen deposition, and possibly
a more equable climate, all caused by fossil-fuel use, the terrestrial biosphere’s
productivity now exceeds pre-industrial levels. This allows the biosphere to sustain
larger biomass.
Thus greater fossil-fuel use has been accompanied by advances in both human
wellbeing and terrestrial biosphere’s ability to sustain biomass. That is, our reliance on
fossil fuels has increased the world’s sustainability and resilience. Another result has
been that conversion of wild land to farmland has almost peakedworldwide, allowing
some societies to reserve land for conservation.
Also contrary to the academies’ claims, inequality, which is secondary to poverty,
hunger, and malnutrition as indicators of wellbeing, has shrunk among the world’s
population in recent decades. Moreover, there is no empirical evidence for their claim
that agriculture is ‘doubtless causing’ hundreds of thousands if not millions of extinctions.
The academies’ assertion that fossil-fuel use poses existential risks for the poor
and future generations must necessarily rest on models of future impacts of climate
change. But impact models use climate models that overestimate global warming
two- to four-fold. Moreover, neither climate nor impact models have been validated
using external data, climate models often contradict each other regarding the direction
of precipitation change at regional and local scales, and the impact models do
not fully account for the increased adaptive capacity of future generations, who will
be wealthier and technologically-more sophisticated than we are.
The academies’ ‘transformative solutions’ are based on a delusion that economic
alternatives to cheap fossil fuels are widely available, a notion belied by the government
mandates and subsidies that prop up these alternative energy sources. These
purported solutions would therefore be counterproductive for both humanity and
the rest of nature. They would slow the ongoing broad advance in human wellbeing,
retard poverty reduction, and reduce the ability to adapt and cope with adversity in
general and climate change in particular, especially harming the poor. They would
also reduce the future productivity of the terrestrial biosphere, increasing pressure
on species and ecosystems.
In exchange for reducing both humanity and the rest of nature’s sustainability and
resilience, the academies would solve future problems that may not even exist or, if
they do, might be more easily solved by future generations who should be richer,
both economically and technologically. Essentially, these policies would give up real
gains inhumanand environmentalwellbeing to solve hypothetical problems forecast
by models which, if they have a track record, is for inaccuracy.
The academies are right that climate change is a moral and ethical issue. Unfortunately,
they are on its wrong side. Apparently their moral compass is broken.

markl

“…is like the fellow who walks to work instead of driving, and thinks he is saving the world.” So Mr Hansen, would he do more to save the world if he committed suicide? Why is it that the environmentalists believe every one else needs to do something and to them “we” really means “you”?

Aussiebear

Hansen talks about increasing the fees on Fossil Fuels as a way to reduce emissions. Double, no triple the price of petrol/gasoline/diesel/jet fuel I say! That will be a good way to discourage use. Then watch the average Joe/Jane on the street go bat crap crazy.

“Do you support Pres Obama?
1. Yes, he’s dreamy and the greatest president ever plus he won the Nobel Prize and made up with Iran.”
2. No, it’s a tragedy that the Constitution only allows him 2 terms.”

Hey I don’t see why anybody is surprised. Hansen is to Earth Science what Ehrlich is to Biology: We not only need a world government we need a world Gestapo to keep everybody on the same page.

Thanks for the share

gbaikie

“The right direction is away from a global temperature rise of 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial times. If that grim milestone is reached the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that irreversible damage to society would be the likely result.”
Luddite:
“The Luddites were 19th-century English textile workers (or self-employed weavers who feared the end of their trade) who protested against newly developed labour-economizing technologies, primarily between 1811 and 1816. The stocking frames, spinning frames and power looms introduced during the Industrial Revolution threatened to replace them with less-skilled, low-wage labourers, leaving them without work.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite
“The name evolved into the imaginary General Ludd or King Ludd, a figure who, like Robin Hood, was reputed to live in Sherwood Forest.”
Does Hansen imagines he lives in Sherwood Forest?
Can anyone actually know what precisely global temperature were pre-industrial.
We have CET:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
But it only goes back to about 1760 and it’s accurate measurement of central England.
Wiki, Industrial Revolution:
“The Industrial Revolution was the transition to new manufacturing processes in the period from about 1760 to sometime between 1820 and 1840. This transition included going from hand production methods to machines, new chemical manufacturing and iron production processes, improved efficiency of water power, the increasing use of steam power, and the development of machine tools. It also included the change from wood and other bio-fuels to coal.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution
So is it the River Thames frost fairs which old Jimmy is pining for?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Thames_frost_fairs
Why does someone who imagines he is scientist refer to pre-industrial. temperature.
There are reconstruction of past temperatures, eg:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/16/historic-variations-in-temperature-number-four-the-hockey-stick/
And perhaps, Dr Hansen refering to the discredited Mann Hockey Stick or or referring to Hubert Lamb, but pre-industrial merely means before the Industrial Revolution, so quite vague- it could back to last glacial period.
the beginning of the global warming religion began with the world a having average temperature of about 15 C. Today there is no precise temperature given, or it’s more than 14 and less than 16 C or about 15 C. But over the last hundred years global temperature have rise about .8 C +/- 2 C . And since the time before any precise measurement [and tree or other proxies are not precise] or prior
to 1760 it many risen another 1 C [or more] from the coldest times of the frost fairs.
So we could already to near his idea of the 2 C of warming, or maybe something like .5 C of additional warming reaches his fantastic limit.
So zero, ,.5, or perhaps 1 or 1.2 C of additional warming. Though since it’s anytime prior to 1760 AD,
perhaps he referring the warmest period of our current interglacial period, which could have been 1 to 2 C warmer than the present global temperature.

I am just curious.
If Hansen is certain that Obama’s plan is worthless, and that the alternative is catastrophe, with only a few places on earth being able to support human life in the near future…
Has Hansen put his money and the safety of his family where his mouth is?
Has he bought property in Switzerland? Or Alaska? Or in Canada’s far north? What has he done to protect the lives of his children and grandchildren? Anything? Anything at all? For that matter, have any of the alarmist scientists done anything of the sort?
C’mon, there must be readers on this blog from Tuktoyuktuk or Whitehorse or other future tropical paradises with knowledge of the local real estate market. Is real estate sky rocketing due to an influx of thousands of climate scientists buying safety for themselves and their families? I’m guessing not, but ya never know until ya ask…. (and even then maybe not).

gbaikie

“Has Hansen put his money and the safety of his family where his mouth is?”
I think Hansen wants to live close to all the money he made off his scam, so I would guess that’s why he said Switzerland is safe from climate disaster.
But if you think there is going to be massive amounts of warming, you probably wouldn’t want to live near glaciers, but if want to keep yourself safe from the consequences of all the social harm you have inflicted, Switzerland has good track record of doing this.

NO the property in Michigan has not become more valuable but Obuma did buy beachfront in Hawaii. Gore of ocean rise fame has also invested in southern beach front property.
Max

Alan Robertson

“The actions are practically worthless,” said James Hansen
—————-
On that much, we agree.

No, it is James Hansen’s claims that are “practically worthless” and Obama who is Hansen’s puppet, and this is why …
Based on the mean flux of radiation …
(a) The effective temperature of the Sun’s radiation reaching the surface of Earth is about -40°C. Yes, minus 40.
(b) The effective temperature of the Sun’s radiation reaching the surface of Venus is about -140°C
(c) The effective temperature of all the radiation from Earth’s atmosphere to its surface is about 3°C.
Because these planets are rotating spheres, the actual mean temperature that any of the above radiation could achieve is a few degrees colder than would be achieved with uniform orthogonal flux striking a flat non-reflecting surface. The reason for this relates to the fact that the achieved temperature is only proportional to the fourth root of the flux. So, because the flux varies with the angle of incidence, flux that is above the mean achieves only a relatively small increase in temperature above that achieved by the mean flux.
From this it is obvious that the mean temperatures of the surfaces of Earth and Venus are not achieved by direct radiation into those surfaces. Some relatively small regions on Earth may rise in temperature due to direct solar radiation, but overall, the observed global mean temperature cannot be explained by solar radiation. Atmospheric radiation would also not keep the mean temperature above freezing point (0°C) either.
Hence we need to consider a totally different paradigm (based on entropy maximization and the laws of thermodynamics) which can and does explain the actual observed temperatures, not only for Earth and Venus, but for all planets and even the regions below any solid surface. Correct physics produces correct results that agree with data from the real Solar System.
The breakthrough has come in this 21st Century and the science stands up to the test, being supported by copious evidence from planetary data, studies and experiments such as outlined at http://climate-change-theory.com so you will learn what is really happening if you read and study such.

No, it is James Hansen’s claims that are “practically worthless” and Obama who is Hansen’s puppet, and this is why …
Based on the mean flux of radiation …
(a) The effective temperature of the Sun’s radiation reaching the surface of Earth is about -40°C. Yes, minus 40.
(b) The effective temperature of the Sun’s radiation reaching the surface of Venus is about -140°C
(c) The effective temperature of all the radiation from Earth’s atmosphere to its surface is about 3°C.
Because these planets are rotating spheres, the actual mean temperature that any of the above radiation could achieve is a few degrees colder than would be achieved with uniform orthogonal flux striking a flat non-reflecting surface. The reason for this relates to the fact that the achieved temperature is only proportional to the fourth root of the flux. So, because the flux varies with the angle of incidence, flux that is above the mean achieves only a relatively small increase in temperature above that achieved by the mean flux.
From this it is obvious that the mean temperatures of the surfaces of Earth and Venus are not achieved by direct radiation into those surfaces. Some relatively small regions on Earth may rise in temperature due to direct solar radiation, but overall, the observed global mean temperature cannot be explained by solar radiation. Atmospheric radiation would also not keep the mean temperature above freezing point (0°C) either.
Hence we need to consider a totally different paradigm (based on entropy maximization and the laws of thermodynamics) which can and does explain the actual observed temperatures, not only for Earth and Venus, but for all planets and even the regions below any solid surface. Correct physics produces correct results that agree with data from the real Solar System.
The breakthrough has come in this 21st Century and the science stands up to the test, being supported by copious evidence from planetary data, studies and experiments such as outlined in the book “Why It’s Not Carbon Dioxide After All” so you will learn what is really happening if you read and study such.

Vic Veron

Hansen, Obama, et al., they’re all in it together, I think. Climate isn’t the issue, control is. They’ve set up the Hansen position to make Obama’s look reasonable, using the Argument to Moderation fallacy — which, of course, most people don’t realize IS a fallacy.
They’ve done this with SO may issues over time, moving the goalposts and using Moral High Ground fallacies that appeal to the immature and those lacking critical thinking skills.

John Lentini

The Clean Power Plan will accomplish nothing at great cost. What the EPA doesn’t tell you is: Full implementation will only reduce the temperature by approximately 0.02 degrees C by 2100 because it is a global problem and countries like India, and China will not depress their economy with a useless and expensive non-solution; this number is as calculated by the EPA assuming that reducing carbon dioxide will solve this non-problem; approximately 97% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is from natural sources like the ocean, and volcanoes which prompts the question, how can the human’s 3% influence the global temperature; there has been no global warming for about 18 years as measured by two satellite systems (NASA,UAH); cheap energy is required to reduce poverty and imposing carbon emission restrictions would encourage poverty; the weather? It’s now been over eight years since a category 3-5 hurricane hit the United States – the longest such period in over a century; Tornadoes are at a multi-decade low; Droughts are no more intense or frequent than since 1900; health (carbon dioxide),even the EPA admits that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, they claim that the danger lies its ability to increase global warming; carbon dioxide is absolutely required for plant life and therefore human/animal life. The states should refuse to implement this outrageous and illegal law.
The Clean Power Plan will accomplish nothing at great cost. Full implementation will only reduce the temperature by approximately 0.02 degrees C by 2100.This number was calculated by the EPA assuming that reducing carbon dioxide will solve this non-problem. Approximately 97% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is from natural sources like the ocean, and volcanoes which prompts the question, how can the human’s 3% influence the global temperature? With carbon dioxide increasing there has been no global warming for about 18 years as measured by two satellite systems (NASA,UAH). cheap energy is required to reduce poverty. the weather? Over eight years since a category 3-5 hurricane hit the United States – longest such period in over a century. Tornadoes are at a multi-decade low. Droughts are no more intense or frequent than since 1900. Health (carbon dioxide),even the EPA admits that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but is absolutely required for plant life and therefore human/animal life. The states should refuse to implement this outrageous and illegal law.

John Lentini

Sorry for the duplication.

Menicholas

What duplication?
What duplication?

Menicholas

WWhhaatt dduupplliiccaattiioonn??

Menicholas

What duplication??noitacilpud tahW

kim

What? Duplication?
==============

Way to stereotype.