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:
There’s no option for a simple “No, I don’t support it”. Typical.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
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
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/22/shocker-top-google-engineers-say-renewable-energy-simply-wont-work/
The money will come from hidden taxes piled on present energy systems.
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
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%…)
✔
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.
The MSNBC “poll” reminds me of : “Marijuana, threat or menace?”
“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.
Obama’s economy-destroying plan is already being challenged by 16 states.
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.
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.
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
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.
“… NOAA is the brightest …”
One ought not use NOAA and brightest in the same sentence.
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.
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
Exactly (Louis Hunt comment).
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.
“…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”?
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
“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).
“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
“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.
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.
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.
Sorry for the duplication.
What duplication?
What duplication?
WWhhaatt dduupplliiccaattiioonn??
What duplication??noitacilpud tahW
What? Duplication?
==============
Way to stereotype.