James Hansen: Paris Talks are “a fraud”

James_Hansen_profile

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

James Hansen, the godfather of the Global Warming movement, has weighed into the Paris COP21 climate circus, by dismissing the climate conference as fraudulent and fake.

According to The Guardian;

Mere mention of the Paris climate talks is enough to make James Hansen grumpy. The former Nasa scientist, considered the father of global awareness of climate change, is a soft-spoken, almost diffident Iowan. But when he talks about the gathering of nearly 200 nations, his demeanor changes.

“It’s a fraud really, a fake,” he says, rubbing his head. “It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.”

The talks, intended to reach a new global deal on cutting carbon emissions beyond 2020, have spent much time and energy on two major issues: whether the world should aim to contain the temperature rise to 1.5C or 2C above preindustrial levels, and how much funding should be doled out by wealthy countries to developing nations that risk being swamped by rising seas and bashed by escalating extreme weather events.

But, according to Hansen, the international jamboree is pointless unless greenhouse gas emissions aren’t taxed across the board. He argues that only this will force down emissions quickly enough to avoid the worst ravages of climate change.

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/12/james-hansen-climate-change-paris-talks-fraud

Personally I think Hansen is being a bit harsh. I’m sure many of us agree with Hansen’s opinion, that the Paris COP21 event is an utter farce. But think of what an achievement this is. Who would have thought COP21 could produce such agreement, between people with a diverse range of views about climate issues?

Advertisements

109 thoughts on “James Hansen: Paris Talks are “a fraud”

  1. Yeah, who would have thought the world could agree that I get to send my hard earned money to people living on islands with beachside apartments?

    • Still waiting for Kiribati beaches to be for sale.

      Sadly I already paid some money to Al Gore, who presumedly has a beachfront somewhere.

      • Bingo. When Hollywood’s elite dingbats move Hollywood’s lock, stock and barrel buildings and bedrooms to Ohio, I will start paying attention. Till then, let them eat cake, grow fat, and get this and that reduced, enlarged, tightened, lifted, and/or smoothed as much as they want. Climate change is just background noise to me.

    • Coral can grow far faster than the sea rises, so coral islands are now thought to be safe from submergence, provided the inhabitants give up their destructive habits of using beach coral sand for concrete!
      They also over-exploit underground water sources, which can lead to land collapse.
      This and silt-laden run off and over population are real threats to the continued existence of island communities even without any global warming.

  2. I think that 31 page document will have numerous lawyers all over it before signatures appended. Anyone signing who has to do something likely won’t be signing easily or at all. The UK will sign any old cr8*p as the CC targets are in law already.

    It reads like a request for tender (RFT). This is what we want you to do for us, how you do it on this occasion or related we don’t care. Just give us the bill. Anything about measuring progress is a definite no, no!

      • Thanks Ex-expat Colin. No wonder Hansen is upset.

        Article 4 includes:
        1. In order to achieve the long-term temperature goal set out in Article 2, Parties aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, recognizing that peaking will take longer for developing country Parties, and to undertake rapid reductions thereafter in accordance with best available science, so as to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century, on the basis of equity, and in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty.
        2. Each Party shall prepare, communicate and maintain successive nationally determined contributions that it intends to achieve. Parties shall pursue domestic mitigation measures with the aim of achieving the objectives of such contributions.

        The article 28 of the agreement is hilarious:
        1. At any time after three years from the date on which this Agreement has entered into force for a Party, that Party may withdraw from this Agreement by giving written notification to the Depositary.
        2. Any such withdrawal shall take effect upon expiry of one year from the date of receipt by the Depositary of the notification of withdrawal, or on such later date as may be specified in the notification of withdrawal.
        3. Any Party that withdraws from the Convention shall be considered as also having withdrawn from this Agreement.

      • “…and to undertake rapid reductions thereafter in accordance with best available science,”

        This is a variation on the American concept of “best available technology’ (BAT). That is itself a scam and dominates the discussion that change existing standards. What you do is claim your technology (which you have patented) is, for some reason, better than all other technologies. The Standard then requires everyone to use it.

        The countries with the BAT are the ones who dominate spending on R&D, of course, and also have the funds to dominate the membership of Standards Committees out-voting the others in the ‘expert’ sessions.

        The ‘best available science’ is a clever con to force the entire planet to use someone’s cute invention. Those who have invested in the ‘old, not as good technology’ will be forced to use the BAT of the day.

        This whole thing looks like a strange version of EPA regulations that are not very realistic, based on weak committee processes and endless dragged through the courts. Will there be an appeal process for judgments of the ‘best available science’ or will we be subjected to ‘97% consensus solutions’ for eternity?

        The BBC is claiming – via interviews with (who?) – that the measures they are agreeing in to Paris will limit warming to three degrees. But they are not agreeing to anything specific at all. How then can this be assessed to lead to 3 degrees of warming? There is nothing to evaluate! Three degrees, even according to the inflated IPCC numbers, would require more than a doubling of the CO2 in the atmosphere which is unlikely ever to happen, unless it was not human emissions in the first place. Maybe the oceans could do that, but not fossil fuels, there simply isn’t enough time and material to raise it that quickly.

      • “115. Resolves to enhance the provision of urgent and adequate finance, technology and
        capacity-building support by developed country Parties in order to enhance the level of
        ambition of pre-2020 action by Parties, and in this regard strongly urges developed country
        Parties to scale up their level of financial support, with a concrete roadmap to achieve the
        goal of jointly providing USD 100 billion annually by 2020 for mitigation and adaptation
        while significantly increasing adaptation finance from current levels and to further provide
        appropriate technology and capacity-building support;”

        So this is going to be $14-$15 USD for every man, woman and child in the world, every year. So 250 peso’s for Mexico people and about 100 Yaun for people in China. But since not every country is going to sign on to this, this ups the amount per person whose country does sign on. We have to stop this thievery and fraud. Write your senator and representative paid off puppets… not that they will listen.

        https://www.opencongress.org/people/zipcodelookup

  3. It is time for James Hansen to revive his climate scares and talk about tipping points and boiling oceans again. That is sure to grab everyone’s attention and stop all the “nonsense.”

    • It will be a hard sell as both the PDO and AMO do seem to be entering the cold phase. I’ve been watching more and more blue spread out on both oceans on SST maps for the last two months. The El Niño seems to have peaked, also.

      • Yes, it is a very strong El Nino that has been a moderate El Nino for over a year now, and the temperatures are barely budging. We saw a huge spike in temperatures with the last strong El Nino. Where is it this time?
        Certainly we should be seeing the first half of a spike by now!

        I believe temperatures will start a cooling trend around this time next year, as all remnants of the current El Nino fade away, and the PDO and AMO take up a generally negative posture. Within 3-5 years, the 20 year trend will be negative by a statistically significant amount, and we can start reversing the real damage, mainly to the poor, caused by these idiotic agreements, and the constant nightmare stories that have been inflicted on our poor, paranoid children.

      • What great success! The global agreement has already seems to have started to reduce temperatures. We are so lucky to have such great leaders.

      • When global temps start to go down in a few years what will the alarmists say to explain? I predict:
        For a few years they will say it’s just a freak event
        When the tend is undeniable (after 10-15 years) they will claim they DID save the world with their efforts to reduce CO2.
        I just hope I live to see it.

      • The satellite records will be defunded, deactivated, or re-crewed with people more malleable. And then the temperatures cannot go down, unless a new and convenient story requires this.

        ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

  4. Hansen appears to be one of the few who actually believe in CAGW. All the rest, including governments, are in it for money, power, and control.

    • He is a true believer. I was at the Scripps aquarium in SD once, and overheard a man complaining bitterly about CO2 skeptics. This got me curious to the subject, as he was so fatalistic and distressed, so I looked up CAGW skeptics, and found WUWT. This was over a decade ago, and WUWT had a picture of the Man on a post. Dammed if it wasn’t Mr. Hansen himself, so yes, he is very sincere.

      • I’ve wondered for quite awhile which it was about Jim Hansen: competent but a duplicitous activist, or incompetent and sincere. Your story, David A, strongly implies the latter.

        Jim Hansen has never once included physically valid uncertainty limits in any of his published work. Not on his 1988 scenario A, B, C testimonial charts in Congress, not in his published climate model air temperature projections, and not in a single one of his published air temperature measurement records.

        He is a trained physicist, who certainly took classes that included rigorous physical error analysis. Its complete lack in his papers, given his sincerity, signals extreme incompetence.

        The really amazing thing is how the entire scientific establishment has signed on to it. Sociologists are going to have a field day assessing that signal failure.

        That assessment will happen only sometime in the distant future, though, when Sociology itself recovers from its own fatuous love affair with post-modern stupidity.

        The garbage that passes for intellectual output these days … higher superstition and all that.

        It would be funny if it weren’t so dangerous.

      • Pat, your competency points regarding Hansen are valid, glaringly so now. I do not remember the exact year, but at the time of my encounter WUWT only had a couple of hundred thousand hits. At that time before the earth itself became the most powerful skeptic, a TRUE believer could easily succumb to “noble cause corruption” and “confirmation bias”. I can only say that at the time he was sincerely angry and lamenting at how the skeptics could be so blind, just as in this post he is described as angry and upset at politicians being well, politicians, striving to tax the very air we breath while aware, as even Kerry said, the affects of this on earths temperature will be nil. Hansen used to, and for all I know still does, support nuclear, another sign of his conviction. It is possible that now he is simply somehow broken.

  5. Yeah, it’s historic all right. In human history, nothing this dumb and this damaging to humanity has ever been done. The idiocene is well underway.
    Hansen sure knows his bullshit. He’s covered in it.

    • Bruce,
      I am a fan of the term “idiocracy”, however I really like your “idiocene” terminology. As a geologic period it probably began when man began to speak and then accelerated when he began to write. Just saying.

      • The “idiocene” is actually a satirical response to the greenie-inspired concept of the “anthropocene”. Within that concept then, the beginnings of the idiocene would probably be in the 80’s, since that was when the supremely idiotic idea that man could control the climate began.

      • I don’t know but expect, based upon historical stupidities of the past, that it may have begun way before the 80’s.

      • Many of today’s idiots were proclaiming an ice age in the 70’s, although they try to deny it. Sorry, I was there and interested in the 70’s. I know they are lying about it.

    • I believe history is replete with examples of humanity doing things at least as dumb but in those cases there was no objective truth which could have been discerned to inform their decisions.

  6. according to Hansen, the international jamboree is pointless unless greenhouse gas emissions aren’t taxed across the board.

    Certainly he means: ” the international jamboree is pointless unless greenhouse gas emissions are taxed across the board.”

    • That was the first thing that came into my head as well.

      The second thing was that one should not be surprised at mud if one associates with creatures who are at home in mud.

      Use the word “adjusted” on him, while patting his hand. “Now, now, Jimbo. They just adjusted policy in Paris. You don’t mind a few adjustments, do you now, Jimbo?”

  7. Strangely I tend to agree with Dr Hansen.

    COP 21 was supposed to be ambitious, but why with the possibility of going for 1.5 degrees did they stick at 2.
    Surely if poor Kiribati folks are, to sleep comfortably in their beds there should also have been a clear limit on sea level rise.

    Why having gone that far and with the power of 190 nations behind us, not set a limit on high tides, winds in excess of 100 mph,floods in Cumbria or anything else that is damaging us and killing our people.

    If as scientists tell us, simple measures like segregating our rubbish, building wind mills and spending a mere 3.5 trillion dollars on worthy third world countries really can change the weather, the sky is the limit and we never need fear it falling on us again. .

  8. Never thought I’d be encouraged by any statement from Hansen – but strange times. Starting to wonder now if a western nation simply stood up, called bullshit on the whole thing and COP21 can stick it’s dumb targets in it’s collective fundament, whether the rest of the world would levy sanctions against them?

    • Canada tried to oppose this madness, however the powers that manipulate… replaced the government with a 30% of the popular vote majority vote. From this, the liberals claim a mandate, to reverse the common sense policy of the conservative. So no, no government can stand up. GK

      • G. Karst,
        I propose a change to ballots.
        The ballot should allow for one vote FOR a candidate or one vote AGAINST.(each of) the other candidate(s).
        I have not voted FOR a US presidential candidate since Reagan in 1984. I have been forced to vote AGAINST and I know many people who have been compelled to vote similarly.
        Imagine a contest won by a candidate because his opponent received more AGAINST votes than he received FOR votes!
        Claims of MANDATES would become rare.

    • “Mere mention of the Paris climate talks is enough to make James Hansen grumpy”
      That makes two of us then!.

  9. Hansen will be satisfied only when men with guns force you to live out the consequences of his beliefs.

  10. Superstition never gets old, eh? Well, at least they’ve stopped burning witches and sacrificing virgins, just fleecing our wallets.

  11. I think ol’ Jimbo is feeling a little left out and lonely since his retirement. It must be disappointing to see his ideas turned into a three ring circus. But he can certainly re-don his clown outfit and join right in.

  12. Who would have thought COP21 could produce such agreement, between people with a diverse range of views about climate issues?

    What diverse views?

    The developed West want to give away their wealth, and the developing countries are putting their hand out seek to wring out as much as possible. That sounds like a lot of common interest to me.

    The developed West are on a guilt trip and those in power want to feel morally superior and it is easy to give away/spend other peoples’ money. The politicians have no regard for the citizens who they represent, and have no concern about robbing their citizens to give to the so called ‘poor’ and ‘needy’

    What a pity that there is no accountability for actions done in public office. If only it was possible to hold politicians personally responsible for the consequences of their actions. It mind make them think twice about the reckless decisions they make on an almost daily basis.

    What a waste of time and money on a matter that is either not a serious problem, or one that cannot be mitigated, but only adapted to should it prove a problem.

    Hey ho, just a few $trillion down the drain, and after all what is a trillion these days.

    • I am not worried about trillions just yet, although we are approaching that now in different ways. http://level-head.livejournal.com/658822.html
      •It doesn’t get signed until April next year. (¶3)
      •It allows every single country to make up its own targets, and they have until next November to do so (although there’s a reference to a “report” on their target planning due by the signing ceremony in April).
      •And even those targets are temporary. They have until 2020 for a long-term plan. (¶23)
      •They have until November 2018 (¶58) to submit and recommend approval of a plan to raise at least $100 billion (¶54) in a plan to be committed to and implemented by 2025.
      •All they’re doing prior to 2025 is “urging” the parties to try really hard to reduce their emissions (¶106).
      •No individual cash or CO2 levels are called out in this document. And they’ve already planned to cut slack to the developing countries (flexibility, they call it in ¶90) in meeting goals that haven’t even been set yet

    • I was going to make a smart remark that a trillion is a 12 zero entry on the FED’s balance sheet. Then realized how old school that I really am. Its a missing 40 bits in one of their computer entries.

  13. Men with guns tend to have undo influence. I’m sure that is why the UN has a twisted barrel on the gun outside its facility in NY somewhere.

  14. This is bizarre, the Europeans pay $8/gallon for gas and most of that is taxes, and also they have their EU carbon trading scheme. Yet Euopeans don’t emit much less carbon than Americans do, if at all.

    The proof is there James, carbon taxes don’t reduce carbon emissions, nor do they change the weather.

    So what is the true purpose of carbon taxes, James?

  15. This is political fibrillation. The muscle no longer responds to the pace maker. Without extraordinary intervention, a very brief period of incoherence will be followed by loss of consciousness and death. This is the day we have been watching for. There never was a case for unusual temperature rise without Mann’s concocted proxy chimera. I am thinking this should become a chapter in future text books, like the Piltdown Man, as a teaching touch point for future generations of scientists. I think it should be called The Late Twentieth Century Climate Panic, the origin, development, political implications, and ultimate demise of scientific malpractice.

    The true state of nature trumps all BS no matter how cleverly contrived.

  16. So, now that they’ve solved our catastrophic global warming, when can we expect a major ice age to begin? My region had 1-2 miles of ice, the Laurentide Ice Sheet. The Law of Unintended Consequences can be rough.

  17. Jim Hansen is actually very pro nuclear. He doubts that wind and solar are really cost effective as competition with fossil fuels. The main line environmental groups have done their best to kill nuclear.

    • Yes indeed. In that regard he had the capacity to do some good for the human race but by hanging with the Green Screechers he wrote himself off.

      I wonder if he gets the irony.

  18. Maybe he’s beginning to figure out that the real drivers behind this purported obsession with “saving the world” are only money and status.
    Maybe he’s beginning to see that the U.N. really only represents the desire of unelected bureaucrats to siphon off funds from the people of the world via their national govts. by presenting itself as the “last hope” saviour of mankind.
    Maybe he is finally, in his old age beginning to grasp that he was offered a few sparkling pieces of gold, in order to assist the politicos in their desire to channel money into their own off-shore bank accounts.
    Probably not though. He’ll probably never allow himself to figure out that he played a minor walk-on role in the assertion of a new brand of fascist takeover. He’ll probably die stupid.

  19. Hansen, I see your fraud and raise you three more frauds. There is no surface warming issue. The majority of the atmospheric CO2 rise is due to natural reasons and the green scams do not work. (Hansen acknowledge the fact that the green scams do not work and hence advocates a change to nuclear power)

    It is unbelievable, astonishing that the entire CAGW paradigm is based on fraudulent science. The majority of the warming in the last 150 years was due to solar cycle changes, the majority of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to natural reasons, not anthropogenic emission. There are dozens and dozens of independent observations and analysis results to support that assertion.

    Oh well, this surreal mess is all coming to an end. There are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleo record. The fraudent AGW calculation is one of the key reasons why the idiots have not solved the problem how the sun can and does change and hence also have not solved the problem as how solar cycle changes modulate planetary climate.

    The key warming cult of CAGW warming fraud is the ‘no feedback’ 1-dimensional calculation for the ‘surface’ forcing due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 assumed that the increase in atmospheric CO2 has no affect on the lapse rate, assumed that hot air does not rise, assumed that convection cooling stops, assumed basic physics does not apply for the ‘no feedback’ doubling CO2 calculation.

    As the time for molecule radiation emission is long (up to about 12 km above the surface of the planet) compared to the time for molecular collision in the atmosphere ‘greenhouse’ gases cool the surface of the planet by an increase in convection, transferring heat higher in the atmosphere.

    Murry Salby’s text book ‘Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate’ has a graph which illustrations the physics and the issue: Page 240, figure 8.23 Temperature under Radiative Equilibrium (solid line) and radiative-convection equilibrium (dashed line) from calculations that include mean distribution of water vapour, carbon dioxide, and ozone. Adapted from Manabe and Wetherald (1967)

    Manabe and Wetherald’s graph shows that average surface warming without convection (with radiative equilibrium) is 340K, average surface warming with radiative-convection equilibrium is 305K. There is cooling of 35C due to convection. The surface, I repeat the surface warming, due to radiative heating due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will be almost completely offset by the increase in convection cooling. The surface warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 if convection cooling is taken into account is roughly 0.15C without feedbacks. As the surface warming of 0.15C for doubling of atmospheric CO2 is so small it will not cause a significant change in surface conditions so the with feedbacks temperature rise will be about the same as the without feedback warming.

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2015/07/collapse-of-agw-theory-of-ipcc-most.html
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B74u5vgGLaWoOEJhcUZBNzFBd3M/view?pli=1

    Collapse of the Anthropogenic Warming Theory of the IPCC

    4. Conclusions

    In physical reality, the surface climate sensitivity is 0.1~0.2K from the energy budget of the earth and the surface radiative forcing of 1.1W.m2 for 2xCO2. Since there is no positive feedback from water vapor and ice albedo at the surface, the zero feedback climate sensitivity CS (FAH) is also 0.1~0.2K. A 1K warming occurs in responding to the radiative forcing of 3.7W/m2 for 2xCO2 at the effective radiation height of 5km. This gives the slightly reduced lapse rate of 6.3K/km from 6.5K/km as shown in Fig.2.

    The modern anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory began from the one dimensional radiative convective equilibrium model (1DRCM) studies with the fixed absolute and relative humidity utilizing the fixed lapse rate assumption of 6.5K/km (FLRA) for 1xCO2 and 2xCO2 [Manabe & Strickler, 1964; Manabe & Wetherald, 1967; Hansen et al., 1981]. Table 1 shows the obtained climate sensitivities for 2xCO2 in these studies, in which the climate sensitivity with the fixed absolute humidity CS (FAH) is 1.2~1.3K [Hansen et al., 1984].

    In the 1DRCM studies, the most basic assumption is the fixed lapse rate of 6.5K/km for 1xCO2 and 2xCO2. The lapse rate of 6.5K/km is defined for 1xCO2 in the U.S. Standard Atmosphere (1962) [Ramanathan & Coakley, 1978]. There is no guarantee, however, for the same lapse rate maintained in the perturbed atmosphere with 2xCO2 [Chylek & Kiehl, 1981; Sinha, 1995]. Therefore, the lapse rate for 2xCO2 is a parameter requiring a sensitivity analysis as shown in Fig.1.

    The followings are supporting data (William: In peer reviewed papers, published more than 20 years ago that support the assertion that convection cooling increases when there is an increase in greenhouse gases and support the assertion that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will cause surface warming of less than 0.3C) for the Kimoto lapse rate theory above.

    (A) Kiehl & Ramanathan (1982) shows the following radiative forcing for 2xCO2.
    Radiative forcing at the tropopause: 3.7W/m2.
    Radiative forcing at the surface: 0.55~1.56W/m2 (averaged 1.1W/m2).
    This denies the FLRA giving the uniform warming throughout the troposphere in
    the 1DRCM and the 3DGCMs studies.
    (B) Newell & Dopplick (1979) obtained a climate sensitivity of 0.24K considering the
    evaporation cooling from the surface of the ocean.
    (C) Ramanathan (1981) shows the surface temperature increase of 0.17K with the
    direct heating of 1.2W/m2 for 2xCO2 at the surface.

    Transcript of a portion of Weart’s interview with Hansen.

    Weart: This was a radiative convective model, so where’s the convective part come in. Again, are you using somebody else’s…

    Hansen: That’s trivial. You just put in…

    Weart: … a lapse rate…

    Hansen: Yes. So it’s a fudge. That’s why you have to have a 3-D model to do it properly. In the 1-D model, it’s just a fudge, and you can choose different lapse rates and you get somewhat different answers (William: Different answers that invalidate CAGW, the 3-D models have more than 100 parameters to play with so any answer is possible. The 1-D model is simple so it possible to see the fudging/shenanigans). So you try to pick something that has some physical justification (William: You pick what is necessary to create CAGW, the scam fails when the planet abruptly cools due to the abrupt solar change). But the best justification is probably trying to put in the fundamental equations into a 3-D model.

    In addition to ignoring the fact that ‘greenhouse’ gases increase convection which reduces surface warming by a factor of 4, the without ‘feedbacks’ calculation also ignored the fact the absorption spectrum of water vapor and CO2 overlap. As the earth is 70% covered with water there is a great deal of water vapor in the lower atmosphere particularly in the tropics.

    Redoing the double atmospheric CO2 level, no feedback calculation with a atmospheric model that takes into account the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere and the radiation effects of water/CO2 absorption overlap reduces the surface forcing for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from 3.7 watts/meter^2 to 1.1 watts/meter^2 ( also reduces surface for a doubling of CO2 by a factor of four). The 1.1 watts/meter^2 increase in forcing will result in surface warming of ball park 0.1C to 0.2C which is so small, the no feedback case is the same as with feedback case.

    Check out figure 2 in this paper.
    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281982%29039%3C2923%3ARHDTIC%3E2.0.CO%3B2

    Radiative Heating Due to Increased CO2: The Role of H2O Continuum Absorption in the 18 mm region

  20. {bold emphasis mine – John Whitman}

    The Guardian reported,

    Scientists are trained to be objective,” Hansen says. “I don’t think we should be prevented for talking about the the implications of science.” He retired from Nasa in 2013. “That was a source of friction. I held on longer than I wanted, by a year or two. I was in my 70s, it was time for someone else to take over. Now I feel a lot better.”

    Competent objectivity is, as Hansen mentioned, central to science. Looking at both the approach and the result of his work products/ speeches/ behaviors, I think Hansen is neither a ‘Feynmanian-like’ thinker nor a ‘Edisonian thinker. He is a ‘Naderian-like’ thinker and ‘Ravetzian-like’ thinker. He is a product of a socially subjective school of science instead of an independently objective school of science.

    Note: references were respectively to Richard Feynman, Thomas Edison, Ralph Nader and Jerome Ravetz

    John

  21. Mere mention of the Paris climate talks is enough to make James Hansen grumpy.

    Gee, is it now?
    It’s enough to make climate skeptics/realists barf.
    For completely different reasons of course.

    • As we go the way of Rome, it seems appropriate that we will bring back the ‘vomitorium’ to go with our COP’s.

  22. ….Who would have thought COP21 could produce such agreement, between people with a diverse range of views about climate issues?…
    _______________________________________________________________________

    This is not an agreement as no one has to do anything. It is just a series of statements with even less validity than the Kyoto Accords.

    • Dennis…the point escaped you. Eric was saying that COP21 accomplished a miracle….it made people like Jim Hansen AGREE with us…that COP21 was a fraud. It produced agreement between people with a diverse range of views….

    • Hello, Dennis! Your old pal from Camarillo (and the Blue and the Gray chess set) here.

      In fact, the best the Paris Agreement can do is to “urge” the Parties to comply with the Kyoto Accord while spending the next years making up what targets they’d like to set for themselves.

      And then by 2020, begin to set targets they’d like to achieve by 2030. All voluntary, of course. It was amusing to see them stress “no double counting!” in multiple places; evidently they have issues with this as the parties report their situations.

      ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

    • au contrair, I believe there is an agreement that they do not have to do anything if they inform the COP that they are opting out. Otherwise there is an agreement to do something which has no enforcement mechanism.

  23. “As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there…”

    APPEAR TO BE? Really? Jim, it is only because THEY ACTUALLY ARE the cheapest that you could even propose to tax them out of competition in the first place you idiot! This is why no one listens to you when you talk about what you think “appears to be” going on in our climate!

  24. I wonder if poor old Jim realises that he effectively verified the null hypothesis back there in 1985. He included in his scenarios the temperatures that would result if no more CO2 were emitted, using the same models he used to produce the scary scenarios. The actual temperatures follow that prediction almost exactly. Given that “anthropogenic” emissions of CO2 increased dramatically, the null hypothesis that temperature is a natural phenomena is essentially verified. No need to produce hypothetical random ridiculous ideas that CO2 is in any way shape or form related to temperature. No wonder poor old Jim is so glum.

  25. COP21, along with the entire climate obsessed movement, is a fraud in no small part out of homage to the tone and tenor Dr. Hansen has set regarding climate for his entire career.

  26. When Al Gore is forced to abandon his Oceanside mansion due to Antartica melting, I’ll take another look at the data to see whether they’re still fiddling with it.

    • If Al Gore keeps it up , between the donuts and the ego, if the ocean near his home encroaches on his property, you might want to check to see if “gravitational pull” can be ruled out first…

    • When the Goriacle schedules a garage sale in anticipation of his beachfront mansion falling into the ocean, only then will I believe, he’s really serious about this whole Climate Change thingy. To date, the only thing he’s accomplished is unjustly enriching himself. And quite nicely, I might add…

  27. From the guardian article-

    “From being possibly America’s most celebrated scientist, Hansen is now probably its most prominent climate activist. ”

    Oh….how pathetically false and fawning can you get? Someone really should inform Oliver Milman that if he asked the average American’s today who they think is “America’s most celebrated scientist”, James Hansen wouldn’t even make the list, much less be “possibly” near the top of it! And, since those same people would also have NO IDEA what James Hansen has done with himself since retiring from NASA, being “America’s most prominent climate activist” doesn’t exactly make one a prominent anything.

    • It’s worse than your think.
      Unfortunately most Americans would say that Al Gore is America’s most celebrated scientist.
      When you dumb down education for 40 years or so, it eventually has consequences.

      • I think most Americans know the Al Gore politician who only irrelevant were Mrs Clinton to die [from old age and the trying make voters associate herself with Love].

        But I wondered if the majority of American were aware that any scientist still existed and who they considered a scientist if they still exist [or if they cared, as compared to who was their favorite
        talking head]. So I googled:
        Poll: Can you name a living scientist?
        http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2012/02/can-you-name-a-living-scientist/

        Surprisingly, most who could mentioned a name, gave, Stephan Hawking, who is a scientist.
        So apparently they didn’t provide the characters in The Big Bang theory for example or
        erroneously mention Al Gore [though they might been included in “other”].

        This again, proves how important “Climate Science” is.

      • Exactly! Those of us who follow the climate science debate are only a sub group of nerds following another sub group of nerds. That we are so actively engaged in it can bias us to believe that everyone else is too, and that bias could lead to grand illusions about our range of influence.

        I predict that as soon as the low information voters feel a financial squeeze of some kind that is directly linked to saving the planet, they will howl outrage and abandon ship immediately. Real atruists are almost extinct these days.

  28. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.”

    They don’t appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they are the cheapest fuels out there.

  29. Hansen is still something of an enigma to me. He can totally jump off the deep end into insane “oceans boiling” speak, yet still be sane enough to swim back and promote nuclear power and call-out these green-conference jerks.
    A strange man.

  30. These people are amazing. They run around quoting 2C or now 1.5C now the temperature is not rising but as soon as someone like Lomborg does the actual calculation and fuinds the result is nore like 0.2C, they do the ostrich.
    Apparenlly, science and maths are not science and maths if they do not agree with waffle.

    • Actually Jack, Armageddon is only.1 degrees away if you accept the (In my view fraudulent) surface record.

      • Isn’t it interesting that “climate catastrophe” is considered to be still a degree or so cooler than the Holocene Climate Optimum?

        It makes me wonder if they understand why it was called an “optimum” time for humans, before political correctness attacked this name like a Confederate battle flag.

        ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

  31. A “fraudulent and fake” COP seems an appropriate response to a fraudulent and fake global warming conjecture.

  32. If conventional oil production peaks within the next few decades, it may have a large effect
    on future atmospheric CO2 and climate change, depending upon subsequent energy
    choices. Assuming that proven oil and gas reserves do not greatly exceed estimates of the
    Energy Information Administration, and recent trends are toward lower estimates, we
    show that it is feasible to keep atmospheric CO2 from exceeding about 450 ppm by 2100,
    provided that emissions from coal, unconventional fossil fuels, and land use are
    constrained.
    Implications of ‘‘peak oil’’ for atmospheric CO2 and climate
    Pushker A. Kharecha1 and James E. Hansen1 2008

  33. Cop 21 was a revivalist gathering of the Church of Global Warming believers,with no connection to the real world except for its job creating activities for the thousands in attendance.
    For a simple approach to climate forecasting and estimates of the timing and extent of the coming cooling see http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-epistemology-of-climate-forecasting.html
    and http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2015/04/climate-and-co2-exchange-with-freeman.html

  34. But the agreement is monumental. All of our climate problems have been instantly solved and the USA does not have to pay for it because we are a poor nation. Extreme weather will never happen again and the sea levels have stopped rising. We can now redirect funds from studying and trying to prevent climate change to paying down our debt.

    • Yes, but the Australian government would be stupid to start subsidizing clean energy projects as Britain has tuned down theirs. ‘Just kill off a couple of billion humans, so they can’t breath out CO2 anymore (Joke)!

  35. Interesting NYT editorial. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/climate/2015-paris-climate-talks/scientists-see-catastrophe-in-latest-draft-of-climate-deal

    ===========
    Scientists See Catastrophe in Latest Draft of Climate Deal
    2015-12-11T09:41:47-05:00 December 11, 2015

    LE BOURGET, France – Scientists who are closely monitoring the climate negotiations said on Friday that the emerging agreement, and the national pledges incorporated into it, are still far too weak to ensure that humanity will avoid dangerous levels of climate change.

    The pledges, even if put in place in full, would result in emissions reductions perhaps half as large as those needed to meet a global goal of limiting planetary warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).

    “Once you set that global planetary guardrail, everything else must be consistent with that target,” said Johan Rockstrom, executive director of the Stockholm Resilience Center, an environmental institute. “It means decarbonizing the world economy by 2050.”

    Yet the pledges countries have offered as part of the deal are not remotely consistent with that target, incorporating no more than half the emissions cuts that would be needed to meet it…

    Many of the diplomats gathered here see the agreement through a different lens than the scientists do. They acknowledge that countries’ pledges are not adequate, and they are trying to outline a system that would require a regular review and tightening of those pledges, perhaps every five years.

    But in a standing-room-only briefing on Friday at the conference center here, the scientists warned that time was running out, particularly for a chance of meeting the tighter target of 1.5 degrees Celsius – a limit on global warming that could preserve many island nations, as well as the coral reefs on which hundreds of millions of people depend for food.

    Dr. Anderson called the draft agreement “somewhere between dangerous and deadly” for the lowest-income people in the world.
    ============

  36. Yes, the government stamp of a deal does over step the cottage industry alarmist fraud efforts and their retirement supplement funds.

  37. Hansen has a one track mind. Everything for him is fraudulent and fake. He understands these twin concepts well

Comments are closed.