Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
This is the 30th anniversary of James Hansen’s testimony to Congress regarding “global warming”. It was his testimony that set off the disastrous 30 Year War on Carbon. There have been articles in the press celebrating the anniversary of his testimony and lauding Hansen’s role, but I see nothing to celebrate. It has been a war with lots of casualties, mostly among the poor who can least afford it. It’s a war that has increased my electricity price by 50%. I can afford that … but there are many who can’t. It’s a war that has plunged thousands of people into a new kind of poverty, “fuel poverty”. Fuel poverty is where in midwinter, you have to make a choice between heating and eating …
I shudder to think about what that choice must be like.
And sadly, one of the main casualties of this mad war is the reputation of climate science itself. The disreputable actions of far too many activist scientists have blackened the names of every honest climate scientist and indeed of the entire field.
How did we get into this insane fight against a natural component of the atmosphere? Much of it traces back to a very successful underhanded scam pulled off by Jamex Hansen surrounding his Congressional testimony during that summer thirty years ago.
Why do I call it an “underhanded scam”? Here’s a description of the chicanery from an interview with Senator Tim Wirth, one of the flim-flam artists who helped James Hansen with his Congressional testimony. The interviewer is asking Senator Wirth about the events surrounding that Congressional Hearing. The interviewer asks:
What else was happening that summer? What was the weather like that summer?
Senator Wirth: Believe it or not, we called the Weather Bureau and found out what historically was the hottest day of the summer. Well, it was June 6 or June 9 or whatever it was, so we scheduled the hearing that day, and bingo: It was the hottest day on record in Washington, or close to it. It was stiflingly hot that summer. [At] the same time you had this drought all across the country, so the linkage between the Hansen hearing and the drought became very intense.
Simultaneously [Mass. Gov. Michael] Dukakis was running for president. Dukakis was trying to get an edge on various things and was looking for spokespeople, and two or three of us became sort of the flacks out on the stump for Dukakis, making the separation between what Democratic policy and Republican policy ought to be. So it played into the presidential campaign in the summer of ’88 as well.
So a number of things came together that, for the first time, people began to think about it. I knew it was important because there was a big article in, I believe, the Swimsuit Issue of Sports Illustrated on climate change. [Laughs.] So there was a correlation. You figure, well, if we’re making Sports Illustrated on this issue, you know, we’ve got to be making some real headway.
So these underhanded cheats set the stage for hyping “global warming” by deliberately choosing the hottest day of the year for Hansen’s testimony. Then they morphed his oh-so-movingly hot testimony into a very successful partisan political issue for the Democrats.

And the amazing thing is, Senator Wirth sees his deceit as something to boast about!
“But wait”, as they say on TV, “there’s more”. Here’s the next question to Senator Wirth:
And did you also alter the temperature in the hearing room that day?
Senator Wirth: … What we did it was went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right? So that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room and so when the, when the hearing occurred there was not only bliss, which is television cameras in double figures, but it was really hot. …
So Hansen’s giving this testimony, you’ve got these television cameras back there heating up the room, and the air conditioning in the room didn’t appear to work. So it was sort of a perfect collection of events that happened that day, with the wonderful Jim Hansen, who was wiping his brow at the witness table and giving this remarkable testimony. …
There you have it. Wirth and Hansen picked the hottest day, opened the windows, and disabled the air conditioning to create a made-for-tv illusion of global warming, nobody could deny it seeing Hansen and the Senators sweat … and now Senator Wirth is boasting about how clever they were. Can’t get much more pridefully underhanded than that.
They say that “Fish rots from the head down”, and the Thirty Year War on carbon dioxide is a clear example of that. The war on carbon dioxide was born in lies, cheating, deliberate subterfuge, and intentional misrepresentations by James Hansen and Senator Tim Wirth … and it has continued down that same path since the beginning.
They also say “As the twig is bent, the tree’s inclined”, and starting with Wirth and Hansen deceiving the US Congress, down through Michael Mann and his lies about the Hockeystick being validated, to Peter Gleick and his lies about the Heartland Institute, to Caspar Amman lying to get the Jesus Paper into the IPCC report, the field has had far, far too many devious, deceitful “scientists” shading the truth, ignoring opposing evidence, disabling air conditioners, and telling porkies to advance their allegedly noble cause.
And to advance their careers as well, although surely that is only coincidental …
The most amazing part of this story is that even though these scientific malfeasants fooled Congress, and even though they lied their keisters off, even though they stacked the peer review panels with reviewers blind enough to put Stevie Wonder to shame, and even though the governments and the universities and the scientific organizations and the mainstream media all bought into their deceit and lies, even despite the fact that tragically they poured billions and billions of dollars down the rathole in the process … they still haven’t convinced the core of the US population that CO2 is the double extra secret control knob that can simply be turned up and down to regulate the global temperature to the nearest degree.
Thirty years on now, and all that time they tried and they tried, and they lied and they lied, but they just couldn’t pull it off.
So what I’m celebrating today is the 30th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln being proved right when he said “you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.”
And on this anniversary I’m also celebrating those who have fought the good fight in this war, and it is a long and tiresome fight indeed. First and foremost, Anthony Watts, whose original Surfacestations project morphed into Watts Up With That, the most successful climate blog ever. Next, Steven McIntyre, whose dogged pursuit of the smallest details showed just where the Hockeystick was fatally cracked, and who exposed errors in dozens of papers.
Among the professional scientists who have followed the facts and fought for the scientific method, I give big props to Drs. Bill Gray (sadly no longer with us), Roy Spencer, Tim Ball, John Christie, Pielkes Pere et Fil, Willie Soon, the dean Fred Singer, the irrepressible Judith Curry, Craig Loehle, and many more honest scientists known and unknown.
Beyond them are dozens and dozens of amateur scientists, bloggers, journalists, and people from other disciplines doing or reporting on interesting original climate research—Jo Nova, Steve Goddard, Matt Ridley, Warwick Hughes, Jennifer Marohazy, Donna Laframboise, Roger Tallbloke, Bishop Hill, the delightfully mad Lord Moncton, Lucia Liljegrin, James Delingpole, Ross McKitrick, and many, many others.
(I apologize in advance for leaving out anyone whose name I should have mentioned, but rest assured, your contributions are known beyond the confines of my faulty memory.)
Next up for war decorations are the moderators of all of the climate-related blogs, particularly of WUWT. Since WUWT has a worldwide reach, it needs to be moderated 24/7. This is done by a global group of dedicated people who have selflessly donated their time to keep the doors open. Kudos to the moderators on all the blogs.
Next are all of the other active participants in the climate discussion, AKA the commenters. I can’t tell you how much I’ve learned from the comments on all of the blogs—there’s always something new, some different way to look at things, some insight about how I might be able to solve a problem.
Next, a special war medal for those who have show me and others where our scientific claims are wrong. Science progresses inter alia by one person trying to find flaws in the scientific ideas of another person. It is essentially adversarial, and nobody likes to be publicly shown to be wrong. Me, I hate it … but being shown wrong has saved me months, perhaps years, of following some incorrect understanding down some blind alley. It is the willingness of the skeptics to be wrong that will sustain people’s faith in the scientific process.
To round it all out, I want to give a shout-out to the lurkers, those who read the articles and comments with great interest, but rarely or never comment. The lurkers are the unseen nine-tenths of the iceberg that give it the mass necessary to bring down the big “ship of fools” …
Anyhow, that’s what I’m celebrating on this 30th anniversary of the start of the Carbon Wars—this mad, ad-hoc, unorganized, chaotic army of professional and amateur scientists, interested individuals, bloggers, people with unconventional scientific ideas, intellectual nonconformists, lurkers, climate curmudgeons such as myself, general weirdos, and a host of other in-laws and outlaws who have united under the banner of science-based skepticism, and who have fought the combined power of governments, universities, activist scientists with billions in funding, and the mainstream media to a standstill.
My profound congratulations to all involved. Not that the war is won, but at least we’re at what might be called the “Churchill inflection point” … well done to everyone, thanks for fighting the good fight.
w.
PS—The “Churchill inflection point”? It is that point in a war that Churchill described as follows:
It is my best judgement that after thirty years of climate science being hijacked by activists, we are now at the end of the beginning of the fight to return sanity, transparency, and honesty to climate science.
PPS—when you comment I ask that you quote the exact words you are discussing. Your subject is always crystal clear to you … but not to others. So please, to avoid misunderstandings, quote the subject of your musings.
w. ==> Good title.
Excellent rant, Willis. There’s really not much else one can do about the situation, since the perps can’t and/or refuse to be reasoned with. So there it is.
For many years, several ‘’prominent organizations” have been actively involved in spending billions towards the global indoctrination of citizens, as well as strategically influencing governments’ policies.
We know about “what” and “who” – The real question addressed here should be – “why”?
Three decades of rancorous handwavium debate over evidence for and the physics behind the Radiative Greenhouse House Effect and man-caused climate change, aka CAGW.
What a waste since none of it is real.
The earth being 33 C warmer with an atmosphere is based on the difference between two completely unrelated made up numbers: 288 K, a wild ass guess pulled straight out of WMO’s butt and 255 K, a theoretical S-B BB ideal calculation for the 240 W/m^2 Long Wave Infrared Radiation leaving the top of the atmosphere.
Furthermore, the lunar studies by Volokin/Nikolov and Kramm clearly conclude that without an atmosphere the earth would be much like the moon, a barren rock with the lit/hot side maybe 390 K, the dark/cold side maybe 190 K and not even colder by 33 C.
The LWIR up/down/”back” GHG energy warming loop is a theoretical S-B BB ideal baseline calculation for any surface at 288 K and likewise not real. Contiguous participating media, i.e. atmospheric molecules, render impossible any BB emission from the surface.
No 33 C warmer + No GHG energy loop = No RGHE & No CAGW.
Am I wrong?
Always possible – for all of us.
’cause if I’m not wrong decades of research, “evidence,” publications and billions of dollars goes straight in the dumper and the entire trillion dollar global climate change industry is suddenly unemployed.
Liz Kolbert thinks the problem is a failure to communicate:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/listening-to-james-hansen-on-climate-change-thirty-years-ago-and-now
The war crimes trials, aka “climate Nuremberg” for the likes of Hansen and Mann, and all those who subverted science to their own ends can’t begin soon enough.
Sadly, the only thing guaranteed to vindicate sceptics is global cooling for a convincing period.
Just what we neither want, nor need.
And according to a number of sources, it’s due to start around 2019/2020.
Not least, this:
May have already started, Hot Scot. 35 miles south of me, daily temps are average for this time of year, but cold air from the north (Canada) is pushing warmer air out of my area. If I have to run the furnace tonight to bump up the indoor temperature, it will be the latest I’ve had to do that so far. I keep track.
Normally, it should be in the mid to upper 70s where I am, but it is consistently lower than that by 8 to 10 degrees. Not the first year that this has happened, either.
Please may I add the soft spoken but inevitably honest Will Happer to the list of honors.
Yes, Will has been an excellent if soft voice in the debate.
w.
Will “Unflappable” Happer!
Thank you, Willis, for all that you have contributed over the years. Your work has been insightful and a joy to read.
“It is the willingness of the skeptics to be wrong that will sustain people’s faith in the scientific process.”
Absolutely
Sadly, I think it extends much further than that. It’s causing a general distrust in science.
Let’s not overlook all of your contributions to scientific truth. We all look to you with your marvelous skills in analyzing huge masses of data to bring clarity to complex issues. We admire your openness and willingness to adjust conclusions in the light of new data.
I am a Lurker here – but I used to comment, way back when. Shoot, I read Anthony’s first post from when he set this up off of SurfaceStations.org, one of the first hundred or so. I use it quite a bit to keep me updated so I argue battles elsewhere. Fantastic resource. WUWT is a ‘trunk’ of the Skeptic Tree that supports us all.
Thanks for the work Willis. We appreciate it.
A few points.
Generally big wars last about 30 years, until two generations of young men have been bled to death on the battlefield. E.g., Thirty Years War of 1618-48. World Wars I and II.
The only warrant for government force is existential peril, as in: we are going to fry the Earth!. The Russians/Germans/Jews are coming! Otherwise the market can work it out.
If you mix ice cream and ordure, you get ordure. If you mix science and politics, you get politics.
And you are a wonder, Willis.
Since the Thirty Years’ War, some prolonged conflicts have lasted less time, some more.
Wars of Louis XIV: 1667-1714.
18th Century Balance of Power Wars: 1733-63 (bit of a stretch linking smaller and bigger wars).
French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars: 1792-1815.
Wars of Italian Unification: 1815-71 (or into the 20th century).
Taiping Rebellion: 1850-64 (20-30 million military and civilian dead).
Russo-Turkish Wars: 1827-1914 (some long peaceful periods).
Wars of German Unification: 1848-71 (including revolutions as war).
Before the Thirty Years’ War:
Ottoman-Byzantine Wars: 1299-1453
Hundred Years’ War: 1337-1453
Italian Wars: 1494-1559
Eighty Years’ War: 1568-1648 (subsumed in the Thirty Years’ War)
Anglo-Spanish War: 1585-1604
Forgot above:
Anglo-Dutch Wars: 1652-1689 (with more in the 18th & 19th centuries)
Actually, I believe June 23 will be the 30-year anniversary of the Hansen & Wirth dog & pony show. Here’s the transcript:
http://sealevel.info/1988_Hansen_Senate_Testimony.html
Typo: Moncton–>Monckton
And then: What exactly is the “correct, optimal, perfect ‘temperature of the earth'” that is desperately endangered?
I have raised this question before and no one seemed to take notice. What is the probability that, after 4.5 billion years of climate change, the Earth just happened to be at the optimum temperature for life immediately before the Industrial Revolution? It seems to me that the probability is vanishingly small! If the temperature that alarmists are attempting to maintain is not optimal for life, then what is? It seems, to me at least, that colder would not be optimal. So, what does that leave us? We may well be living in the best of all times, or approaching it. But, those of alarmist persuasion don’t try to make a case for the optimal global temperature, instead just trying to scare people into maintaining that which always is changing.
I may not have done a good job of highlighting this point in my write-up, but Dr. Mann and Dr. Titley both made the argument last week that humanity’s ascent into civilization is due to the climate conditions of the last 8K(ish) years…so I guess from their perspective, it’s not a coincidence, but rather due to…
rip
(a.k.a. Brian Lindauer)
While not necessarily “optimal”, we do know that the best climates anatomically modern humans have ever enjoyed were during the warm Holocene Climatic Optimum and even toastier Eemian CO. Almost as good were other hot spells during both interglacials.
We were able to penetrate the northern reaches of Eurasia (Europe and Siberia) during the relatively less frigid interstadials of the last glaciation, where we effectively wiped out the indigenous Neanderthals and Denisovans, except for the bits and pieces of genetic material we picked up from them.
Warmer is better. Two degrees above “preindustrial” would be great, but unlikely to happen, more’s the pity.
Clearly, with our efficient system of sweating, we are better adapted to heat than many other animals, such as dogs, that can only cool themselves by panting. However, even large fur-covered animals like lions have adapted to very hot climes. So, there may be many animals that are more sensitive to increasing temperatures than primitive humans. My suspicion is that biological organisms are most comfortable with the climate they first evolved in. That means, because the climate is always changing, organisms either have to evolve further to survive, find adaptive strategies, migrate, or become extinct. The unanswered question is, can mammals that survive the extremes from Winter to Summer of nearly 150 deg F, be seriously threatened by a couple of degrees increase in the global average?
Good question. Especially since they can usually simply move north or south, uphill or down.
Humans evolved our evaporative cooling system as we became cursorial hunters. Despite losing our fur, we lived in the tropics or subtropics, so still needed another adaptation to cool off while running down prey and chasing herds at high speed.
The only other mammal known to have apocrine glands as well adapted for cooling is the horse, another champion long-distance runner. Hence “lather”.
We are adapted for endurance running, practically the opposite of modern Americans’ sedentary lifestyles, to include myself.
As the old saying goes: “How do you tell when a politician is lying?” “His mouth is making noise.”
Thank you for raising this issue again. I try to bring it up whenever possible that they cheated, and the anniversary of the Big Scam is probably the best time to do it. I am surprised his interview is still on the internet. You would think they’d want it to go away. I have kept a copy just in case they someday try to cover it all up. I certainly hope we are at the beginning of the end, but I think we must use caution. The alarmists are still trying to do some underhanded things behind our backs.
Alarmists are mostly misguided and misinformed but many are incredibly stupid. I mean rock-hard stupid. Dehydrated-rock-hard stupid. World-class, A-1, top of the heap, triple whopper with cheese, supersized stupid. So stupid that it goes way beyond the stupid we know into a whole different dimension of stupid. One-of-a-kind, global, universal, intergalactic stupid. You are trans-stupid stupid. Meta-stupid. Stupid collapsed on itself so far that even the neutrons have collapsed. Stupid so dense that no intellect can escape. Singularly, extraordinarily, incredibly, bewilderingly stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid. You emit more stupid in one second than our entire galaxy emits in a year. Quasar stupid. Your life is a monument to stupidity. I am breathless that anyone or anything in our universe can really be this stupid. You are a primordial fragment from the original big bang of stupid. Some pure essence of a stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of stupidity that we know. A behemoth, a leviathan, a colossus of stupidity.
So, you’re saying they are stupid, right? Just want to be sure that’s what you meant.
I prefer the term ‘misguided’ or the other one ‘naive and uninformed’ myself. They exhibit religious fervor in their refusal to acknowledge other possibilities than CAGW, hence ‘naive and uninformed’ is preferable, in my view.
Terms like “stupid” or “uninformed” certainly don’t apply to the likes of Nick Stokes. Yet, he does exhibit the kind of logical-conclusion avoidance that one commonly sees in religious zealots who are doing their best to avoid contradictions in dogma.
Thanks, Willis.
I am a very old lurker who remembers the blistering heat of the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s when we had to take extreme measures to be comfortable.
It is now depressing to see temperature graphs that depict those early temperatures much cooler than today’s temps. The continuel adjusting, manipulating and changing the early temps is unscientific and yields a false impression of history. I lived it and I remember it.
The government departments, agencies, administrations and other groups who support this false history are misleading its citizenry.
To the next 30 where sanity will prevail! And a special thanks to Willis for his excellent work based on thorough analysis of the available data sets.
The cool part about all of this is that Wirth and company so wanted to portray global warming as theater that they actually made up the fact that they had staged it. Read through the thread and you will find that they didn’t open the windows or attempt to disable the a/c, but they spread the story that they did (!).
One never knows what to believe when someone changes their story. Was the first or the second story the truth? It doesn’t sit well with juries! It is the same problem with traitors. If someone sells out their country, how can anyone trust them? If there is anything that is well to take to an extreme, it is being truthful and consistent. Those who are too stupid to realize that don’t deserve to be elected to the Senate.
Why would a senator make up a story like that to the Washington Post? He is essentially incriminating himself to a scam. He couldnt be that stupid. When he realized later on that what they did would be perceived as very very unethical and hurtful to the alarmist cause, he tried to deny it. The cat was let out of the bag in either case because it proves they have no ethics.
HAZZAA and Oo-Rah!!
Well-said Willis,
I still see no signs of understanding from my many “liberal” friends, but surely, one day, they will wake up. I really despair of the western “man in the street”.
Did anyone mention the late John Daly? He was a great voice of reason back at around 2005. When the Climategate emails showed fellow’s chortling and rejoicing over his death, I lost what little respect I was attempting to muster for that gang of snickering cronies.
John Daly’s website was like a breath of fresh air, back before WUWT existed.
RealClimate posted a detailed, concrete, specific analysis of how well Hansen’s projections have fared. Zeke Hausfather last year did the same for a large number of projections by many people over many years. Yale Climate Connections has a video of interviews with climatologistson that topic. Tamino summarized numerous indicators of warming.
And from the WSJ (not SJW) today:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/thirty-years-on-how-well-do-global-warming-predictions-stand-up-1529623442
Tom Dayton- I’ll see your RealClimate, Zeke Hausfether and Tamino and raise you one Pat Michaels and one Ryan Maue.
That WSJ opinion piece is just plain wrong, factually and verifiably.