After 46 years at NASA, James Hansen is retering from NASA:
James E. Hansen, the climate scientist who issued the clearest warning of the 20th century about the dangers of global warming, will retire from NASA this week, giving himself more freedom to pursue political and legal efforts to limit greenhouse gases.
His departure, after a 46-year career at the space agency’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, will deprive federally sponsored climate research of its best-known public figure.
At the same time, retirement will allow Dr. Hansen to press his cause in court. He plans to take a more active role in lawsuits challenging the federal and state governments over their failure to limit emissions, for instance, as well as in fighting the development in Canada of a particularly dirty form of oil extracted from tar sands.
“As a government employee, you can’t testify against the government,” he said in an interview.
Dr. Hansen had already become an activist in recent years, taking vacation time from NASA to appear at climate protests and allowing himself to be arrested or cited a half-dozen times.
But those activities, going well beyond the usual role of government scientists, had raised eyebrows at NASA headquarters in Washington. “It was becoming clear that there were people in NASA who would be much happier if the ‘sideshow’ would exit,” Dr. Hansen said in an e-mail.
At 72, he said, he feels a moral obligation to step up his activism in his remaining years.
Hansen is frequently the target of sceptics in their attempts to destroy the reputation of scientists: he’d have to be a close second to Al Gore in their pantheon of cartoon villains.
I’ll be writing a longer post on this, however I will say this: Hansen is this generations Carl Sagan.
For some time people have bemoaned the fact we don’t have science communicator to rival Sagan. I beg to differ. For decades, Hansen has been outspoken in his attempts to alert humanity to the risk climate change poses. He has done so in talks, books, interviews and on the internet in the midst of what is perhaps one of the most difficult public debates of the last 50 years.
If you’ve not read his more recent book Storms of my grandchildren, do so:
Note: I will be closely monitoring comments that cross the line into ad hom attacks.
Watching the Deniers 
Great news – maybe NASA Goddard Institute will be able to do some science, rather than frittering the talents of its scientists on political activism.
Have you ever looked at the published output of NASA Goddard? Right there on their web pages,year by year…a lot of work,of which Hansen has done a share. There is no possible way you can arrive at your view reasonably.
In your case familiarising yourself with what you opine about is never important. Why?
Hansen’s numbers are running hot even for climate alarmism. His “boiling oceans” speech is a gem we’ll always treasure.
But I’m glad he has admitted he wants to focus on activism – its obviously been his primary interest for a long time.
Again Eric with the superficial stuff…. why don’t you take a breath and look at the man’s career? Maybe get a grip on why his long scientific life has lead him to where he is?
His professional life,and the output of his unit, is an open book. Study,qualifications,collaborations,research areas,publications,outreach.
Nowhere is there any evidence that the staff of his unit are ‘frittering their talents on activism’ and that they haven’t been able to ‘do some science’
I think you should retract that accusation [knowing that you won’t 😉 ]
Its not just me suggesting Hansen has lost his objectivity on the climate issue. The following is an open letter from former NASA administrators and Astronauts, accusing Hansen of bringing NASA into disrepute.
Hansen may have more enemies inside NASA than you guys appreciate – I dare say a lot of people have had to bite their tongues for a long time. I suspect under Hansen, suggesting global warming was not a cause for alarm was a quick route to the exit.
Lets just say, given the obvious pressure from at least some NASA people to “normalise” Goddard Institute climate research, the next chapter will be interesting.
Nope. No more nonsense from the hapless Watts please,though I know that’s all you have. Note the false dichotomy in the post title suggesting that climate science is looking at models at the expense of observational evidence. It’s a childish insinuation,and one that ought to horrify the signatories of that letter,who spent so much time testing their own work with models..
That letter even alludes to the Oregon Petition as credible evidence for its ‘case’. When I randomly sampled names in the OP to check its credibility,I found a number of dead people,and the bulk of the rest worked in or for the petroleum industry,the medical industry or veterinary services. There were not tens of thousands of scientists,they were people who had a bachelors with a sci component. I for one could not give a shit what a musician with an electrical engineering degree thinks about anything much if they sign that sort of rot.
Citing or allusion to OP is a fail.
‘Hansen may have more enemies inside NASA,etc..’ Please don’t speculate childishly.
Regarding the “Oregon Petition”, some simple math (albeit not so simple that Watts and his minions could follow it) will demonstrate just how bogus that petition is.
In the 15+ years of its existence, the “petition project” has managed to collect some 31,000 signatures. Some might consider that an impressive number. But let’s consider total number of people qualified to sign that petition. The qualifications are so loose (just a 4-year degree in some field related to science, engineering, math, etc.) that there are some *10 million people just in the USA* who are qualified to sign it.
That means that the petition sponsors have managed, in over 15 long years, to sign up something like 1/3 of 1 percent of the people qualified to sign on (the number is that large only if you exclude all qualified individuals who don’t live in the USA).
That’s hardly a ringing public endorsement of the petition sponsors’ views!
I understand – you don’t like the Oregon Petition, because it didn’t use the proper climate science approved petition protocol.
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=1173420319.txt
Also please could people approve the attachment of their name to such a letter. Non highlighted names are people who appear to have already given approval for their name to be used. If you are a yellow highlighted name I think you are likely (or very likely) to sign! If we could have a relaxed attitude and sign a letter that is still in the process of being drafted it would save someone (me) a bunch of work at the end collecting approvals
Not at all,Eric. The OP fails in its own right, peddling the false assumption that basic science degrees are a yardstick for assuming that folks have useful knowledge of what they dispute.
It is a classic appeal to authority: “look, these people have acquired a basic degree with a science component at some stage in their lives, they must therefore know the climate field better than someone with an arts degree or a certificate in accounting.” Frankly, I cannot to assume a mathematician,a veterinarian or an MD has any special insight into the carbon cycle.
Is Eric still backing the Oregon Petition? Wow. An unscientific petition pushed by Intelligent Designers. I signed it for snicks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine#OISM
Eric is recursively self-Poeing. There could be another paper on this. Let Lew know.
a paper just on eric? wonder if they will use his name
a great case study
I watched an interview with the person behind the Oregon Petition, a fellow named Art Robinson. He wanted to hose down the country with radioactive waste! The guy ranted pretty much continuously through the interview, avoiding answering questions and was basically barking at the moon mad.
The interviewer gave him a chance to appear less crazy. He didn’t take it.
Going by his papers, Dr Hansen has been working with some good people who will continue his research. His shoes will be virtually impossible to fill but the work will go on.
Dr Hansen is a giant of a man and a brilliant scientist.
Well put Sou – I agree.
anyone wanting to send well wishes to James, email
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/jhansen.html
One of the giants
Eric Worrall says:
April 2, 2013 at 1:49 am
Hansen’s numbers are running hot even for climate alarmism. His “boiling oceans” speech is a gem we’ll always treasure.
granted that it is very controversial but I would like to hear from eric why he believes that it is impossible, or did someone just tell him
over to you eric to explain it
Cue Erric with a link to Watts …
Because its ridiculous. Because the paleo record contains periods when the Earth’s climate was up to 4000ppm, and runaway greenhouse did not destroy the world. No amount of CO2 we release is ever likely to produce anything like 4000ppm, let alone a level which might cause runaway boiling oceans.
the 10,000 brought us back from ice ages eric
with lots of glaciers you need very high CO2 level to trap limited IR
better example because we are not in an ice age and the world is more sensitive to greenhouse than it has been for millions of years due ocean current changes
the world is more sensitive to greenhouse than it has been for millions of years due ocean current changes
Nonsense. For much of the last hundred million years the world was far warmer than today. The only reason we have a permanent southern polar ice cap is the formation of the circumpolar current around 30-40 million years ago, when Tasmania separated from Antarctica. The isolation of Antarctica allowed glaciation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Circumpolar_Current
So in a very real sense, modern ocean currents favour glaciation.
I see your wiki and raise you a science paper
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=124393
Hilarious – a real dog ate my homework excuse of a science paper.
Instead of accepting the paleo evidence that CO2 and climate are not closely coupled, because CO2 is a minor forcing, the paper tries to explain away previous discrepancies by suggesting a regime change – by suggesting the world magically became sensitive to CO2 just when we started to produce it.
too stupid alert
You do make me laugh though 12-15 million years ago
eric “by suggesting the world magically became sensitive to CO2 just when we started to produce it.”
wife “why are you laughing, what is so funny”
“this clothhead, read this”
Eric Worrall
You are mistaken. See Hansen & Sato (2012), section 3 and Fig 1 (a).
In summary, the largest forcing change across the Cenozoic (65Ma – present) has been CO2. The fundamental driver of the *overall* cooling trend since the the Eocene Optimum (~50Ma) is the gradual reduction in CO2 forcing over the entire period.
Across the Cenozoic, HS12 estimates that solar luminosity increased by about 0.4%, equivalent to an increase of ~1W/m^2, while CO2 is conservatively estimated to have fallen from a peak of around 1000ppmv. The corresponding reduction in forcing is ~10W/m^2.
Later, you assert that the formation of a permanent Antarctic ice cap was caused by the opening of ocean gateways (Drake Passage; Tasmanian Gateway) permitting the formation of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current. Then you assert that Cenozoic cooling was entirely attributable to this.
You over-simplify to the edge of misrepresentation. The formation of the ACC (~34Ma) and consequent thermal isolation of Antarctica were contributory factors in the establishment of a permanent Antarctic Ice Sheet, but the ~16Ma decline in atmospheric CO2 from peak Eocene concentrations was a key enabling mechanism as well.
Cenozoic climate change could, perhaps, be viewed as a long struggle between GHG forcing and albedo, both modulated by tectonic-scale processes. The sensitivity to CO2 forcing does appear to vary over periods within the Cenozoic, but across the full 65Ma the most likely vale for S/2xCO2 appears to centre around 3C. For the most current treatment of this, see this Hansen et al. preprint. This is the contribution made by Hansen and co-workers to the PALAEOSENS project which published its results in an important, multi-author paper in Nature at the end of last year (Rohling et al. 2012).
You appear to be repeating clap-trap picked up from others with abysmal topic knowledge.
I have not approved of anumber o things Hansen has said. but unlike many deneirs he at least acknowledges that hsi more extreme comments are not based n rigorous science, just “what could be” to me, while i disaprove. I do not consider it dishonest. i feel the same way with his “5 meter” sea level rise. I think it amost impossible to beleive that WOULD happen, but it is not beyond the realm of the physically possible.
But the garbage that has been passed off as science by deneir websites and adovcates makes any transgresions of his seem miniscule. Moncton, and Goddard, and WUWT have psoted absolutely ridiculous totally untenable garbage, and Curry has encouraged the same while carefully ignoring most of it on her site.
I got into a huge fight with Stephan goddard about hansen’s “Manhattan underwater by 2012” debalce. Whne it turned out Hansen never said that, that he had been misquoted by a journalist goddrd could not accept the truth and went over the edge into some sort of time machine engendered conspirtacy. Until these deniers are shown to be ideological fanatics and their ridiculous spoutings dismissed, maybe we need peope like hansen who are pounding a drum for action.
Yes the 5 metre sea level rise was a bit rich until I read that during the Eemian SLR rose 3 metres in just 50 years,
he did his masters on the climate of venus.has a fair idea how it happened
bet against Hansen with our lives?
Yes – because Hansen is the alarmist’s alarmist. There is nothing in the paleo record to support Hansen’s predictions. All the carbon we’re burning today used to be part of the atmosphere. The Earth has had a stable climate with CO2 levels up to 4000ppm, and temperatures 10c hotter than today.
In terms of the paleo record, the current level of CO2 is best described as “CO2 starvation”. Plants respond positively to CO2 levels of 1000ppm+, much closer to the level they evolved to consume.
If the geological forcings which pushed CO2 down to its current levels had been a little stronger, all life on Earth would have ended, as all the plants died.
basically eric is saying “it did not occur in the past, no shit, therefore it cannot happen in the future”
logic fail
How much fossil fuel was released in past warming periods eric ?
great loss of atmospheric CO2 can freeze the earth but extra cannot heat it to any dangerous level
logic fail
great loss of atmospheric CO2 can freeze the earth but extra cannot heat it to any dangerous level
logic fail
If you look a little closer at the paleo record, times of high CO2 and high temperature don’t always coincide. For example, the Carboniferous was a period of forests and glaciers, with a CO2 level of 800ppm.
CO2 causes dangerous global warming – logic fail.
eric look up early carboniferous and tell us what the global temperature was
then what reduced CO2 levels
And how many humans lived on the planet in these conditions?
‘All the carbon we’re burning today used to part of the atmosphere’ Perhaps,but it certainly was not all in the atmosphere at once or in one century or a thousand years. Don’t you understand that? It has been sequestered by many millions of years of plant and algae growth and death. We’ve suddenly unpacked the history of plant life covering tens of millions of years
In the Carboniferous you ignore other factors: arrangement and area of continents was different,thus albedo and oceanic circulation differed. Forcing balances differed. No superficial comparisons of numbers without physical context please.
4000 ppmv or greater is taken from Robert Berner’s GEOCARB, a well-known geochemical model of ancient CO2. As the Ordovician was so long ago, there are huge uncertainties for that time period (according to the model, CO2 was between an incredible 2400 and 9000 ppmv.) Crucially, GEOCARB has a 10 million year timestep, leading Berner to explicitly advise against using his model to estimate Late Ordovician CO2 levels due its inability to account for short-term CO2 fluctuations. He noted that “exact values of CO2… should not be taken literally.”
What about evidence for any of these short-term CO2 fluctuations? Recent research has uncovered evidence for lower ocean temperatures during the Ordovician than previously thought, creating ideal conditions for a huge spurt in marine biodiversity and correspondingly large drawdown of CO2 from the atmosphere through carbon burial in the ocean. A period of mountain-building was also underway (the so-called Taconic orogeny) increasing the amount of rock weathering taking place and subsequently lowering CO2 levels even further. The evidence is definitely there for a short-term disruption of the carbon cycle.
Another important factor is the sun. During the Ordovician, it would have been several percent dimmer according to established nuclear models of main sequence stars. Surprisingly, this raises the CO2 threshold for glaciation to a staggering 3000 ppmv or so. This also explains (along with the logarithmic forcing effect of CO2) why a runaway greenhouse didn’t occur: with a dimmer sun, high CO2 is necessary to stop the Earth freezing over.
You’re not thinking it through. What kept the Earth’s climate stable while the solar output increased by 30%? Why was there liquid water on Earth for most of this period (except maybe for the snowball Earth period)?
Because the Earth’s climate is tremendously good at stabilising itself, despite wildly varying forcings. What you see is the workings of Lindzen’s IR Iris.
This is why your heat has gone missing, why runaway greenhouse will never happen no matter what we do to the climate.
go back and check your facts again this is to stupid to warrant a reply
Clueless.
How do you think the climate system *gets out* of an albedo-locked icehouse state? Have you considered that little problem at all?
Er, no. What about Pliocene/Pleistocene glacial terminations triggered by mere seasonal and spatial reorganisation in TSI modulated by orbital dynamics? What you say is obviously nonsense.
I think you might do better to leave paleoclimate alone in future. Find something else to be wrong about.
Looking back, this is not clear:
How do you think the climate system *gets out* of an albedo-locked icehouse state? Have you considered that little problem at all?
Specifically, the Marinoan glaciation ~650 – 635Ma, aka ‘Snowball Earth’. This is an entirely separate point from the remarks about orbitally paced deglaciation.
Hilarious – Marcott admits on RealClimate that the uptick at the end of his hockey stick is statistical noise.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/
Q: What do paleotemperature reconstructions show about the temperature of the last 100 years?
A: Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.
And?
Who knew,Eric?
The 20th century portion is not robust, good grief if we only had a record for the 20th century, oh wait we do
You mean as they stated in the original paper? Oh yeah.
We don’t need a reconstruction for that, do we?
Err Eric….
paleo- or pale- or palaeo- or palae-. pref. 1. Ancient; prehistoric; old
What Marcott was saying is that the paleo part of the reconstruction into the 20th century was not robust. This is uncontroversial, like “shock horror! – aged white conservative religious male gets elected Pope!”.
What he said next is the bit you missed out, and is actually the crucial bit:
“Our primary conclusions are based on a comparison of the longer term paleotemperature changes from our reconstruction with the well-documented temperature changes that have occurred over the last century, as documented by the instrumental record”.
Still hilarious Eric? You have learnt the art of selective quotation well from your moronic mentors.
Seriously, I do wonder how you manage to even tie your own shoe laces let alone program apps for smart phones.
The Marcott reconstruction smooths all the spikes of shorter duration than 300 years, so suggesting that a narrow 20th century spike is significant in the context of Marcott’s smoothed series is complete nonsense.
too stupid alert
And of course the stated aim of Marcott et al was to prove the significance of the 20th century spike.
Who dresses you?
Shaun Marcott from the linked post, ’cause I know Erric hates going anywhere but the Watts Tabernacle:
Stop squawking Erric.
Tamino tested your wuwt nonsense
Yes, with the constant bleating from Eric and the deniers about the spikes being smoothed out, here was an opportunity for them to do some real science instead of just moaning for a change.
Yes, here’s a thought, why not put some artificial “spikes” into the data of the same duration and size as our current “spike”, and then apply the same smoothing as Marcott et al. Lets see what happens. Should not have been beyond the wit of Steve Mc. (supposedly statistician of note), but it never occurred to him. However, Tamino has done it, as John has pointed out, and guess what? The spikes would have shown up anyway, hence proving that nothing remotely similar has happened in the past 11,000 years..
So, yet another storm in a teacup, yet another hissy fit that fizzled out. Eric’s indignation with the Marcott reconstruction, (where there was no attempt to be misleading), stands in sharp contrast to his shameful silence when his hero Watts manufactures fraudulent “trend lines”
Can he even spell hypocrite?
Because the Earth’s climate is tremendously good at stabilising itself, despite wildly varying forcings. What you see is the workings of Lindzen’s IR Iris.
creationist thinking, stabilising itself to a temperature liked by humans?
Lindzens iris has been refuted , it causes the exact opposite when empirical data is used to test the hypothesis
We do not have to raise the CO2 levels all by our self, just enough to get the earth to a state where natural emissions from the Arctic, tundra and oceans overwhelms our own emissions.
when would that happen eric because no one knows just what temperature would trigger that
Yep,the climate is so good at self stabilisation that a weak persistent precessionary change can make it flip between glacial and interglacial with the current continental/ocean arrangement. Good one Eric.
Given that solar output has changed by around 30% since liquid water formed the first oceans, the fact global temperature has remained within a 20c range shows there must be potent stabilisation mechanisms.
And in the subtropics, where you live John, you see Lindzens Iris working all the time. When temperatures climb too high, you get a thunderstorm – high albedo clouds form, reflecting sunlight. Thunderheads transport heat to the edge of space, above the greenhouse blanket. Cool rain completes the cycle, cooling the oceans and land.
Hot days are days when the sun shines. When it clouds over, it might be humid, but the temperature is lower.
another completey idiot statement not worthy of reply
Just a bit of your stupidity eric
The iris hypothesis is a hypothesis proposed by Professor Richard Lindzen in 2001 that suggested increased sea surface temperature in the tropics would result in reduced cirrus clouds and thus more infrared radiation leakage from Earth’s atmosphere
erics iris hypothesis “Iris working all the time. When temperatures climb too high, you get a thunderstorm – high albedo clouds”
F**kwit
Yet the flatline continues – let me know when the surface temperatures are going to start rising again John.
you make a complete fool of yourself eric you are a laughing stock, yet still come back with more stupidy
Own up eric , you are a Poe, no one on earth could possibly be this stupid.
You working for the government making deniers look like morons?
what are they paying you to destroy the sceptic cause?
Erric seems to believe in some distortion of the Gaia hypothesis.
Where did Rev Watts writes about this strange beastie (the Iris)?
The trend that you draw from the measured temperature in 1996 to the lower boundary of the error bar now is indeed a flatline. It also has no significance.
Reverend Watts is a liar Erric and yet you still believe his every word. And worse, you infest this blog with your proselytizing. Hasn’t it sunk it to your thick head yet that we are beyond salvation? You’re wasting your time. Get out and have a look at the real world, for the sake of your daughter’s grandchildren.
Does Eric think a spread of 20C in MEAN GT is stable enough for human life to proceed as it wishes? This is an incredible view to hold,just gobsmackingly untenable! Quite amazed that he’s volunteered this gem! What will he come up with next?
Have’nt you heard about Milankovitch?
Please go and study the topic before commenting on ice ages.
My respect for Hansen has just been raised by how much the deniars hate him.
Lynas
did not put up six degrees in case eric has a weak heart
To find out what the planet would look like with five degrees of warming, one must largely abandon the models and venture far back into geological time, to the beginning of a period known as the Eocene. Fossils of sub-tropical species such as crocodiles and turtles have all been found in the Canadian high Arctic dating from the early Eocene, 55 million years ago, when the Earth experienced a sudden and dramatic global warming. These fossils even show that breadfruit trees were growing on the coast of Greenland, while the Arctic Ocean saw water temperatures of 20C within 200km of the North Pole itself. There was no ice at either pole; forests were probably growing in central Antarctica.
The Eocene greenhouse event fascinates scientists not just because of its effects, which also saw a major mass extinction in the seas, but also because of its likely cause: methane hydrates. This unlikely substance, a sort of ice-like combination of methane and water that is only stable at low temperatures and high pressure, may have burst into the atmosphere from the seabed in an immense “ocean burp”, sparking a surge in global temperatures (methane is even more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide). Today vast amounts of these same methane hydrates still sit on subsea continental shelves. As the oceans warm, they could be released once more in a terrifying echo of that methane belch of 55 million years ago. In the process, moreover, the seafloor could slump as the gas is released, sparking massive tsunamis that would further devastate the coasts.
Again, no one knows how likely this apocalyptic scenario is to unfold in today’s world. The good news is that it could take centuries for warmer water to penetrate down to the bottom of the oceans and release the stored methane. The bad news is that it could happen much sooner in shallower seas that see a stronger heating effect (and contain lots of methane hydrate) such as in the Arctic. It is also important to realise that the early Eocene greenhouse took at least 10,000 years to come about. Today we could accomplish the same feat in less than a century.
It isn’t good news that the current warming of the deep sea is accelerating.
Be more convincing if the world hadn’t stopped warming 17 years ago.
Please let the world know Eric,because it’s acting like it’s still warming.
Yawn tell us when the sea level stops rising and warming, when the Arctic stops melting and by moving the start date a few months back or forth does not completely change the trend in the surface temp
worked out that SST is not ocean temp yet ?
You keep saying this like some broken record Eric, but the facts do not bear you out. Are you still blindly quoting Rose, who can’t even do simple addition?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1996/trend/plot/wti
Or are you going to repeat your meaningless mantra that in another year we will have 18 years without warming? We already have 18 years of data:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1995/trend/plot/wti
why wait another year? What about 19 years? Even better!
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1994/trend/plot/wti
seriously Eric, get a grip!
I’ve worked out that you guys have to look pretty hard for
the hand of satanthe fingerprint of anthropogenic warming these days.God of the gaps huh John?
You need to work pretty hard just to get across your subject matter. Come back later.
As you only exist in two dimensions you’re lack of understanding of depth and height is apparent. Ever been in an ocean? Silly denial meme. Get a new one.
Remember, if you look at all the evidence, denial disappears. Don’t peek, you’ll embarrass yourself. http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/too-little-time/#more-6530
Hansen
Perhaps the biggest fight of Dr. Hansen’s career broke out in late 2005, when a young political appointee in the administration of George W. Bush began exercising control over Dr. Hansen’s statements and his access to journalists. Dr. Hansen took the fight public and the administration backed down.
For all his battles with conservatives, however, he has also been hard on environmentalists. He was a harsh critic of a failed climate bill they supported in 2009, on the grounds that it would have sent billions into the federal government’s coffers without limiting emissions effectively.
Dr. Hansen agrees that a price is needed on carbon dioxide emissions, but he wants the money returned to the public in the form of rebates on tax bills. “It needs to be done on the basis of conservative principles — not one dime to make the government bigger,” said Dr. Hansen, who is registered as a political independent.
In the absence of such a broad policy, Dr. Hansen has been lending his support to fights against individual fossil fuel projects. Students lured him to a coal protest in 2009, and he was arrested for the first time. That fall he was cited again after sleeping overnight in a tent on the Boston Common with students trying to pressure Massachusetts into passing climate legislation.
“It was just humbling to have that solidarity and support from this leader, this lion among men,” said Craig S. Altemose, an organizer of the Boston protest.
Dr. Hansen says he senses the beginnings of a mass movement on climate change, led by young people. Once he finishes his final papers as a NASA employee, he intends to give it his full support.
“At my age,” he said, “I am not worried about having an arrest record.”
At most Hansen might succeed in breaking America – if it actually needs any help.
The rest of the world increasingly doesn’t care about your climate hobgoblin. Japan, Canada and Russia have refused to ratify Kyoto Mk II. Europe is increasingly paying lip service, as the realities of economic recession and bitter cold take their toll on the faithful – Germany is currently building a string a coal generators, and delaying the closure of its nuclear plants, in defiance of its rhetoric about the dangers of CO2.
Australia is on the verge of rejecting green Labour. Labour appears to be making a last ditch effort to hang on, by backpeddling on unpopular green policies, but don’t hold your breath.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/labor-climate-position-weakens-greens/story-fn3dxiwe-1226605545977
So the ranks of the green faithful are thinning. Hansen’s epitaph shall be – what a waste.
japan doesn’t care about the climate hgoblin?
idiot
It’s goodbye nuclear, hello renewables as Japan prepares to build the world’s largest offshore wind farm this July.
By 2020, the plan is to build a total of 143 wind turbines on platforms 16 kilometres off the coast of Fukushima, home to the stricken Daiichi nuclear reactor that hit the headlines in March 2011 when it was damaged by an earthquake and tsunami.
The wind farm, which will generate 1 gigawatt of power once completed, is part of a national plan to increase renewable energy resources following the post-tsunami shutdown of the nation’s 54 nuclear reactors. Only two have since come back online.
The project is part of Fukushima’s plan to become completely energy self-sufficient by 2040, using renewable sources alone. The prefecture is also set to build the country’s biggest solar park.
The wind farm will surpass the 504 megawatts generated by the 140 turbines at the Greater Gabbard farm off the coast of Suffolk, UK – currently the world’s largest farm. This accolade will soon pass to the London Array in the Thames Estuary, where 175 turbines will produce 630 megawatts of power when it comes online later this year. The Fukushima farm will beat this, too.
Then why hasn’t Japan signed Kyoto 2? Because of the depth of their belief in CAGW?
Indifference to the climate hobgoblin is not surprising as the racketeers who run the world have seen to it that the masses have to toil harder for less,leaving them little time to contemplate where they are being herded.
Canada Russia and Australia are rich with fossil fuels,and inevitably are loathe to face reality when they can see bags of easy short-term cash. The US is also a captive of these problems…as John Haughton said so many years ago ,we’ll have to have disasters [and disasters adequately technically covered by the media] before the pollies decide they may have to forgo the post-politics seats in the miner’s boardrooms.
Hansen will give them a hell of a fright. He’s articulate,conservative and has an impeccable professional pedigree, and there is enough media diversity left for him to be heard. But you don’t want to hear,because you’re too busy celebrating your own bondage.
Eric from a previous post.
“http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/25/fact-check-for-andrew-glickson-ocean-heat-has-paused-too/
Nothing fraudulent about Watts line – it fits inside the error margins.”
(apologies for bringing this over from a previous post, but I want to press Eric on this point).
If you actually look at the above graph Eric, you will see that what Watts has done is draw a line from a data point at 2003 to the bottom of an error bar at 2013. The 2003 data point has also been cherry picked because ANY OTHER starting point (apart from 2009, which would have been meaningless), would have given him an upward slope. This is the only way he was able to manufacture a horizontal line, because clearly, even just an eyeball of the graph shows that temperature is still going up. Not as strongly as in the 1990’s but still the trend is up.
Now even Watts knows that this sort of manipulation (using an error bar as a data point), is scientifically (and ethically) indefensible, (he after all, must have learnt something from his 8 years at Uni), so he deviously calls it a “highlight”, Now in scientific convention, lines, horizontal or otherwise, are assumed to be trend lines. If you wish to highlight something, you draw an ellipse around it, or a rectangle. The fact that Watts drew a line, means he intended it to be misunderstood by his gullible acolytes as a trend line. In fact, you yourself were obviously fooled, otherwise you wouldn’t have posted it on this blog and endured the howls of derision that followed.
Hence Watts intention was to deceive which is why I accuse him of fraud. In fact, when one of his bloggers pointed out to him that he couldn’t see that the warming had “paused” Watts had this to say:
Mark Buehner says:
February 26, 2013 at 2:21 pm
“Anthony, what’s your evidence the warming has paused? The data you present show the warming continuing.”
It does? Whats the slope look like over the past 10 years (tip- look at the yellow line).
So, quite clearly, by referring to the SLOPE of his “highlight” (by definition, a highlight would not have a slope), Watts gives away the fact that he always intended said “highlight” to be mistaken for a trend line. Otherwise, why would he highlight that area of the graph? The temperatures arr still plainly on the rise.
Will you now still claim that what Watts did with this graph was not fraudulent?
Interested to see if your innate sense of fairness will now allow you to concede this point.
Eric won’t concede anything about Watts’ clear and enduring ineptitude. He’s too afraid.
Leaving aside the question of whether Erric has an innate sense of fairness (he hasn’t conceded any of his multitude of errors), on this point he has to stand firm because the methodology is the basis of his repeated claim that temperatures haven’t risen in 17 years. If he concedes this he has nothing.
Yes Zoot,
I don’t hold out much hope for Eric’s “innate sense of fairness” either, but though I would give him the benefit if the doubt. I thought if I explained to him in minute detail why Watts is such a fraud and charlatan, he might actually be able to follow the logic. He is, on his own, incapable of critical thinking, so I thought with a bit of help he might see it.
One can but hope 🙂
Fingers crossed. 🙂
Hang on a minute
Eric Worrall says:
April 2, 2013 at 9:51 am
Hilarious – a real dog ate my homework excuse of a science paper.
Instead of accepting the paleo evidence that CO2 and climate are not closely coupled, because CO2 is a minor forcing, the paper tries to explain away previous discrepancies by suggesting a regime change – by suggesting the world magically became sensitive to CO2 just when we started to produce it.
john byatt says:
April 2, 2013 at 9:59 am
You do make me laugh though 12-15 million years ago
now eric sees 12 to 15 million years ago as “world magically became sensitive to CO2 just when we started to produce it.
another explanation
creatioinists believe that the world is only about six thousand years old, the question is then does eric see the reference to 12 to 15 millions years ago in young earth creationist time of just a few hundred years ago ?
what else could explain 12 to 15 million years ago as within the last 200 years?
Today we are releasing a short report from a recent national survey of Republicans and Republican-leaning Independents. A large majority of respondents identified themselves as conservatives (72%), with fewer moderates (22%) or liberals (5%).
A National Survey of Republicans and Republican-Leaning Independents on Energy and Climate Change, reports that a majority of respondents (52%) believe climate change is happening, while 26 percent believe it is not, and 22 percent say they “don’t know.” A large majority (77%) says the United States should use more renewable energy sources (solar, wind & geothermal) in the future. Among those who support expanded use of renewable energy, nearly 7 out of 10 think the U.S. should increase the use of renewable energy “immediately”.
Other Highlights:
• Republicans and Republican-leaning Independents prefer clean energy as the basis of America’s energy future and say the benefits of clean energy, such as energy independence (66%) saving resources for our children and grandchildren (57%), and providing a better life for our children and grandchildren (56%) outweigh the costs, such as more government regulation (42%) or higher energy prices (31%).
• By a margin of 2 to 1, respondents say America should take action to reduce our fossil fuel use.
• Only one third of respondents agree with the Republican Party’s position on climate change, while about half agree with the party’s position on how to meet America’s energy needs.
• A large majority of respondents say their elected representatives are unresponsive to their views about climate change.
The report can be downloaded here: http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001Hbuy8N8yWjFL1lRKvOZjQ34NsgNmDx2reRkqeuY6d6XDit8Qnx6GxogCdhzYSkO7rS2pXKpL5fk8AvJUspK3LXyMqDTBIP1YYDpJBg0oakeU86o-oZgxjYkJggI396MIy_PGzQSSmKa6dsN23SKrjySvI5ybroX09WiatEsUmVNIayRnq2gqqr96T0I8nxuQ-yERH-9dodwUxk5T7wI8sA7SKj_hVHmyKScVm1vUVcLFE9GnvTyPtQ==
A National Survey of Republicans and Republican-Leaning Independents on Energy and Climate Change
This report is based on findings from a nationally representative survey conducted by the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication. Interview dates: January 12-27, 2013. Interviews: 726 Adults (18+). Total average margin of error: +/- 4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level.
I think it is pretty clear from a lot of polling of Joe Public around the world that there IS awareness of energy issues that ought to be guiding/reinforcing/encouraging legislators actions on renewables. People know FFs are dirty and finite, climate IS an issue,and are cluey enough to know big projects need timely starts.
What is also clear is that legislators are responding to entrenched FF blocs lobbying and not to the will of the electorate. Wealthy old tech interests are gaming democracy,and in a country like Australia the bullshit is ‘vertically integrated’ : the ‘conservative’ Coalition,the mines sector,the mines sector lobby led by the IPA,the utility owners and the Murdoch press are all pushing against the public long term interest as expressed time and again in polls.
worse than we thought
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130402162559.htm
James Hansen backs push for nuclear power:-
Given you guys have just described Hansen as the Carl Sagan of our generation, I hope all of you, especially Mike, will take the opportunity to follow Hansen’s lead, and publish a post demanding the immediate replacement of Australia’s coal generators with nuclear power stations.
I might even make it to the support rally – think about it, “deniers” and alarmists on the same side for once.
From Hansen’s article:-
Because large-scale implementation of renewable energy options, such as wind or solar, faces significant challenges, the researchers say their results strongly support the case for nuclear as a critical energy source to help stabilize or reduce greenhouse gas concentrations.
Couldn’t have put it better myself.
Time to ditch the wind turbines, and focus on solutions which work – even James Hansen says so.
keep up, there are 60 nuclear plants under construction at present
in Australia we would build nuclear plants for no other reason than to increase sale of coal
Join the nuclear yes, coal no rally and you might have a point
Nonsense – if everyone gets stuck into building nuclear plants, the process shall streamline to the point noone will bother with fossil fuels anymore.
In any case, I don’t know why you are arguing with the words of someone you identify as the Carl Sagan of our generation – do what Hansen says, ditch renewables, and campaign for nuclear power.
crap we can be building wind and solar at the same time, what do you really hate about using proven wind and solar technology and where is the Hansen Quote ” ditch renewables”?
here start painting your banner ready for the March
NUCLEAR/SOLAR/WIND/ YES
COAL/ CSG NO
instead of reading watts all day do a search for renewable energy in each country
start with hansen’s home USA
You’re clearly denying the advice of James Hansen:-
http://cen.acs.org/articles/91/web/2013/04/Nuclear-Power-Prevents-Deaths-Causes.html
Because large-scale implementation of renewable energy options, such as wind or solar, faces significant challenges, the researchers say their results strongly support the case for nuclear as a critical energy source to help stabilize or reduce greenhouse gas concentrations.
In other words, renewables are NOT THE SOLUTION, nuclear is. So any effort you waste on renewables, effort you could be putting into a campaign for nuclear decarbonisation, does not help reduce CO2 emissions.
Who’s the denier now, John?
you are as usual
19 feb 2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-james-hansen/a-fork-in-the-road_b_2719110.html
now stop putting words in hansen’s mouth you twit
Your link is supporting evidence for my point, you idiot.
A rising carbon price is the sine qua non for fossil fuel phase out, but it is not sufficient. Investment is needed in energy RD&D (research, development and demonstration) in new technologies such as low-loss smart electric grids, electrical vehicles interacting effectively with the power grid, and energy storage for intermittent renewable energy. Nuclear power has made major contributions to climate change mitigation and mortality prevention, and advanced nuclear reactor designs can address safety, nuclear waste, and weapons proliferation issues that have limited prior use of nuclear power,
In other words, renewables are promising but they’re not ready yet – research into energy storage is required, to deal with intermittency.
Nuclear is the solution Hansen is advocating.
The Hansen and Kharecha paper is really about comparing nuclear to coal and natural gas,concluding that switching to NG is a dead end and nuclear should carry the baseload. I don’t see any opposition to renewables conribution in it.
An earlier joint paper featuring both authors [2010] specifically recommends third-gen nuclear and renewables together to achieve a rapid phase-out of FFs.
There is no suggestion from Hansen that it’s “time to ditch the wind turbines”,or that nuclear should obviate needing renewables. He has consistently advocated mixed renewables and nuclear in a smart-grid.
Claiming to know the mind of Chairman Jim while disparaging him in every other way doesn’t get you credibility Eric.
You keep quoting Watts Eric, after I have conclusively proved to you that he is a Fraud.
Are now willing to admit that? If not why not? I will take a non answer from you as your agreement of his fraudulent data manipulation.
Worse than we thought
climate change permanent
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-03/scientist-endorse-report-that-says-climate-has-shifted/4606372
Then why aren’t you campaigning with James Hansen to ditch renewables, and focus on nuclear power, before the damage gets worse?
when it comes to telling lies, eric is right up there with watts
At the end of 2008, Hansen stated five priorities that he felt then President-elect Obama should adopt “for solving the climate and energy problems, while stimulating the economy”. The five priorities were: efficient energy use, renewable energy, a smart grid, generation IV nuclear reactors and carbon capture and storage. Regarding nuclear, he expressed opposition to the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, stating that the $25 Billion (US) surplus held in the Nuclear Waste Fund “should be used to develop fast reactors that consume nuclear waste, and thorium reactors to prevent the creation of new long-lived nuclear waste.”[67]
You need help – you’re denying Hansen’s own words, from an article he jointly published, calling for nuclear decarbonisation of the economy:-
http://cen.acs.org/articles/91/web/2013/04/Nuclear-Power-Prevents-Deaths-Causes.html
Because large-scale implementation of renewable energy options, such as wind or solar, faces significant challenges, the researchers say their results strongly support the case for nuclear as a critical energy source to help stabilize or reduce greenhouse gas concentrations.
Seriously, how much clearer can he be? Who’s the denier now, John?
john byatt says:
April 3, 2013 at 3:09 am
you are as usual
19 feb 2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-james-hansen/a-fork-in-the-road_b_2719110.html
now stop putting words in hansen’s mouth you twit
jA rising carbon price is the sine qua non for fossil fuel phase out, but it is not sufficient. Investment is needed in energy RD&D (research, development and demonstration) in new technologies such as low-loss smart electric grids, electrical vehicles interacting effectively with the power grid, and energy storage for intermittent renewable energy. Nuclear power has made major contributions to climate change mitigation and mortality prevention, and advanced nuclear reactor designs can address safety, nuclear waste, and weapons proliferation issues that have limited prior use of nuclear power, but governments need to provide a regulatory environment that supports timely construction of approved designs to limit costs. etc.
Jim Hansen
Your link doesn’t quote Hansen.
There is no indication in your link that the study calls for “nuclear decarbonisation of the economy”.
Citation required.
Prevented mortality and greenhouse gas emissions from historical and projected nuclear power
Hi-Res PDF[910 KB]PDF w/ Links[593 KB]Abstract Add to ACS ChemWorx
Pushker A. Kharecha and James E Hansen
Environ. Sci. Technol., Just Accepted Manuscript
DOI: 10.1021/es3051197
Publication Date (Web): March 15, 2013
Copyright © 2013 American Chemical Society
Abstract
In the aftermath of the March 2011 accident at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, the future contribution of nuclear power to the global energy supply has become somewhat uncertain. Because nuclear power is an abundant, low-carbon source of base-load power, on balance it could make a large contribution to mitigation of global climate change and air pollution. Using historical production data, we calculate that global nuclear power has prevented about 1.84 million air pollution-related deaths and 64 gigatonnes (Gt) CO2-equivalent greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that would have resulted from fossil fuel burning. Based on global projection data that take into account the effects of Fukushima, we find that by mid-century, nuclear power could prevent an additional 420,000 to 7.04 million deaths and 80 to 240 GtCO2-eq emissions due to fossil fuels, depending on which fuel it replaces. By contrast, we assess that large-scale expansion of natural gas use would not mitigate the climate problem and would cause far more deaths than expansion of nuclear
glad to see eric listening to hansen though and even backing him up
your stuffed eric
study
nuclear
it could make a large contribution
I say again:-
http://cen.acs.org/articles/91/web/2013/04/Nuclear-Power-Prevents-Deaths-Causes.html
Because large-scale implementation of renewable energy options, such as wind or solar, faces significant challenges, the researchers say their results strongly support the case for nuclear as a critical energy source to help stabilize or reduce greenhouse gas concentrations.
Your denial of the advice of your “Carl Sagan” is pathetic.
Or are you suggesting Mark Shrope of Chemical and Engineering News is making stuff up?
From John’s link:-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-james-hansen/a-fork-in-the-road_b_2719110.html
A rising carbon price is the sine qua non for fossil fuel phase out, but it is not sufficient. Investment is needed in energy RD&D (research, development and demonstration) in new technologies such as low-loss smart electric grids, electrical vehicles interacting effectively with the power grid, and energy storage for intermittent renewable energy. Nuclear power has made major contributions to climate change mitigation and mortality prevention, and advanced nuclear reactor designs can address safety, nuclear waste, and weapons proliferation issues that have limited prior use of nuclear power,
In other words, renewables are promising but they’re not ready yet – research into energy storage is required, to deal with intermittency.
Nuclear is the solution Hansen is advocating.
I’ve said similar things.
I don’t think there is any hope for wind, but I personally believe solar will be able to make a serious contribution in a few decades, as price falls and efficiency climbs. Many “deniers” have said similar things.
Solar efficiencies up to 30% have allegedly been achieved using experimental non solar cell technologies such as thermo-accoustic Sterling engines, so there is obviously a lot of potential to harness sunlight – though the issue of intermittency still requires solution.
Maybe the ultimate solution will be something exotic – a “cell” containing a vast array of nano scale thermo-accoustic sterling engines might be able to achieve the efficiency of sterling engines, with the convenience of solar cells.
But none of this technology exists in an economically competitive form *yet*. More research is required. As Hansen says, for now, nuclear power is the optimum route to decarbonisation of the economy.
ERIc verballing Hansen
“Time to ditch the wind turbines, and focus on solutions which work – even James Hansen says so.”
then eric states that Hansen is saying
“In other words, renewables are promising ”
so two contradictory comments within an hour
lights on no one home
just realised that eric probably thinks it is Hansen contradicting himself,
wait for it
The fact I think some renewables are a promising future technology doesn’t mean I think they are *ready* for mainstream use.
Neither does Hansen, by the look of what he said – as Hansen said, there are significant obstacles to overcome w/r to intermittency.
stop digging or what is the government paying you to act like an imbecile ?
as nick said
Nick says:
April 3, 2013 at 6:47 am
The Hansen and Kharecha paper is really about comparing nuclear to coal and natural gas,concluding that switching to NG is a dead end and nuclear should carry the baseload. I don’t see any opposition to renewables conribution in it.
An earlier joint paper featuring both authors [2010] specifically recommends third-gen nuclear and renewables together to achieve a rapid phase-out of FFs.
There is no suggestion from Hansen that it’s “time to ditch the wind turbines”,or that nuclear should obviate needing renewables. He has consistently advocated mixed renewables and nuclear in a smart-grid.
Claiming to know the mind of Chairman Jim while disparaging him in every other way doesn’t get you credibility Eric.
Eric, renewables ARE READY for mainstream use,and are being used. Solar panels and solar hot water are contributing 10% of demand here. Wind power 20% of SA’s demand. We’d be further down the track if recalcitrant dregs like C.Newman honored commitments on concentrated solar.
You continue to misrepresent Hansen’s views! See this paper Why?
china wind and solar alone at 600Twh
is more than double the total australian power requirement of 261 Twh
just wait til it becomes mainstream, clothhead
Eric, you’re a breath of fresh air in this den of iniquity, but please apologise to poor old Robert Stirling for misspelling his name, he deserves better. Ö¿Ö
Those of you who are looking for a user-friendly, pointy-clicky way to demonstrate to family/friends just what incompetent hacks Watts and his followers are should consider taking the time to download the “global temperature virtual machine” app at: http://tinyurl.com/NASA-HANSEN4
It’s a big download (at 1GB), but if you follow the simple instructions provided (link on the right side of the download page), you will be able to “roll your own” global-temperature results from raw data, adjusted data, rural stations, urban stations, or even your own hand-picked stations, all with just a series of mouse-clicks.
And you will be able to compare your own results directly with the official NASA results.
The package marries a very simple global temperature gridding/averaging algorithm with a user-friendly Google Map front-end. As you point/click on station locations, you can watch your global-average temperature results get updated “on the fly” with adjusted *and* raw data from each new station you click on.
You can also generate “batch mode” results for all stations, rural stations, urban stations, etc. by using the popup station-selector control-panel.
You will find that it’s amazingly easy to replicate the NASA results very closely with this package. What makes the results even more amazing is that the algorithm used to generate the results is almost embarrassingly simple — I could teach first-year programming students how to code up the basic procedure!
In fact, raw data from just a few dozen stations scattered around the world will replicate the NASA/Hansen results surprisingly closely (a fair bit noisier, but the long-term trend will be bang-on.)
Sample results from 32 stations (raw data, all rural stations) here: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/59/rural36x36.jpg/
Screenshot of the full app in action here: http://imageshack.us/f/210/screenshot20130209at449.png/
The most difficult hurdle is waiting for the 1 GB download to finish. After that, it’s all gravy — just a few mouse-clicks (not much more difficult than installing Firefox or Chrome). The whole thing is bundled up in a near “plug and play” Linux virtual machine that runs in its own sandboxed window on any newer Windows/Mac PC or laptop (2GB+ memory required).
Once again, the download link is: http://tinyurl.com/NASA-HANSEN4
Download the app and give it a whirl: You will be able to accomplish in a few mouse-clicks what the incompetent WUWT crowd hasn’t been able to figure out how to do in *years*.
top stuff
We need climate change to be a major election issue
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-03/combet-on-climate-change-report/4607734
Climate Change Minister Greg Combet says a new report is a wake-up call to those who deny global warming is a problem.
The Climate Commission’s latest report warns that climate change is already increasing the intensity and frequency of extreme weather in Australia.
The report, which has been backed by Australia’s top climate scientists and science bodies, says that in some cases Australia’s climate has shifted permanently.
Mr Combet says the report underpins the reason why the Government has put a price on carbon.
“These are things that people in the community need to be aware of and of course they are the underpinning reason why the Government has moved to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as part of an international effort to tackle climate change,” he told The World Today.
Climate Change is a major election issue – thats why Gillard is trying to claw back some lost support by distancing herself from the Greens.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/03/labor-downgrades-climate-makes-emerson-minister-of-nearly-everything/
We’ve succeeded in showing a significant number of voters that Greens, and Green Labour, don’t have the worker’s best interests at heart.
You don’t even understand your own interests.
you have gone from climate change is no longer an issue to now it is a major election issue
This is what CC has commented about, the denier ability to go from one contradiction to another in what is supposed to a stand alone comment
weird how they can do that
Eric Worrall says:
April 3, 2013 at 6:30 am
The fact I think some renewables are a promising future technology doesn’t mean I think they are *ready* for mainstream use.
, “no way ready for mainstream use”
luddite
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#Renewable_energy
So he advocates subsidising sunset industries instead. Eric’s just a lemon socialist – public investment, private profits.
Just for Erric: http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/iceland-a-100-renewables-example-in-the-modern-era-56428
Iceland now produces 100% of its electricity from renewables. Admittedly they don’t appear to tap into wind power, but 50% of their electricity is supplied to aluminium smelters. That should be hairy chested enough for our Erric.
“Hansen is frequently the target of sceptics” is an amusing comment, it’s as if the whiter then white catastrophists have never been know to use the denier word occasionally and malign any scientist who dares to question their dogma.
“Hansen says he senses the beginnings of a mass movement on climate change, led by young people. Once he finishes his final papers as a NASA employee, he intends to give it his full support.
“At my age,” he said, “I am not worried about having an arrest record.”
Maybe they could lock him up and lose the key. Ö¿Ö
Earthling says:
January 15, 2013 at 10:02 am
“Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search for creation science…it has simply been assumed that evolution is true
This assumption is rather easy for scientists since we do not have
enough accurate data for a long enough period of time to see whether god created the universe 6000 years ago””
http://www.drroyspencer.com/godiditforget evolution/
there, fixed roy’s statement for you
You always talk to yourself glowbull?
looks like another denier F***Wit site you have there sunshine
He will not be missed.
(I love your name-calling and nastiness. It speaks volumes to the kind of people who follow climate science. Please keep it up.)
Your concern has been noted, you virtuous little petal.
(I love it that your favourite term for wind turbines is “Bat-chomping, bird-slicing Eco Crucifixes”. It speaks volumes to the the kind of people who deny climate science.)
[…] 2013/04/01: WtD: Hansen resigns from NASA to pursue activism: This generation’s Sagan […]
Good grief: I wasted a half hour of my life reading this comment thread. That was stupid.
All I wanted to do was say that it’s a pity that, in his book ‘The Storms of My Grandchildren’, it took Dr Hansen 236 pages before he said this: