THIS PAGE HAS BEEN ACTIVATED AS THE NEW STATESMAN BLOG IS NOW CLOSED FOR COMMENTS
At 10am this morning, the New Statesman finally closed the Mark Lynas thread on their website after 1715 comments had been added over a period of five months. I don’t know whether this constitutes any kind of a record, but gratitude is certainly due to the editor of of the New Statesman for hosting the discussion so patiently and also for publishing articles from Dr David Whitehouse and Mark Lynas that have created so much interest.
This page is now live, and anyone who would like to continue the discussion here is welcome to do so. I have copied the most recent contributions at the New Statesman as the first comment for the sake of convenience. If you want to refer back to either of the original threads, then you can find them here:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with all 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
Welcome to Harmless Sky, and happy blogging.
(Click the ‘comments’ link below if the input box does not appear)
10,000 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
manacker (194) — Just truisms that every scientist knows about. Too dull for words.
Spenser/Christy have been shown to have made an error in sign. Guess what then? About his latest work, with a different co-author, we see
“But we really won’t know until much more work is done,” Spencer said.
http://www.physorg.com/news132251958.html
His effect, if demonstrated, must be small. THe data in the paleorecord demonstrates that several intrglacials were warmer than this one. I wrote about this before, so quit beating a dead horse, hmmm?
Finally, its not the sun:
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/RickyRood/comment.html?entrynum=74&tstamp=200805
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Solar_Cycle_Variations_png
so in all regards, you have it just plain wrong. Go read about how equilibrium climate sensitivity is determined from the paleodata, hmmm?
Bob_FJ (189, 190) — No, that is not how the graph was constructed. I explained to you how it was done. Do it yourself from the HadCRUTv3 global temperature annual anomaly product the way I said and you will have duplicated Tamino’s graph. Try it.
The advantage of block averages is two fold: much of the inter-decadal climate variability is removed (some is still present using the 21-point smoothing); it is possible to compare the anomalies with GISP2 data, which only offers (at best) decadal resolution.
But the most serious point is your comment earlier about not visiting Tamino’s site just to avoid rasing his hit count. This indicates to me your are not interested in following the scientific method.
manacker (182) — You need the assistance of a mental health professional. At least be consistent: if paleodata (all collected in the 20th and 21st centuries) can be manipulated, why cannot other proxy data (such as thermometer readings)?
I guess everybody is in on the conspiracy; you’d better not trust Brute, now…
Robin Guenier (184) — Economic forcasting is not based upon physics; it is based upon falsified models of how humans behave.
GCMs are based solely upon physics. Well established physics, nothing modern.
Robin Guenier (185) — The link
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/06/more-pr-related-confusion/langswitch_lang/sp
explains why this has nothing whatsoever to do with the AOGCMs.
Robin,
I think that we’ve well established that Anthropomorphic Global Warming is a fraud…..a means to an end. I happen to believe that this, (attached), is the end.
Gore Funding Plan For “A New World Order”
http://riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2007/03/gore_funding_pl.html
Preface to say that I am not some right wing super radical, (I’m a bookish, dull, unremarkable, married, Engineer with a home in the suburbs, a dog and an overweight cat), but I do believe and embrace freedom, individual rights and democracy and I absolutely see this “movement” as an attempt by politicians to insert themselves into the personal lives and habits of the public…..sort of a massive political, social indoctrination of collectivism.
When I discuss the topic of global warming with progressives, (Liberals), and point out the overwhelming evidence refuting the theory, they don’t seem phased…..they seem to be perfectly happy to forfeit their rights and allow their hard fought freedoms and believe that turning their lives and personal choices over to the state is acceptable, (its for your own good). Or, more probably the case, they don’t recognize the value of their freedoms and liberties and therefore cannot appreciate what it is to retain these cherished possessions until they are gone.
Does anyone else see this? I can’t help but see all of this as handing over our personal choices and freedoms to progressive social workers bent on forcing their values and perceptions of reality onto the citizens through legislation.
Madhouse Madison Considers Ban on Drive-Through Windows
http://www.madison.com/tct/news/stories/293046
Nanny State to Confiscate Children’s Incorrect Meals
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-509972/Teachers-ordered-police-childrens-lunchboxes.html
Dems Attempt to Greenwash Convention
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB121434145793701111.html?mod=blog
Ironically, the people that I speak to who are most vocally opposed to these types of progressive “initiatives” and “movements” are new immigrants, especially from Eastern Europe. These people immigrated to this country to escape the government intrusions into their lives.
“I guess everybody is in on the conspiracy; you’d better not trust Brute, now…”
Right.
You’d better not trust the U.S Senate, the majority of US citizens, 31,000 U.S. scientists, the Chinese, Indians, Russians, or the citizens of the UK and Europe, Africa and Australia who believe that global warming is a fraud.
The Global Warming Scam
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/66237
The High Cost of the Global Warming Scam
http://www.newsmax.com/brennan/Brennan_global_warming/2007/11/13/49093.html
Shouldn’t forget the people who own thermometers or possess a modicum of common sense either……don’t trust them.
By the way….we had TWO thunderstorms today AND my dog farted……..must be due to Global Warming.
DBB tells us: “GCMs are based solely upon physics. Well established physics, nothing modern.”
It’s not so, folks.
DBB fails to tell us that the GCMs are based on assumed GIGO inputs, not “well established physics”.
The error ranges in the GCM projections are greater than the projections themselves.
“Well established physics” indeed.
Sorry, DBB. You are dreaming again.
Max
Hi David B. Benson,
Notice that you are still citing RealClimate as a source of factual info on climate change.
How totally naive.
Regards,
Max
Hi again, David B. Benson,
You wrote: “manacker (182) — You need the assistance of a mental health professional. At least be consistent: if paleodata (all collected in the 20th and 21st centuries) can be manipulated, why cannot other proxy data (such as thermometer readings)?”
You are losing it, my friend, so do not advise me about the need for “assistance of a mental health professional”.
As the Mann fiasco showed, paleoclimate proxy data can be (and were, indeed) manipulated to deny the existence of a well documented MWP with temperatures higher than today. Did you catch that one when it happened or were you so tuned into your computer at the time that you were oblivious of the facts around you?
Thermometer readings (that are “adjusted or manipulated” and are not transparently open to public scrutiny) such as the GISS record, for example, can also be manipulated (as was shown recently with the erroneous US record that showed 1998 as a record hot year, when the real record was set in 1934, long before AGW). GISS is run by Hansen, who has become a political activist for AGW, rather than an objective scientist (despite the fact that he is in the pay of the US taxpayer to provide unbiased climate information to the US public).
Finding out about these frauds and exposing them takes a lot of effort and diligence, and, thankfully, there are a few people out there (McIntyre, Watts, etc.) that have taken this on this daunting task.
Face reality, David.
Regards,
Max
David B. Benson 202:
You are a really funny guy!*
I asked you a very simple, (= let’s take it slowly….one step at a time), single question in 187 (repeated in 189 +190)
However, you returned in 202 with obfuscation and various diversionary/ irrelevant comments again.
To make my single point clear yet again, I repeat that I do not care a sparrow-fart, just how Tamino constructed his graph. We are simply reviewing his end result graph, regardless of how it was derived; for any relevance to “climate science”.
I don’t like to SHOUT, (per normally accepted blogosphere etiquette), but my single simple question remains; regardless of how Tamino MSU for his end result;
DO YOU AGREE THAT THE FINAL DATA POINT ON HIS 10-YEAR BLOCK-AVERAGED CHART IS OF THE YEAR 2005 AD?
Please read this again; with great care and concentration: (repeat; it is irrelevant HOW Tamino did it):
DO YOU AGREE THAT THE FINAL DATA POINT ON HIS 10-YEAR BLOCK-AVERAGED CHART IS OF THE YEAR 2005 AD?
One step at a time!
One step at a time! (got it?)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* I don’t mean “funny ha ha” but “funny peculiar”
In a couple of comments earlier in this thread I began to explore the idea that a decade of global warming alarmism has taken its toll on the oil market. Now I have tried to draw these ideas together in a post here:
Kyoto, climate change, and the price of oil
As I have not seen anyone else following this line of reasoning, I would be interested to know whether any of you think that it makes sense.
Britons fear the carbon cops are coming
http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKL2459239920080624?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews
Note the steam/vapor “emitted” from the cooling towers in the photograph. Sort of looks like smoke, doesn’t it? (Maybe the editor decided to use a closer crop to save on page space…….)
David: you say (205) that economic forecasting is “based upon falsified models of how humans behave.” Exactly – so, in logic, you must agree that it unwise to rely on the IPCC’s projections.
In case you haven’t understood what must now be your position, I’ll explain. As I said in my post 172, the IPCC’s climate forecasting contains elements of long-term economic, demographic and weather forecasting – each of which has been proved individually unreliable. The economic forecasting element of this (based, as you say, on falsified models) is at the root of the process: the IPCC’s “Special Report on Emission Scenarios” (SRES) published in 2000 – and, most oddly, not updated since then. The SRES made assumptions about economic growth, technological change and population growth – all based on “models of how humans behave”. And all, therefore, likely to be wrong.
Therefore, even if the GCMs are “based solely upon physics” (which I doubt – see Max’s post 208) and are therefore wholly reliable, that reliability becomes worthless by being plugged into the unreliable SRES scenarios. As was once said, if you have a glass of ice cream in one hand and a glass of excrement in the other and mix them together, the result certainly doesn’t taste like ice cream.
Max: in my post 176 (to JZ Smith), I quoted from the IPCC’s SPM:
I noted that few seem to have commented about that first word “most”. Is that true? How about CA? As I said:
I’d value your comment.
The article by Professor Kellow points out several examples where science has been “corrupted” in order to push a political agenda. The author points out that the peer-review process is actually more of a “rubber stamping” among like-minded colleagues, which provides no guarantee of a true objective and independent review.
One of the most flagrant examples of this was the now infamous Mann “hockey stick”. This study was initiated with the specific purpose of getting rid of an embarrassing historical and scientific fact: the Medieval Warm Period, an extended period of warmer global temperatures than today.
The testimony of Professor David Deming before the U.S. Senate in December 2006 tells the story.
http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266543
As Deming states, “The existence of the MWP had been recognized in the scientific literature for decades. But now it was a major embarrassment to those maintaining that the 20th century warming was truly anomalous. It had to be ‘gotten rid of.’”
Deming’s statement tells the story of the dubious role played by leading scientific journals in slanting science in order to espouse a political agenda.
This story is now history. The Mann hockey stick study was subsequently discredited by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/MM03.pdf
The National Research Council released its report on the hockey stick in June 2006. confirming the McIntyre/McKitrick analysis that the “hockey stick” was an artifact.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/NRCreport.pdf
The “peer review” process supposedly providing an independent outside review was shown to have been inbred and ineffectual by Edward Wegman in testimony before the U.S. Congress.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanReport.pdf
But, strangely enough, the IPCC (SPM 2007, p.9) still states, “Paleoclimate information supports the interpretation that the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1300 years”,
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf
and political activists still use the discredited hockey stick to claim unprecedented 20th century warmth and project alarming imminent “tipping points”.
This is just one small example, but there are many others.
The article by Professor Kellow points out a deep underlying problem of “science” being corrupted in order to support a political agenda.
Max
Hi Robin,
You asked me (#215) about the IPCC quantified stand on relative impact of anthropogenic GHG concentrations on the observed temperature increase since the mid-20th century.
Yeah. IPCC (SPM 2007, p.10) does say, “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.”
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf
They add the footnote: “Consideration of remaining uncertainty is based on current methodologies” (whatever that is supposed to mean).
“Very likely” is defined as >90% (p.3) and “most” is (by definition) >50% (although not specified by IPCC).
So this says that IPCC is 90+% certain that 50+% of the warming since the mid-20th century is due to the “increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations”.
This leaves a 10% chance that their estimate is wrong.
It also leaves just under 50% of the warming that could have been caused by something else even if their estimate is correct.
I sent David B. Benson a series of links to studies on solar climate forcing over the 20th century (Posts #86 through #98).
These all conclude that there was a significant solar forcing on 20th century climate, particularly in the latter half of the 20th century. These studies generally agree that “the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago”.
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf
One study concludes: “It is shown that solar cycle signal is more evident in climatic data during the last 60 years. The result is discussed in conjunction with the problem of unprecedented high level of sunspot activity and climate warmth in the late 20th century.”
http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76.1026I.pdf
On average, these studies report an increase of 0.15% in solar irradiance over the period (with as much as 0.04% increase per decade in the later years). This is equal to a total solar forcing of around 2.06 W / m^2 over the period 1955-2005. Note that this is significantly higher than the estimate of 0.12 W / m^2 as estimated by IPCC (p.3), with the IPCC concession that this is based on a “low level of scientific understanding”.
Let’s look at the numbers.
IPCC gives CO2 a radiative forcing of 1.66 W / m^2 for the period from pre-industrial 1750 to 2005), when atmospheric CO2 increased from 280 ppmv to 379 ppmv. Radiative forcing is proportional to the natural logarithm of the CO2 ratio (beginning/end of period).
CO2 was 280 ppmv in 1750 and 379 ppmv in 2005.
379 / 280 = 1.35
ln (1.35) = 0.303
CO2 was 312 ppmv in 1950 and 379 ppmv in 2005.
379 / 312 = 1.21
ln (1.21) = 0.195
RF (CO2) (1750 – 2005) = 1.66 W / m^2 (IPCC SPM 2007, p.4)
RF (CO2) (1950 – 2005) = 1.66 * 0.195 / 0.303 = 1.06 W / m^2
Applying Stefan-Boltzmann
0.106 / 5.4273 = 0.20K
Now for methane (assuming other minor GHGs cancelled out by aerosols, land use change, per IPCC, p.4):
IPCC gives CH4 a radiative forcing of 0.48 W /m^2 for the period from pre-industrial 1750 to 2005), when atmospheric CH4 increased from 715 ppbv to 1774 ppmv. Radiative forcing is proportional to the natural logarithm of the CH4 ratio (beginning/end of period).
CH4 was 715 ppbv in 1750 and 1774 ppbv in 2005.
1774 / 715 = 2.48
ln (1.35) = 0.909
CH4 was 1000 ppbv in 1950 and 1774 ppbv in 2005.
1774 / 1000 = 1.77
ln (1.77) = 0.573
RF (CH4) (1750 – 2005) = 0.48 W / m^2 (IPCC SPM 2007, p.4)
RF (CH4) (1950 – 2005) = 0.48 * 0.573 / 0.909 = 0.30 W / m^2
Applying Stefan-Boltzmann: 5.4273
0.30 / 5.4273 = 0.06K
Total greenhouse temperature increase from increased CO2 and CH4, 1950 to 2005
= 0.20 + 0.06 = 0.26C
Solar impact (see above)
RF = 2.06 W / m^2
2.06 / 5.4272 = 0.38K
Solar temperature increase, 1950 to 2005 = 0.38C
Total observed temperature increase 1950 to 2005 (basis Hadley record)
0.116C/decade linear trend
0.64C observed linear increase over 50-year period, 1950-2005
Total observed temperature increase, 1950 to 2005 = 0.64C
Total accounted for by theory:
GHG impact (CO2 plus CH4) = 0.26C
Solar impact = 0.38C
So, in effect the record shows a reasonable correlation with the theory (almost too good to be true!), but the IPCC estimate of “>50%” impact from GHG forcing appears on the high side (it appears that “>40%” would have been a more accurate estimate).
But they did leave the >90% probability open and did concede that their estimate of solar impact was based on a “low level of scientific understanding”.
So, all in all, the IPCC report slants things toward GHG impact (as could well be expected, based on their charter), but leaves the door open for a significant (if somewhat understated) solar impact for which they concede to have a “low level of scientific understanding”.
Hope this helps, Robin.
Regards,
Max
Hi Robin,
Forgot to post the link to the Hadley 1950-2005 temperature record I cited. Here it is, as directly downloaded and plotted into Excel from the Hadley source.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3115/2622663080_9e4f57768b_b.jpg
Regards,
Max
Hi Robin,
Just a quick remark.
Another “take home” is that the warming of the second half of the 20th century can be “explained” by GHG theory plus solar effect, without the need to postulate any hypothetical net “positive feedbacks”.
The lack of net “positive feedbacks” was confirmed independently by the Spencer study on clouds, which validated Lindzen’s “infrared iris” hypothesis of strong negative feedback from clouds, cancelling out any theoretical positive feedback from water vapor.
In effect, these data all confirm a “climate sensitivity” (2xCO2) of around 0.7C, rather than 3C, as assumed in many GCM studies (or even 4.4C, as used in the Hansen models).
This means we can expect warming from today until 2100 of around 0.4C from CO2 and less than 0.1C from methane (if the sun doesn’t continue its most recent slowdown in activity and cancel out all the GHG warming).
At any rate, it looks like the IPCC projection of 0.2C warming per decade is unklikely to occur.
Regards,
Max
Robin Guenier (214) — Exactly so. So IPCC is carefull to say that they offer ‘projections’. Several are offered based on imagined different rates of economic growth. This leads to a wide range of ‘projected’ temperature increases.
And by the way, it is not quite, quite clear that poster manacker is so driven by his own agenda that he refuses to look at the papers which use actual data to establish a range for the equilibrium climate sensitivity.
Bob_FJ (211) — NO. The final point, plotted above about 2005 CE, is the average for the eight years 2000–2007 from the HadCRUTv3 global annaul temperature anomaly product.
manacker (208–210) — This paper essentially agrees with the ‘hockey stick’:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/311/5762/841
with figure
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/311/5762/841/FIG2
so there is no hancky-pankey. But the paleodata used to determine climate sensitivity is from ice cores.
You ought to read about it.
Once again, its not the sun:
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Solar_Cycle_Variations_png
Once again, it is now warmer (in some regions) than at any time in may thousands of years:
90–7000 years ago:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=914542
http://www.physorg.com/news112982907.html
5200 years ago:
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/quelcoro.htm
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Fast-Melting-Glaciers-Expose-7-000-Years-Old-Fossil-Forest-69719.shtm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96tzi_the_Iceman
David,
Seriously, your political/ideological beliefs are clouding your judgment. If you’d like to suggest that people conserve energy and use resources wisely, great…..I’m with you. Do it privately.
You’ve been drinking Joe Romm’s Kool Aid for too long and your hero worship is frankly embarrassing……makes me feel embarrassed for you.
Regarding post # 223…..I don’t seem to grasp how this helps your cause. 7000 years ago is a hiccup in the historical climate record. Please elaborate……
What I conclude from your links is that the planet was warmer +/- 3300 years ago, (in reference to the Alpine Ice Man), which means that the earth was at least as warm then as now, (I would assume through natural processes as my pickup truck hadn’t been invented at the time). I also realize that there were massive ice sheets covering this same area about 8000 years before he died.
Have you spoken to a geologist regarding your theories? I think that in terms of time, they have a wholly different outlook on the cycles of natural earth processes.
I believe that this is the essential problem here……People, (Benson), fail to grasp how old the earth is and the massive changes that have occurred during its history. In this age of 30 second sound bites and instant coffee, these short sighted people seem to feel that a .5 degree rise in temperature over 100 years is something unusual and/or something that must be attributed to my car exhaust.
Occam’s razor has been alluded to as a principle when discussing this topic. Have you ever wondered why ancient civilizations worshiped the Sun? The Sun is responsible for most every natural occurrence on this planet……wouldn’t you agree? If the Sun were extinguished tomorrow, what would be the result of the climate system on this planet?
What would be the result on every other planet in the solar system? Do you believe that the Sun is constant? Do you really understand the distances involved and the amount of heat produce by this Star?
Putting aside my personal feeling regarding this subject……wouldn’t it make sense that the Sun and its massive energy output (heat) would be responsible for warming the planet and causing the myriad of chemical reactions and temperature variations that drive the weather systems? You so cavalierly dismiss the source of energy that drives the weather system of all of the planets in our solar system and dictates the movement and positions of all heavenly bodies…….Can’t you appreciate how silly you sound when you dismiss the Sun as a culprit in effecting our weather?
But to suggest that mankind’s existence on this planet is entirely responsible for a ½ of 1 degree temperature variation over 100 years and exclude the Sun’s influence is absurdly ridiculous.
You point to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation….El Nino, La Nina as overcoming the effects of CO2 on global temperatures……what drives those systems? What ultimately produces hurricanes? What ultimately produces thunderstorms, droughts and floods? What causes the Glaciers, Ice Sheets and Ice Caps to recede and advance?
Hansen Unhinged
Having the wrong opinions on climate science constitutes a crime against humanity?
By Patrick J. Michaels
This week marks 20 years since NASA’s James E. Hansen testified before a joint Congressional hearing that there was a strong “cause and effect” relationship between “current” climate conditions and emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Current conditions in 1988 were a big heat wave and drought in the eastern U.S. The public bit. Two days later, 70 percent of the respondents to a CNN poll agreed with the proposition that 1988’s misery was caused by global warming. Yet in fact, no climate scientist can ever blame an individual weather event, like a heat wave or drought, on global warming.
Hansen’s testimony that year included a graph of annual temperatures, with a dramatic spike on the last point, the January-May temperatures. He knew, as does any scientist, that a sample of monthly data will vary much more than year-to-year temperatures, and that monthly data could give a false impression of extremely hot (or cold) conditions, compared to annual temperatures.
Hansen has long employed stagecraft for political gain. On June 23, 1988, he delivered his testimony in an unusually toasty hearing room. Why was it so warm? As then-Sen. Tim Wirth (D., Colo.), told ABC’s Frontline: “We 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 . . . it was really hot.”
Hansen offered three scenarios for future warming. “Scenario A,” was business as usual, meaning carbon dioxide emissions would continue with no stringent curbs. It forecast an ever-increasing rate of emissions, but the rate of increase turned out to be constant. So this scenario predicted too much warming. Indeed, even though there was no major curb on emissions, they still didn’t increase exponentially.
“Scenario B,” which forecast a slower increase, is pretty close to what has happened, as far as global carbon dioxide emissions go. It projected that increasing CO2 concentrations would result in global temperatures about 1.48°F above the 1951-80 average in 2007. But that’s 33 percent more warming than has actually been observed, according to data published by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
“Scenario C” stopped the growth of carbon dioxide emissions altogether in 2000, which obviously hasn’t happened.
Every climate scientist knows there’s been no — zero — net change in surface temperatures in the last ten years, as shown in the climate history of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Unless you throw in a volcano (there hasn’t been a decent one in the last decade), none of Hansen’s valid 1988 models predict what’s actually happened. He simply predicted too much warming, especially for the last ten years. Why should we believe what he forecasts for the rest of the 21st century?
Hansen’s 1988 predictions were flatly wrong about the extent of global warming. Yet on the 20th anniversary of his original testimony, Hansen said that people “should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature” for spreading doubts about the promised global warming holocaust. He named names, too: the CEOs of ExxonMobil and Peabody Energy.
Excuse me, Inquisitor Hansen, but what exactly are their crimes against humanity? Being demonstrably wrong about climate science?
Speaking of crimes, what about the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from electioneering? In the hotly contested state of Iowa, on October 26, 2004, Hansen gave a public speech in which he stated that “John Kerry has a far better grasp than President Bush on the important issues that we face.” Kerry lost Iowa by a mere 10,000 votes.
Yet Hansen persists. He recently said “the 2008 election is critical for the planet. If Americans turn out to pasture the most brontosaurian congressmen,” maybe we’ll be able to save the planet from the doom he envisions this century. Hansen also wants to tax fossil fuels, making them much more expensive than they are already.
So even though he predicted too much global warming, and his numbers couldn’t explain the ten-year hiatus we’ve experienced, Hansen keeps trying to sway presidential and congressional contests. And he wants to incarcerate any CEO (or scientist, probably) who casts doubt on his vision in public.
The fact of the matter is: Hansen is out of control. NASA employees aren’t supposed to call for tax hikes, endorse candidates, or attack businessmen. Any other federal employee would be warned for doing so, and if he continued, fired (or worse). You have to hand it to him, though: he’s a single, scientific outlier, terrorizing the American people.
— Patrick J. Michaels is senior fellow in Environmental Studies at the Cato Institute.