Skip to comments.
More green tirades against democracy ( Dr. Hansen of NASA and MASSAGER of Global Temperatures)
bishophill.squarespace.com ^
| Jan 12, 2011
| bishophill
Posted on 01/14/2011 11:41:21 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Haunting the Library notes James Hansen's latest tirade against American democracy and his suggestions on how the Chinese dictatorship might "force" Americans to take a different line. As HoL puts it:
The declaration that American ‘democracy’ (as [Hansen] sarcastically refers to it as) cannot cope with climate change, and that the world must look to the Chinese communist dictatorship to “lead” is bound to be controversial.
Yup.
On a similar note there is this recent article on the Treehugger site, again looking at lovingly at China's programme of rolling energy blackouts and shutdowns of industry:
It's interesting to note the dedication China has displaying in achieving its [energy efficency] target -- shutting down entire operations and even executing rolling blackouts. Surely there would have been some amount of embarrassment for the nation on the world's stage if it had missed its target, but that likely would have been minor. It's worth noting the difference in political culture: What do you think would have happened if the US had such an energy-reduction target to hit, but a sagging economy got in the way?
I can tell you with some certainty: We would have missed that mark.
TOPICS: Conspiracy; Science; Weather
KEYWORDS: climatechange; energy; globalwarminghoax
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-23 next last
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
The declaration that American ‘democracy’ (as [Hansen] sarcastically refers to it as) cannot cope with climate change, and that the world must look to the Chinese communist dictatorship to “lead” is bound to be controversial.If by "controversial" he means "stupid," I agree.
2
posted on
01/14/2011 11:50:09 AM PST
by
Maceman
(Obama -- he's as American as nasi goreng)
To: All
To: Signalman; Miss_Meyet; NormsRevenge; steelyourfaith; Grampa Dave; SierraWasp; tubebender; ...
To: All; SunkenCiv
Editorial Reviews
From Publishers Weekly
Starred Review. Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, lays all the cards on the table in this thorough, detailed analysis of the history, science and politics of climate change, a Silent Spring-style warning cry that predicts "a rough ride" for our grandchildren. Using numerous charts and graphs alongside accessible explanations, Hansen presents copious climate data for a broad audience. After discussing the recent history of global warming science, from the Climate Task Force of 2000 to his up-to-the-minute carbon dioxide limit of 350ppm, Hansen provides recommendations for achieving greenhouse gas reduction, as well as strategies for reducing or eliminating fossil fuel use: "For the sake of our children and grandchildren, we cannot allow our government to continue to connive with the coal industry in subterfuges that allow dirty-coal use to continue." The most significant step, he says, would be creating a cost structure that escalates cost as carbon emissions increase. With of-the-moment discussion of topics such as climate vs. weather (addressing in particular the cool U.S. summer of 2009), cap-and-trade vs. fee-and-dividend, and climate change politics as well as activism, this is certain to be as controversial as it is informative. Hansen's message is stirring as well as urgent, and should be required reading for anyone involved in public policy.
To: All
From the AMazon reviews of the book:
************************************EXCERPT***********************************
3.0 out of 5 stars Climate Change, April 6, 2010
This is one of the worst pseudo scientific books that I have ever read. It presents no data or evidence to support his position that climate change is human driven. He totally ignores all the other causes for climate change. Computer models have been totally exploded years ago. He uses the book for political grandstanding and personal posturing. He is obviously very fond of himself and self pitying. The book is full of anecdotal stuff which bears no importance on anything but his self importance. Sorry -- this guuy is interested only on himself and is pulling the wool over your eyes.
To: All
More:
************************************EXCERPTS****************************************
3.0 out of 5 stars Provocative, cantankerous, thought-provoking, February 24, 2010
Dr. James Hansen is Director of the NASA Goddard Institute and one of America's most-respected climate scientists. He has written a truly remarkable book. It is wildly emotional, preening, posturing, self-righteous and self-indulgent. Much of the book is the unending story of how Objective Science, i.e. Dr. Hansen, is continually done wrong by Special Interests, i.e. everyone else on the planet. The Bush Administration tried to censor him, he says. The Obama Administration is trying to fool us into believing that it is acting effectively on global warming, when it is not, he says. The IPCC is wrong, on multiple, key points, he says. And everyone is trying to kill his grandkids, by not listening to his wisdom, which, if it is not listened to, will end life on planet Earth. (He brings up the "save my grandkids" motif about 20 times in the book. And he really does say that, if we do not stop global warming, it will end all life on Earth.)
In the course of the book, Dr. Hansen puts forward a number of remarkable arguments, of wildly varying levels of quality, which put him at odds with essentially everyone, on at least one major issue. Lets summarize.
(1) Remember the computer climate models upon which the Intergovernmenal Panel on Climate Change ("IPCC") bases most of its case in favor of Al Gore's theory? Junk, says Dr. Hansen. They do not prove a thing.
(2) With climate models thrown in the dustbin, how do we prove that increased CO2 is leading to dangerous levels of global warming? We do so via the pre-history of climate, says Dr. Hansen. As those of us familiar with this subject know, there have been many times in the far distant, prehistoric past when the climate was much warmer than it is today. When the climate was warmer, in the past, the CO2 level in the air was higher. BUT this pattern, previously was viewed as a problem for Al Gore, not a support. The problem is the time sequence. The evidence is clear that, in this past periods, temperature went up first, and CO2 went up second. Increased CO2 is caused by higher temperature, not the other way around. (Everyone agrees on why. If ocean water is warmer, it holds less CO2. Thus, heat up the ocean a bit, and lots of CO2 is released into the atmosphere.) A number of the scientists, who question global warming, point to this time sequence as strong evidence that increased CO2 does not make it warmer, but the other way around.
Dr. Hansen gets out of this box with a piece of Harry Houdini reasoning. Yes, he acknowledges increased temperature causes increased CO2. In the past natural episodes, the increased temperature had to have a natural cause, most likely increased solar radiation, changes in Earth tilt and so forth. BUT he says this were just the natural triggers. AFTER they warmed the Earth, this released CO2, and the increased CO2 then heat up the Earth further. SO, even though increased temperature came first, and increased CO2 came second, nonetheless increased CO2 heats up the climate and we are going to die.
A pretty slick piece of reasoning. Is there any empirical support for it? We know that increased heat leads to increased CO2, for the reason noted above. We know that, at a certain point, increased CO2 leads to increased temperature, via the greenhouse effect. Exhibit A is Venus, a planet with a 97% CO2 atmosphere, which is incredibly hot. We also know that, in Earth's atmosphere, CO2 is a trace gas, measured in parts per million. What we do now know -- or at least I do not know -- is, if the amount of CO2, as a trace gas, is increased, does this have any effect on the climate? It might; CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It also might now; CO2 is a trace gas, which presumably has little effect, since there is so little of it. What I would like to see is some empirical evidence, one way or the other. What is the factual basis for the claim that when CO2 is at less than 200 parts per million (pre-industrial) everything is fine, but when CO2 goes to 350 parts per million we all die? If Dr. Hansen has any empirical evidence supporting this claim, he does not discuss it in this book. Since I really want to know the answer to this question, I am going to go look up Dr. Hansen's technical articles to see if he cites any empirical evidence in them for this claim.
(3) Temperature does not seem to be going up much. Does this not mean that, either (a) the theory is wrong, or (b) we have plenty of time to adjust to a slow increase in temperature? Not at all, says Dr. Hansen. He argues that even rather slow changes are horribly dangerous. He argues for "tipping points." The idea is, once you reach a certain point, and the ice sheets of Greenland and Antartica start to collapse, then the warming cycle is self-reinforcing. You see, ice reflects sun back into space. If there is less ice, then more energy is absorbed and it gets warmer. In addition, frozen methane hydrates are released. In short, there are multiple feedback mechanisms which will will make any warming much worse. Thus, we have to be horribly worried about even small changes.
Does any of this make sense? I am not sure. The argument struck me as a great deal of qualitative, subjective, hand-waving with very little in the way of hard facts. But in this book, Dr. Hansen's whole premise is that we idiots will not understand the real science, so he has to water it down a great deal so that we dumb bells will have a chance of following his genius. He thus, routinely, does not give much in the way of supporting facts, and does not have either footnotes or detailed sources. So, maybe, there is a real empirical case for all of this stuff, somewhere in the technical literature. That empirical case, however, is not made in this book.
(4) Turning on his liberal allies with a growl, Dr. Hansen argues that most of what the liberals are doing is "greenwash," pretending to care about the problem while doing nothing of substance about it. He argues that cap and trade is an extremely bad idea. He argues that what we need instead is a tax on carbon.
(5) What is the solution? Hansen would like to believe that increased efficiency and "green" sources of energy will do the trick. He does not think so, however. Thus, he advocates for nuclear energy. He makes a very interesting argument for high-technology nuclear energy. According to him, new fourth-generation fast, breeder reactors solve the problems of the old nuclear plants. First and foremost, the fast breeders solve the problem of nuclear waste; they use the nuclear waste produced by the old nucs as fuel, and they do not produce any really dangerous waste themselves. Because the fast breeder reactors can burn nuclear waste, they solve two problems at one time. (a) We have plenty of fuel for them. (b) They get rid of the nuclear waste, which is presently the main problem with nuclear energy.
In short, if Dr. Hansen knows what he is talking about on this subject, then fourth-generation nucs are the magic bullet. They solve the whole problem. Does Hansen know what he is talking about on this subject? Well, as usual, he gives no footnotes and cites no sources. What Hansen says on this subject sounds good. I hope he is right. But, for all I know, he just made the whole thing up or is totally wrong.
A final word to Dr. Hansen, and those like him. Stop treating the reading public like idiots. Many of us actually check your sources. We read your footnotes. We know what a fact is and what an opinion is. I find it incredibly irritating for a major scientist, like Dr. Hansen, to give us one lecture after another on how the public is too dumb to understand science, and then to turn around and to give us this watered-down, footnote free, source-free discussion. Give us the science straight, once in a while, and you would be surprised how many of us are quite able to follow you.
To: All
More:
******************************EXCERPT*************************************
Hide the Decline, February 23, 2010
This book and its author are under a huge cloud of scandal and should be taken with a very skeptical eye. We now know that the underlying research based on the NASA GISS project, which Dr Hansen heads, is incomplete at best and fraudulent at worse. This is due to adjustments to the base data that skew the latter half of the century to be warmer than the first half, skew the first half to be cooler, while discounting the urban heat island effect by adjusting rural stations higher during the latter half. In addition, calculation methods have changed over time for the same data set giving different anomaly readings. Finally, data has been "lost." Hansen is an original thinker, but after what has come to light in the last few weeks, this should be listed under Science Fiction Fantasy.
To: All
Cherry Picking from the Reviews....More:
***************************************EXCERPT****************************************
More Propaganda, January 20, 2010
I wonder if the reviewers who've given this book high ratings yet know that Hansen has been caught fudging data. It's the US version of Climategate - using "tricks" to "hide the decline" and all that. Hansen's "theory" about climate change and predictions about the future of the planet have nothing to do with what's going on in the real world. His political activities include his direct involvement with Al Gore and his agenda has much more to do with using partisan politics for his own gain then anything resembling real science.
One would have to be extremely uninformed to recommend this book, unless it's to someone who's interested in studying the use of "Climate Change" propaganda in the process of Big Lie politics.
To: All
More:
********************************EXCERPT****************************************
I don't think so, December 23, 2009
Seems more like a work of fiction. It's nothing more than an adult version of "Chicken Little". Never seems to mention that natural carbon emissions from geologic processes introduce more carbon into the atmosphere than human activity. Maybe we should get a supply of very large corks and start plugging volcanoes. Also glosses over the fact the planet has been much hotter in the past and prefers to intimate that this is the fastest warming cycle in millions of years. Well people global warming has happened before and unless my knowledge of history is incomplete the dinosaurs weren't driving SUVs and burning coal to power their big screen TVs and air conditioners.
To: All
More:
*****************************EXCERPTS*********************************************
Nothing new or revealing, December 10, 2009
While Hansen may have good intentions behind this book, there is nothing that conclusively shows his alarmist viewpoint is correct - not even close. There's nothing wrong with being independent and he shows this aspect of his political and scientific beliefs very well. But he seems to think that holding such "independent" views and widely and openly criticizing everything from Obama's cap and trade plan to the IPCC to numerical models somehow makes him right (which he claims is the case as he bases his climate sensitivities, etc. on proxy data). He is in his upper 60's and has a lot of experience - unfortunately his political experience overwhelms his scientific experience/arguments.
Hansen rehashes all kinds of climate change science in everyday, easy to understand language. Unfortunately, this 'laymens' approach is not representative of reality, in which easy, clear cut evidence is sorted through to obtain what is obviously the right conclusion. He contradicts himself as well - although he seems to realize it and includes all kinds of if's, and's, or's, and but's. One example: he says we do not know enough about the climate forcings over the past millenium to accurately estimate climate sensitivities. However, he claims enough is known about the climate and the forcings present 20,000 years ago when the northern U.S. was under a kilometer of ice. So, in a huge exercise in extrapolation and conjecture (that we know enough about the climate 20,000 years ago), he calculates climate sensitivies based on the differences between average climate forcings of today and 20,000 years ago. Call me a skeptic, a denier, a contrarian, etc. if you wish, but that is not empirical science - even if it is a heroic attempt at it. He also says that models are terrible, but then claims the climate of the past decade was 'predicted.' Did I miss something here?
Finally, this book is more of an autobiography of his attempts to warn the U.S. government of the impending disaster than a scientific treatise on why his scientific methods are correct and therefore, why his predictions are correct (also, he uses the term contrarian constantly in his defense and talks a great deal about the climate his grandchildren will have to live with - that is very sweet, but comes across as propaganda to those who are looking for science). As a graduate student in meteorology, I found this book to be useless in my attempt to understand who's right and wrong (and why) in the current debate. I gave it two stars, but for my purposes, it failed to provide. If you are a 'laymen', I hope you take the time to research many of his claims, methods, conclusions, etc. You will find that the scientific community does not and has not placed Hansen's research above others, nor does it share Hansen's criticisms of computer models, politics, and scientific method (about which Hansen's criticisms are accurate - the problem is that his methods and conclusions are no better!)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; IrishCatholic; Whenifhow; scripter; SolitaryMan; mmanager; markomalley; ...
13
posted on
01/14/2011 1:19:19 PM PST
by
steelyourfaith
(ObamaCare Death Panels: a Final Solution to the looming Social Security crisis ?)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
This radical anti-American bastard has sucked to much of my tax dollars off. He should have been fired years ago. It just shows one the real quality not of NASA.
14
posted on
01/14/2011 1:22:41 PM PST
by
Marine_Uncle
(Honor must be earned....Duncan Hunter Sr. for POTUS.)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Typo correction....Hansen has documented his believes in a book:
Should be :
Hansen has documented his beliefs in a book:
I worked this piece up in 2009.
O, their offence is rank it smells to heaven;
It hath the primal traitors’ curse upon’t,
A nation’s murder. Pray can they not,
Though inclination be as sharp as will:
Their stronger guilt defeats their strong intent;
And, like a Congress to double business bound, They stand in pause where they shall first begin,
And both neglect. What if this cursed hand
Were thicker than itself with citizens’ blood,
Is there not rain enough in the sweet heavens
To wash it white as snow? Whereto serves mercy
But to confront the visage of offence?...
Parody, “Hamlet,” Act III Scene III
16
posted on
01/14/2011 1:50:17 PM PST
by
combat_boots
(The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spiritui Sancto.)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Arthur Wildfire! March; Berosus; ...
Our current chance to save humanity will be to arrest Hansen, try him for his frauds and stealing from taxpayers, and execute him. That goes for all the welfare cases getting paid as scientists pushing the AGW agenda. Thanks Ernest.
17
posted on
01/14/2011 3:26:11 PM PST
by
SunkenCiv
(The 2nd Amendment follows right behind the 1st because some people are hard of hearing.)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
18
posted on
01/14/2011 3:46:32 PM PST
by
Miss_Meyet
(Goodbye Tagline! It's not you, it's me)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
19
posted on
01/14/2011 8:14:34 PM PST
by
Miss_Meyet
(Goodbye Tagline! It's not you, it's me)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
20
posted on
01/15/2011 9:55:00 AM PST
by
SouthTexas
(Is it time for tea yet?)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-23 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
