Chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial

The Guardian ^ | June 23, 2007 | Ed Pilkington

[spandau-guard]

James Hansen, one of the world's leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer.

[Thermalseeker]

Yes, we should have a trial and if it is shown that GW is a bunch of hokum, then Hansen and Gore should be the ones that go to jail.

Recently, in a speech by John Coleman, the founder of the Weather Channel, he suggested that this needs to happen and said that some legal eagles he knows are looking into it. I sincerely hope this is true. I'd contribute money to support the effort!

[chilepepper]

Hansen has jumped the shark_again

[rjsimmon]

While I believe this to be a good idea superficially, once you consider the ultimate conclusion of having a judge and/or jury decide on what is scientifically sound, is not.

Any judge and/or jury that are nothing more than political hacks could be the arbitors for what would be the worst decision of modern history.

I simply do not trust the legal system to be competent enough to provide a verdict based on fact.

[CMAC51]

This is not such a bad idea. Put it on television. It would be the first time that the global warming idiots would be exposed to cross examination that they did not control. Quickest way to expose a scam is to expose it to the light of day.

[Little Ray]

Ya know, before its all over, we’re gonna have to get medieval on some of these climate “scientists.”

[Cincinatus]

I simply do not trust the legal system to be competent enough to provide a verdict based on fact.

Neither is the "political system" nor the "science system", both of which have their own agendas. Besides, how does one "settle" an issue that is still under investigation?

[Walmartian]

You know? He does have a point there....

....

....

....

....

....

But if he'd part his hair on the other side you wouldn't see it!

[jpsb]

This winter should, if I am reading the tea leaves correctly, put an end once a for all to the GW alarmists. All the science that I trust is pointing to a very cold winter, very cold.

[rjsimmon]

I agree completely. The only good that might arise from such an affair would be the media storm surrounding it. This would bring many issues to light that the uninformed masses accept without questioning.

A program on the Science Channel this past weekend hi-lites this. A British scientist was still touting the “hockey stick” graph and the host of the show was eating it up.

[cogitator]

Your hero speaks.

Calling him "my hero" is a misattribution of both his importance and my view of the issue. I'd prefer that such statements of opinion be unstated.

I guess he has to deliver the Kyoto-bucks to his sponsors before this decade long cooling trend becomes common knowledge.

There is no "decade-long" cooling trend, because the 1998 El Nino caused temperatures to be about 0.2 C higher than the warming trendline. I.e., if the 1998 El Nino had not happened (providing a convenient starting point for erroneous skeptical arguments), the warming trend which began in the 1990s would have been observed to continue. In that "theoretical" case, 2005 would have the position as the warmest year on record -- and there would be none of this skeptical fluff about a "decade-long" cooling trend.

The blue line is what matters here. Since 2005 was the warmest year recently, you can see that the globe is currently experiencing a temperature plateau (see below).

Has global warming stopped? (article is good; comments are inane)

This year, as is well-known, is cooler (i.e., below the trendline) due primarily to the influence of the La Nina event. So while 2008 might pull the trendline down a little bit, I have confidence (unfortunately) that the ensuing years will be warmer. I've predicted several times that the next year with a normal-to-strong El Nino will set a new global temperature record on all three major indices; I see no reason to change that prediction. When it does happen, this "decade-long" cooling trend line of argument will (thankfully) be terminated.

[RightWhale]

Richard C Hoagland is far more honest than this James Hansen character.

[palmer]

But pointing out 1998 was El Nino and therefore not really a record should also disqualify the next El Nino from being a record year. (We would also disqualify 2007/8 as a record drop because of La Nina).

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Time to put left-wing climate scientists on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature.

[cogitator]

But pointing out 1998 was El Nino and therefore not really a record should also disqualify the next El Nino from being a record year. (We would also disqualify 2007/8 as a record drop because of La Nina).

I didn't say that 1998 wasn't a record year; it is. The problem is that this record year is being used as a starting point for a trendline from which mistaken assumptions can be drawn.

When the next El Nino year sets a record, it will be "publically" clear that there is still an underlying warming trend.

The situation which would make the warming trend even more clear is a new temperature record in a non-El Nino year (though I can hear the skeptical arguments against it already warming up offstage). 2005 came within less than a tenth of a degree of that happening. Skeptics just say that the trend was "flat" from 1998 to 2005, ignoring how statistics work and the years 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 (as is clear on the nice plot I found).

Somebody oughta discuss how batting or bowling averages work... i.e. Chipper Jones can go 0-for-4 in a game and still not exactly be in a "slump", right?

[saminfl]

Since this chart is near-surface global average temps, at what point in time to we see so many ground measuring instruments near obvious heat sources?

[palmer]

Well 98 is either a record (which you now say it is) and we have gone down since then, or it is a record El Nino, should be disregarded, and the trend is still up. If you don’t want 98 used as a starting point, then I would only point out it should’t be used at all, being representative of ENSO, not “global warming”.

[palmer]

Record-Breaking Temperatures [in 1998] Seen As Evidence Of Faster Rate Of Global Warming

Karl and his colleagues conclude that there is only a one-in-20 chance that the string of record high temperatures in 1997-1998 was simply an unusual event, rather than a change point, the start of a new and faster ongoing trend.

And alarmists like yourself are already pointing to the next El Nino which has yet to occur as evidence of global warming.

[hdstmf]

Since he is a Federal employee, he can be prosecuted for this under the Hatch Act

I was thinking the same thing. He is mouthing political mumbo-jumbo on government time using government resources.
He is not likely to get his hand slapped because he is spouting leftist ideals.

[cogitator]

70% or so are oceanic measurements. The plot below explicitly states this; compare to the Hadley Centre near-surface global temps. So I would expect that poor station locations would contribute to regional discrepancies but have only a minor influence on the global trends. Ask yourself: why is climatic spring ~10 days earlier (as determined by many different natural indicators) since 1900 if there are so many deficient weather stations?

[cogitator]

Well 98 is either a record (which you now say it is) and we have gone down since then,

That statement itself illustrates the conceptual problem. I know you're smart enough to figure out why!

If you don’t want 98 used as a starting point, then I would only point out it should’t be used at all, being representative of ENSO, not “global warming”.

The unusual nature of global temperatures for 1998 should be stated correctly: they were approximately 0.2 C above the trendline due to the big El Nino.