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.
‘A
The Guardian: Put oil firm chiefs on trial, says leading climate change scientist
UPDATE
Hansen has made the claims above on live radio on the Dian Rehm show this morning, the link to the audio is below:
“On the 20th anniversary of his groundbreaking global warming testimony before the U.S. Senate, James Hansen discusses his belief that the planet is dangerously close to tipping points that would be extremely difficult to reverse. The NASA climate scientist reflects on what has and hasn’t changed in two decades, political pressures, and the controversy he’s stirred by speaking out.”
http://wamu.org/programs/dr/08/06/23.php#20635
Joe D’Aleo of ICECAP has plotted the actual NASA global satellite monthly temperatures since Hansen’s first testimony in June 1988. Note we are colder than in 1988 by as much as 0.4C:
Also, Hansen “gagged” by a megaphone:
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
But don’t ever suggest he might be a zealot, or a raving nutter. A show trial? How very Lysenko of him, with a touch of M. Defarge no less. All we need now is a few sanitation allusions, “ideological cleansing” etc, and returning the death penalty perhaps? Give him time.
Funny how he comes up with this just as the wheels are falling off his climate cart.
Nothing that man says should ever be taken seriously again. Talk about delusional.
This is a great opportunity to finally nail the AGW myth.
Courts of law provide a forum where unsupported claims can and are challenged, and must be proven. There is little scope for the hysteria that has prevailed in the media and the IPCC in a court. Both sides get their opportunity to put their case, calmly, dispassionately, without the fear of abuse and ridicule.
In every court case brought so far, the AGW proponent has failed, and been proven to be wrong.
The oil giants should jump at the chance.
Their first question to Hansen should be “prove that there is such a phenomenon as the greenhouse effect”. This will nail him, as nobody has proven it yet.
And given that it will be widely covered by the press, the proceedings will be widely reported, and the final findings cannot be buried.
Bob Carter would have a field day.
Let’s rock! There are those among us who would love nothing better than a proper trial with proper rules of evidence for the theory of AGW.
On trial is the academic legitimacy and intellectual integrity of about a dozen “world’s leading climate scientists.”
Only if AGW is proven FIRST can there then be any basis for indictments against the free expression rights of “denialist shills.” This is, of course, why such trials will never be instigated by faith-based AGWers. The last thing they want is the warm light of rational analysis upon the tender fabric of their theoretical web.
But we can hope!
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/scopes.htm
Bring on, Dr. Hansen! May the best hypothesis triumph.
The words egotism, narcissism and misanthropy come easily to mind whenever Hansen is the topic; some aspects of the man’s character;
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1946
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/StateOfWild_20080428.pdf
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2008/02/hysterical-article-about-aaas-award-for.html
“Only if AGW is proven FIRST can there then be any basis for indictments against the free expression rights of “denialist shills.” This is, of course, why such trials will never be instigated by faith-based AGWers.”
I tend to agree that AGWers will back away from any fight they think is a loser. This is why we denialist shills must refrain from calling out Dr Hansen in public. If we challenge him in open forum he will turtle up. The sound policy would be to echo Hansen’s words without commentary or ridicule, thus emboldening him to push forward on this course of action.
When your opponent is busy committing suicide, it’s best to get out of his way and let him.
If the oil execs win, then let’s require Hansen and other alarmists to repay the billions spent to study and fight agw based upon their false claims, or pull them into court.
Just disagree with Hansen and he will put on a whiny tantrum until he gets someone fired or shuts them up for good.
This is typical of a Hansen led attack on even his own boss. Beat them into submission.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/31/221816/670
I agree with James, the tipping point is nigh. Everyman believes that he/she is a good driver and as good a weather interpreter as anyone.
Hansen will hang himself, if not soon enough.
The boys have forgotten their rabies meds again.
Oil company executives? Most of the world’s oil companies are owned by governments or states – the private oil companies account for some 4% of total world reserves.
So I hope Hansen included those executives for the government owned companies as well.
The Democrats in the U.S. have proposed nationalizing our oil industry. If the Democrats run it, they would look great behind bars.
The post starts with:
“James Hansen, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, …”
Would someone please show me exactly what qualifies this Snake Oil Salesman as a Climate Scientist??
James Hansen is professionally an Astronomer – now it becomes clear why he believes in CO2 greenhouse disasters – he actually buys Carl Sagan’s invention that Venus was hot because of a runaway Greenhouse effect to counter the alternative deduction that it is hot because it is a young planet.
From such a beginning this impeding economic catastrophe is based on.
And Hansen seems to be very leftwing as well – preferring The Huffington Post website and the NRC US radio service.
This anniversary speech by Hansen is analysed thoroughly in the comments which follow; the consensus seems to be that Hansen is either trying to recapture the glory lost by NASA after challenger by inventing a big issue, or that he is senile. I say, why not both?
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5798
Going back and reading the testimony he presented 20 years ago is illuminating. His climate model was inaccurate and his current comments are trying to cover for the errors. Annual Mean Global Temperature Change has been half his prediction of the “Scenario A: Business as Usual” even though annual CO2 emissions have surpassed what anyone imagined. In fact, the global temperature change is doing a good job of tracing Scenario C – which, according to Hanson, would only be possible if the world eliminated “net trace gas growth by 2000”. Whoops! Hanson now states that Scenario A represented the “high side of reality” and he wants to go back and use a more extreme temperature measure. Too bad we have the text from 1988 to read what was stated.
The only other prediction his model fabricated was the coming droughts in the Southeast and Midwest of the United States. Since the 90’s both regions have experienced average annual increases in precipitation and less droughts than previous decades. He now states, “I noted that global warming enhanced both extremes of the water cycle… droughts… and floods.” The original testimony in 1998 tells a very different story. Great model Hanson; guess that’s why they pay you the big bucks.
Fair is fair.
Can we burn Hansen at the stake, and all his cohorts, if *they* are wrong?
Hansen’s speech is reasonant; not one of his predictions about temp increase, melting polar ice packs, increasing sea temps or sea levels have been remotely verified; the models he uses are patently defective as many people like Koutsoyannis have pointed out.
Historically, today’s CO2 levels are unexceptionable; so are temps and sea levels; in the immediate history temps were higher in the early 20thC and during the MWP.
But most of all where hansen is a shonk is that the mechanism chosen by him and the IPCC to cause heating, CO2 increase, simply doesn’t work. When incoming solar radiation is reflected from the earth its wavelength is altered. The wavelengths emitted from the earth are in the range of 5-70 microns. CO2 primarily interacts with the IR at 15 microns. But CO2 absorbtion is subject to severe saturation limits. The first is that its primary absorbtion range overlaps with H2O; because there is much more H2O it tends to dominate the CO2 in the overlap part of the spectrum. But, even when CO2 does absorb IR its heating is problematic. Supposedly, the heated CO2 molecule transfers heat to other atmospheric particles because the absorbtion process causes CO2 to vibrate and heat is caused by this kinetic activity. However, the CO2 emits a photon after absorbtion. This photon is at a different wavelength to the IR absorbed. This photon can either go up or down. If it goes up because it is at a different wavelength, CO2 above the 1st layer cannot interact with it. The photon which goes down is reflected by the surface, where because of Stfean-Boltzman and Wien Laws, the radiation leaving the earth has also moved its wavelength and is less susceptible to absorbtion by CO2.
The IPCC recognises this saturation limit to CO2 ‘heating’ as a logarithmic one, and has proposed that H2O in the atmosphere provides a +ve feedback to any heating caused by CO2. This cannot work because H2O when heated rises and condenses causing rain which not only scrubs CO2 out of the atmosphere but, in combination with the increased albedo of the top of the clouds, causes a -ve feedback to any heating.
Finally, there is a school of thought which says the remmission of the photon by the CO2 after it has absorbed IR actually causes a net energy loss at that level and actually causes cooling.
Sorry about the elementary level of synopsis but I’m trialing for submission to some MP’s.
Be warned the Political Greeens also agree with Mr Hansen, this from last weeks ABC TV Tasmanian Stateline:
“NICK MCKIM: One major concern that I have is that there are a number of interest groups and industry sectors that are actively undermining a global consensus and global action on climate change.
And quite frankly, in my view that is in the category of a crime against humanity.”
From July 1 this political group has “Party Status” in the Senate and will hope to use their numbers to force the ALP government to accede to their demands in exchange for supporting Government election commitments.