Don’t Panic Over Predictions of Climate Doom: Get the Facts

Gathered together in one place, for easy access, an agglomeration of writings and images relevant to the Rapeutation phenomenon.

Don’t Panic Over Predictions of Climate Doom: Get the Facts

Postby admin » Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:08 am

Don’t Panic Over Predictions of Climate Doom: Get the Facts on James Hansen
by Marc Morano
Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov
U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works
June 23, 2008
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index. ... 6A01303A65

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


Image

[AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH]

[Marc Morano, Environmental Journalist] Al Gore's film -- I'd just watched the movie. I watched it the week before I started the job.
It was poised to win awards. Later, he won the Nobel Prize for it.
So we decided for Inhofe to go on the offensive.

Image

[Sen. James Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, Environment & Public Works Committee Chairman] NASA scientist and alarmist James Hansen --

Image

He's NASA's vocal man-made-global-warming-fear soothsayer --
He'd say almost anything you asked him to say.

[Robert Kenner] On some levels, it was not so much directly talking about science, but it was going after the scientists themselves? I mean, that was a change that you brought to Inhofe.

Image

[Marc Morano, Environmental Journalist] Yes, in fact we went after James Hansen and Michael Oppenheimer and had a lot of fun with it.

Image

We mocked and ridiculed Hansen.

Image

[U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works: Blogs]

Image

I couldn't believe they let me do this.

Image

I did a two-part, 10,000-word, scathing critique on Hansen.

Image

I'm not gonna question his scientific work, but in terms of his influencing the public.

Image

And actually his scientific work isn't really in question, it's more of his public claims and publicity and interviews.

Image

I still felt restrained, so I started doing what I call "the underground newsletters,"
which went much further than anything else, had more fun,

Image

more humor, wit, sarcasm, and sometimes nastiness. That went out and became the basis for Climate Depot.

[REPORT: "GLOBAL WARMING DIDN'T CAUSE BIG U.S. DROUGHT" -- "A Random Event"]

Image

This is the new media's new world.
James Hansen, I call him NASA's resident ex-con,

Image

is inspiring these people to potential acts of eco-terrorism.
Communication is about sales. Keep it simple.

Image

People will fill in the blank with their own, I hate to say biases, but with their own perspective.
I'm not a scientist, although I do play one on TV occasionally.

Image

Okay, hell, more than occasionally.
You can't be afraid of the absolute hand-to-hand combat, metaphorically. You've gotta name names, you gotta go after individuals. You can't just go after a system. I think that's what I enjoy the most is going after the individuals, where something lives or dies.

-- Merchants of Doubt, directed by Robert Kenner


‘High Crimes Against Humanity’ Trial for Climate Skeptics?

NASA scientist James Hansen has created worldwide media frenzy with his call for trials against those who dissent against man-made global warming fears.

[ See: UK Register: Veteran climate scientist says 'lock up the oil men' – June 23, 2008 & UK Guardian: NASA scientist calls for putting oil firm chiefs on trial for 'high crimes against humanity' for spreading doubt about man-made global warming – June 23, 2008 ]

Sampling of Key Information about NASA’s James Hansen (for full articles, see below):

1) Proponents of man-made global warming fears that enjoy a monumental funding advantage over the skeptics. The oil money's paltry contribution pales in comparison to the well funded alarmist industry. (LINK)

2) Earth has COOLED since Hansen’s Dire Climate Warning in 1988 (LINK) See 1988 vs. 2008 temperature chart here:

3) Hansen’s Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis challenged by UN Scientists and new peer-reviewed studies. (LINK) & (LINK) & (LINK)

4) Hansen who alleged Bush administration muzzled him -- did 1,400 on-the-job media interviews (LINK)

5) Media Ignores Skeptical NASA Scientists' Claims of Censorship (LINK) & (LINK)

6) Hansen's Claim that his 1988 Hottest Day testimony was the result of being ‘lucky’ is refuted – ‘We were just lucky’ (LINK)

7) Reality Check: Senator Admits Hot Day and AC Failure during Hansen’s 1988 Testimony was ‘Stagecraft’ (LINK)

8) An August 2007 NASA temperature data error discovery has lead to 1934 -- not the previously hyped 1998 -- being declared the hottest in U.S. history since records began. (LINK)

9) Hansen Received $250,000 from partisan Heinz Foundation & Endorsed Dem. John Kerry for Pres. in 2004 (LINK)

10) Media Darling Hansen Assailed by NASA Colleagues (LINK)

11) Scientist Alleging Bush Censorship Helped Gore, Kerry (LINK)

12) Hansen conceded that use of “extreme scenarios" to dramatize climate change “may have been appropriate at one time” (LINK)

# NASA’s James Hansen Information Sheet

UK Register: Veteran climate scientist says 'lock up the oil men' – June 23, 2008

Excerpt: Veteran climate scientist James Hansen is marking the twentieth anniversary of his seminal speech to the US Congress on global warming by calling for oil company execs to be locked up for denying global warming.

UK Guardian: NASA scientist calls for putting oil firm chiefs on trial for 'high crimes against humanity' for spreading doubt about man-made global warming – June 23, 2008

Excerpt: Put oil firm chiefs on trial, says leading climate change scientist· Speech to US Congress will also criticise lobbyists· 'Revolutionary' policies needed to tackle crisis - 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. Hansen will use the symbolically charged 20th anniversary of his groundbreaking speech to the US Congress - in which he was among the first to sound the alarm over the reality of global warming - to argue that radical steps need to be taken immediately if the "perfect storm" of irreversible climate change is not to become inevitable. Speaking before Congress again, he will accuse the chief executive officers of companies such as ExxonMobil and Peabody Energy of being fully aware of the disinformation about climate change they are spreading. [Note: See March 2008 report on how skeptics reveal “horror stories” of scientific suppression and the July 2007 comprehensive report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK ]

Reality Check: Challenge to Hansen's funding data claims. The oil money's paltry contribution pales in comparison to the well funded alarmist industry. See full funding report here:

Excerpt: Newsweek reporter Eve Conant was given the documentation showing that proponents of man-made global warming have been funded to the tune of $50 BILLION in the last decade or so, but the Magazine chose instead to focus on how skeptics have reportedly received a paltry $19 MILLION from ExxonMobil over the last two decades. Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter, who has testified before the Senate Environment & Public Works committee, explained how much money has been spent researching and promoting climate fears and so-called solutions. “In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than $US50 billion on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one," Carter wrote on June 18, 2007.

Earth has COOLED since Hansen’s Dire Climate Warning in 1988 - According to Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo

See how global temperatures have declined according to NASA satellites since Hansen’s first testimony in June of 1988. See temperature chart HERE.

Excerpt: Here is the plot of actual NASA satellite monthly temperatures since June 1988. Note we are colder than in 1988. See larger image here His testimony will no doubt include reference to upcoming or ongoing dangerous rises in sea level and ignore the data. See larger image here He will also no doubt repeat his claim he is being muzzled. He confuses a muzzle with a megaphone as shown by this table of actual Hansen media references by year.

What Muzzling? Chart documenting James Hansen’s Massive Media Megaphone – By Professor Roger Pielke, Jr., professor in the environmental studies program at the University of Colorado.

Excerpt: Hansen in the News: 1996-1997 – Must See chart HERE.

June 23, 2008: Hansen’s Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis challenged by UN Scientist! – (By Richard Courtney, DipPhil, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant.)

Excerpt: The present empirical evidence strongly indicates that the AGW-hypothesis is wrong; i.e. 1. There is no correlation between the anthropogenic emissions of GHGs and global temperature. 2. Change to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is observed to follow change to global temperature at all time scales. 3. Recent rise in global temperature has not been induced by rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. The global temperature fell from 1940 to 1970, rose from 1970 to 1998, and fell from 1998 to the present (i.e. mid-2008). This is 40 years of cooling and 28 years of warming, and global temperature is now similar to that of 1940. But atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has increased at a near-constant rate and by more than 30% since 1940. 4. Rise in global temperature has not been induced by increase to anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide. More than 80% of the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide has been since 1940 and the increase to the emissions has been at a compound rate of ~0.4% p.a. throughout that time. But that time has exhibited 40 years of cooling with only 28 years of warming, and global temperature is now similar to that of 1940. 5. The pattern of atmospheric warming predicted by the AGW hypothesis is absent. The AGW hypothesis predicts most warming of the atmosphere at altitude distant from polar regions. Radiosonde measurements from weather balloons show slight cooling at altitude distant from polar regions. The above list provides a complete refutation of the AGW-hypothesis according to the normal rules of science.: i.e. Nothing the hypothesis predicts is observed in the empirical data and the opposite of the hypothesis' predictions is observed in the empirical data. But politicians and advocates adhere to the hypothesis. They have a variety of motives (i.e. personal financial gain, protection of their career histories and futures, political opportunism, etc..). But support of science cannot be one such motive because science denies the hypothesis. Hence, additional scientific information cannot displace the AGW-hypothesis and cannot silence its advocates (e.g. Hansen). And those advocates are not scientists despite some of them claiming that they are. United Kingdom

Hansen’s Science Claims Continue to be Challenged - June 20, 2008 - Ivy League Geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack Challenges ‘Consensus’ View of CO2’s role in Climate Change (Giegengack is from the Department of Earth and Environmental Science at the University of Pennsylvania. Bio Link & Peer-Reviewed Research Link

Excerpt: We know (or we surmise) from model reconstructions (e.g. Berner, Royer, Cerling, and many others) that the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere has been higher, indeed much higher, than it is now for most of Earth history, but the average surface temperature has varied over much smaller amplitude than the greenhouse-gas concentration. If the influence of growing concentrations of greenhouse gases can be isolated from all the other factors that control Earth-surface temperature, we might be able to measure the role of CO2 concentration as a forcing mechanism directly, but we are not there and we probably can't get there (the system is far too complex). If we could get there, we would learn that the relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature is not linear. There have been times in Earth history when atmospheric CO2 concentrations were 5, 10, even 15 TIMES the present concentration, and the climate of Earth still supported animals not unlike ourselves. Indeed, the average CO2 concentration of the atmosphere, if Berner, Royer, Cerling, etc. are to be believed (and they began this work before the history of composition of the atmosphere carried any political implication), has been about 5 times the present concentration. […] One or another Pole has supported a "permanent" ice sheet only for 5-10% of Earth history. […] The bottom line is: it ain't that simple. CO2 is a player, but not the primary, and maybe not even a major, player in controlling, or "forcing," Earth temperature. (LINK)

Washington Times: Scientist Hansen who alleged Bush administration muzzled him -- did 1,400 on-the-job media interviews – March 20, 2007

Excerpt: Hansen Claims NASA Muzzled Him – But - A NASA scientist who said the Bush administration muzzled him because of his belief in global warming yesterday acknowledged to Congress that he'd done more than 1,400 on-the-job interviews in recent years. James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who argues global warming could be catastrophic, said NASA staffers denied his request to do a National Public Radio interview because they didn't want his message to get out. But Republicans told him the hundreds of other interviews he did belie his broad claim he was being silenced. "We have over 1,400 opportunities that you've availed yourself to, and yet you call it, you know, being stifled," said Rep. Darrell Issa, California Republican.

Media Ignores Skeptical NASA Scientist’s Claims of Censorship

Skeptical Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer, Formerly of NASA, Reveals Being Muzzled – June 3, 2008

See June 3, 2008 report: Media Double-Standard on Global Warming "Censorship" – (LINK)

Excerpt: A NOTE ON NASA'S JAMES HANSEN BEING MUZZLED BY NASA - I see that we are once again having to hear how NASA's James Hansen was dissuaded from talking to the press on a few of the 1,400 media interviews he was involved in over the years. Well, I had the same pressure as a NASA employee during the Clinton-Gore years, because NASA management and the Clinton/Gore administration knew that I was skeptical that mankind's CO2 emissions were the main cause of global warming. I was even told not to give my views during congressional testimony, and so I purposely dodged a question, under oath, when it arose. But I didn't complain about it like Hansen has. NASA is an executive branch agency and the President was, ultimately, my boss (and is, ultimately, Hansen's boss). So, because of the restrictions on what I could and couldn't do or say, I finally just resigned from NASA and went to work for the university here in Huntsville. There were no hard feelings, and I'm still active in a NASA satellite mission and fully supportive of its Earth observation programs. In stark contrast, Jim Hansen said whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted to the press and congress during that time. He even campaigned for John Kerry, and received a $250,000 award from Theresa Heinz-Kerry's charitable foundation -- two events he maintains are unrelated. If I had done anything like this when I worked at NASA, I would have been crucified under the Hatch Act. Does anyone besides me see a double standard here?

Climate Skeptics Reveal ‘Horror Stories’ of Scientific Suppression – March 6, 2008 Excerpt: Hungarian scientist, Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist, resigned from his post working with NASA because he was disgusted with the agency’s lack of scientific freedom. Miskolczi, who also presented his peer-reviewed findings at the conference, said he wanted to release his new research that showed "runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations," but he claims NASA refused to allow him. “Unfortunately, my working relationship with my NASA supervisors eroded to a level that I am not able to tolerate. My idea of the freedom of science cannot coexist with the recent NASA practice of handling new climate change related scientific results,” Miskolczi said according to a March 6 Daily Tech article. (LINK) [Note: See also July 2007 comprehensive report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK ]

Washington Post: Senator Inhofe: 'Alleged consensus over man-made climate fears continues to wane' – June 23, 2008
Excerpt: In an e-mailed statement, Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) said the bill's failure was proof that Hansen's message had not caught on.

"Hansen, Gore, and the media have been trumpeting man-made climate doom since the 1980s. But Americans are not buying it," Inhofe said. "It's back to the drawing board for Hansen and company as the alleged 'consensus' over man-made climate fears continues to wane and more and more scientists declare their dissent."

December 2007: Senate EPW Minority Report: December 2007: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007 - Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"

Excerpt: Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

Scientists continue to declare dissent in 2008:

June 17, 2008: Top UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Turns on IPCC. Calls Warming Fears: ‘Worst scientific scandal in the history’
By Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist who specializes in optical waveguide spectroscopy from the Yokohama National University, also contributed to the 2007 UN IPCC AR4 (fourth assessment report) as an expert reviewer. Itoh, a former lecturer at the University of Tokyo, just released his new book Lies and Traps in the Global Warming Affairs (currently in Japanese only). Itoh’s new book includes chapters calling man-made global warming fears “the worst scientific scandal in the history.”

PlanetGore: Hansen Claims 1988 Hottest Day Testimony was result of being ‘lucky’ – ‘We were just lucky’ - June 23, 2008
Excerpt: The Washington Post also commemorates astronomer James Hansen's testimony of 20 years ago that started the global-warming panic. They fall for the spin, big time. Here's how the drama opens: There have been hotter days on Capitol Hill, but few where the heat itself became a kind of congressional exhibit. It was 98 degrees on June 23, 1988, and the warmth leaked in through the three big windows in Dirksen 366, overpowered the air conditioner, and left the crowd sweating and in shirt sleeves. James E. Hansen, a NASA scientist, was testifying before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. He was planning to say something radical: Global warming was real, it was a threat, and it was already underway. Hansen had hoped for a sweltering day to underscore his message. "We were just lucky," Hansen said last week. Hmmm. As noted below, Hansen's cohort then-Sen. Tim Wirth has made clear that this was as close to orchestrated as they could make it — even attempting to time the temperature market (perhaps that's what Hansen meant by getting "lucky") — and the aforementioned "overpowered" air conditioner actually had just been turned off and the windows left open before hearing time.

PlanetGore: Senator Admits Hot Day and AC Failure during Hansen’s 1988 Testimony was ‘Stagecraft’ – June 23, 2008
Excerpt: Specifically, the PBS series Frontline aired a special in April 2007 that lifted the curtain on the sort of illusions that politicians and their abettors employed to kick off the campaign. Frontline interviewed key players in the June 1988 Senate hearing at which then-Senator Al Gore rolled out the official conversion from panic over “global cooling” to global warming alarmism. Frontline interviewed Gore’s colleague, then-Sen. Tim Wirth (now running Ted Turner’s UN Foundation). Comforted by the friendly nature of the PBS program, Wirth freely admitted the clever scheming that went into getting the dramatic shot of scientist James Hansen mopping his brow amid a sweaty press corps. An admiring Frontline termed this “Stagecraft.” Sen. TIMOTHY WIRTH (D-CO), 1987-1993: We knew there was this scientist at NASA, you know, who had really identified the human impact before anybody else had done so and was very certain about it. So we called him up and asked him if he would testify. DEBORAH AMOS: On Capitol Hill, Sen. Timothy Wirth was one of the few politicians already concerned about global warming, and he was not above using a little stagecraft for Hansen's testimony. TIMOTHY WIRTH: We called the Weather Bureau and found out what historically was the hottest day of the summer. Well, it was June 6th or June 9th or whatever it was. So we scheduled the hearing that day, and bingo, it was the hottest day on record in Washington, or close to it. DEBORAH AMOS: [on camera] Did you also alter the temperature in the hearing room that day? TIMOTHY WIRTH: What we did is that 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. And so when the- when the hearing occurred, there was not only bliss, which is television cameras and double figures, but it was really hot.[Shot of witnesses at hearing] WIRTH: Dr. Hansen, if you’d start us off, we’d appreciate it. The wonderful Jim Hansen was wiping his brow at the table at the hearing, at the witness table, and giving this remarkable testimony.[nice shot of a sweaty Hansen] JAMES HANSEN: [June 1988 Senate hearing] Number one, the earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements. Number two, the global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe, with a high degree of confidence, a cause-and-effect relationship to the greenhouse effect.

August 20, 2007: An August 2007 NASA temperature data error discovery has lead to 1934 -- not the previously hyped 1998 -- being declared the hottest in U.S. history since records began.

Excerpt: Revised data now reveals four of the top ten hottest years in the U.S. were in the 1930's while only three of the hottest years occurred in the last decade. Excerpt: "NASA has yet to own up fully to its historic error in misinterpreting US surface temperatures to conform to the Global Warming hypothesis, as discovered by Stephen McIntyre at ClimateAudit.org." (LINK) [EPW Blog note: 80% of man-made CO2 emissions occurred after 1940. (LINK) ]

Hansen calls skeptics of man-made climate fears ‘Court Jesters’ From August 20, 2007 EPW Report:

Excerpt: NASA's James Hansen calls climate skeptics ‘court jesters’ - In the face of this growing surge of scientific research and the increasing number of scientists speaking out, NASA scientist James Hansen wrote this past week that skeptics of a predicted climate catastrophe were engaging in “deceit” and were nothing more than “court jesters.” “The contrarians will be remembered as court jesters. There is no point to joust with court jesters. They will always be present,” Hanson wrote on August 16, 2007. (LINK) & (LINK) & (LINK) [EPW Blog Note: It is ironic to have accusations of ‘deceit’ coming from a man who conceded in a 2003 issue of Natural Science that the use of “extreme scenarios" to dramatize global warming “may have been appropriate at one time” to drive the public's attention to the issue --- a disturbing admission by a prominent scientist. (LINK) Also worth noting is Hansen’s humorous allegation that he was muzzled by the current Administration despite the fact he did over 1400 on-the-job media interviews. (LINK) ] If the scientific case is so strong for predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming, why do its promoters like Hansen and his close ally Gore feel the need to resort to insults and intimidation when attempting to silence skeptics? [EPW Blog Note: Gore and Hansen are not alone - See: EPA to Probe E-mail Threatening to ‘Destroy’ Career of Climate Skeptic - LINK ]

Meteorologist Anthony Watts: If Global Warming was a company decision, how would you vote? – June 22, 2008

Excerpt: Yet the one consultant that has been pushing this policy change gives an impassioned speech that his data set tells a story that the others do not. Some of the board members who are skeptical of this person and his data that supports the policy change do some research of their own. They discover that the dataset created by the consultant who advocates the policy change has been adjusted at many data points, almost without exception in favor of the policy change. Some board members also learn of some math errors in the data, point out the math errors, and also some of the questionable ways individual data points have been adjusted. the consultant shrugs and retorts “you’re just a bunch of court jesters”. Meanwhile, it has been discovered that one of the business friends of the consultant who has been lobbying board members and staff has a company that trades in air conditioner systems. That person has been traveling to all of the worldwide offices of the company and lobbying the employees to tell them that their work environment is indeed getting hotter, and that the data from his friend the consultant proves it beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Hansen Received $250,000 from partisan Heinz Foundation & Endorsed Dem. John Kerry for Pres. in 2004 - EPW Report on Hansen - July 11, 2006

Excerpt: For example, Brokaw presents NASA’s James Hansen as an authority on climate change without revealing to viewers the extensive political and financial ties that Hansen has to Democrat Party partisans. Hansen, the director of the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, received a $250,000 grant from the charitable foundation headed by former Democrat Presidential candidate John Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz. Subsequent to the Heinz Foundation grant, Hansen publicly endorsed Democrat John Kerry for president in 2004, a political endorsement considered to be highly unusual for a NASA scientist. Hansen also has acted as a consultant to Gore's slide-show presentations on global warming, on which Gore’s movie is based. Hansen has actively promoted Gore and his movie, even appearing at a New York City Town Hall meeting with Gore and several Hollywood producers in May. Hansen also conceded in a 2003 issue of Natural Science
(http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/0 ... _jeh6.html ) that the use of “extreme scenarios" to dramatize climate change “may have been appropriate at one time” to drive the public's attention to the issue --- a disturbing admission by a prominent scientist.

From April 17, 2006 - Media Darling on 'Global Warming' Assailed by Colleagues - CNSNews.com

Excerpt: NASA scientist James Hansen, profiled by the New York Times, "60 Minutes" and other media titans as a renowned scientist with unassailable credibility on the issue of "global warming" and a victim of White House censorship, is actually a loose cannon at NASA who lied about the alleged censorship, according to one of Hansen's former colleagues as well as a current co-worker. George Deutsch, a former NASA public relations employee who resigned his job in February, told Cybercast News Service that he was warned about Hansen shortly after joining the space agency. "The only thing I was ever told -- more so from civil servants and non political people -- is, 'You gotta watch that guy. He is a loose cannon; he is kind of crazy. He is difficult to work with; he is an alarmist; he exaggerates,'" Deutsch said. Deutsch provided Cybercast News Service with agency internal documents and e-mails detailing the frustration among NASA public affairs officials over Hansen's refusal to follow protocol when it came to granting media interviews.

From March 29, 2006 - Scientist Alleging Bush Censorship Helped Gore, Kerry - CNSNews.com

Excerpt: The scientist touted by CBS News' "60 Minutes" as arguably the "world's leading researcher on global warming" and spotlighted as a victim of the Bush administration's censorship on the issue, publicly endorsed Democrat John Kerry for president and received a $250,000 grant from the charitable foundation headed by Kerry's wife. Scientist James Hansen has also admitted that he contributed to two recent Democratic presidential campaigns. Furthermore, he acted as a consultant in February to former Vice President Al Gore's slide show presentations on "global warming," which Gore presented around the country.

Senator James Inhofe Speech cited Hansen's financial ties - September 25, 2006

Excerpt: On March 19th of this year “60 Minutes” profiled NASA scientist and alarmist James Hansen, who was once again making allegations of being censored by the Bush administration. In this segment, objectivity and balance were again tossed aside in favor of a one-sided glowing profile of Hansen. The “60 Minutes” segment made no mention of Hansen’s partisan ties to former Democrat Vice President Al Gore or Hansen’s receiving of a grant of a quarter of a million dollars from the left-wing Heinz Foundation run by Teresa Heinz Kerry. There was also no mention of Hansen’s subsequent endorsement of her husband John Kerry for President in 2004. Many in the media dwell on any industry support given to so-called climate skeptics, but the same media completely fail to note Hansen’s huge grant from the left-wing Heinz Foundation. http://www.heinzawards.net/speechDetail.asp?speechID=6 The foundation’s money originated from the Heinz family ketchup fortune. So it appears that the media makes a distinction between oil money and ketchup money.

Hansen conceded that use of “extreme scenarios" to dramatize climate change “may have been appropriate at one time” – September 25, 2006

“60 Minutes” also did not inform viewers that Hansen appeared to concede in a 2003 issue of Natural Science that the use of “extreme scenarios" to dramatize climate change “may have been appropriate at one time” to drive the public's attention to the issue. Why would “60 Minutes” ignore the basic tenets of journalism, which call for objectivity and balance in sourcing, and do such one-sided segments? The answer was provided by correspondent Scott Pelley. Pelley told the CBS News website that he justified excluding scientists skeptical of global warming alarmism from his segments because he considers skeptics to be the equivalent of “Holocaust deniers.”

Media follow up on Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) Comments on Hansen's ‘Ketchup Money’ - September 28, 2006

Inhofe Speech Excerpt: I do have to give credit to another publication, Congressional Quarterly, or CQ for short. On Tuesday, CQ’s Toni Johnson took the issues I raised seriously and followed up with phone calls to scientist-turned global warming pop star James Hansen’s office. CQ wanted to ask Hansen about his quarter of a million dollar grant from the left-wing Heinz Foundation, whose money originated from the Heinz family ketchup fortune. As I have pointed out, many in the media dwell on any industry support given to so-called climate skeptics, but the same media completely fail to note Hansen’s huge grant from the partisan Heinz Foundation. It seems the media makes a distinction between ketchup money and oil money. But Hansen was unavailable to respond to CQ's questions about the 'Ketchup Money’ grant, which is highly unusual for a man who finds his way into the media on an almost daily basis. Mr. Hansen is always available when he is peddling his increasingly dire predictions of climate doom.

Hansen Bristles when confronted about inconvenient history - May 26, 2006 - CNSNews.com

Excerpt: Hansen defended the $250,000 grant from the foundation run by Teresa Heinz Kerry, during an interview with Cybercast News Service following Thursday's panel discussion. "That was an environmental award," Hansen said. "I can't imagine anyone would turn down an environmental award. You don't check the politics of who provides the awards. I frankly don't understand the question," he added. Hansen bristled when Cybercast News Service asked him about his "extreme scenarios" quote. "It's pure horsesh**. That statement was taken out of context. I did not say that I had ever used extreme scenarios," Hansen insisted before ending the interview. [...] Gore praised Hansen as an objective scientist, ignoring his partisan Democratic Party ties. As Cybercast News Service previously reported, Hansen publicly endorsed Democrat John Kerry for president in 2004 and received a $250,000 grant from the charitable foundation headed by Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry. Hansen also has acted as a consultant to Gore's slide-show presentations on "global warming," on which the movie is based. Hansen, who alleged in January that the Bush administration has been suppressing science for political purposes, previously acknowledged that he once emphasized "extreme scenarios" on climate change to drive the public's attention to the issue. In the March 2004 issue of Scientific American, Hansen wrote, "Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate-forcing scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions."

UK Register: Hansen's 'peculiar thermometer' at NASA (June 5, 2008)

Excerpt: Prominent people at NASA warn us that unless we change our carbon producing ways, civilisation as we know it will come to an end. At the same time, there are new scientific studies showing that the earth is in a 20 year long cooling period. Which view is correct? [...] Whatever motivations NASA had for picking the 1951-1980 baseline undoubtedly have some valid scientific basis. Yet, when the data is calibrated in lockstep with a very high-profile and public political philosophy, we should at least be willing to ask some hard questions. Dr. James Hansen at GISS is the person in charge of the NASA temperature data. He is also the world's leading advocate of the idea of catastrophic global warming, and is Al Gore's primary climate advisor. The discrepancies between NASA and other data sources can't help but make us consider Einstein's advice: "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts."

The scientists at the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change Critiques James Hansen – June 6, 2007 Excerpt: As a result of our analysis of Hansen’s testimony, we find very little evidence to justify his policy prescriptions for dealing with what he calls a “dangerous climate change,” but we find significant evidence for an impending world food supply-and-demand problem that may well prove even more devastating to the biosphere – including both humanity and “wild nature” – than what Hansen contends will occur in response to business-as-usual anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

IceCap.Us: Hansen’s Temperature Data Questioned - The GISS Urban Adjustment - Monday, June 23, 2008

Excerpt: An audit by researcher Steve McIntyre reveals that NASA has made urban adjustments of temperature data in its GISS temperature record in the wrong direction. The temperatures in urban areas are generally warmer than in rural areas. McIntyre classified the 7364 weather stations in the GISS world-wide network into various categories depending on the direction of the urban adjustment. NASA has applied a “negative urban adjustment” to 45% of the urban station measurements (where adjustments are made), meaning that the adjustments makes the warming trends steeper. The table below shows the number of negative and positive adjustments made to the station temperature trends. The urban adjustment is supposed to remove the effects of urbanization, but the NASA negative adjustments increases the urbanization effects. The result is that the surface temperature trend utilized by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is exaggerated.

If Man-Made Global Warming Was a Stock, No Payout - June 11, 2008

Excerpt: If Global Warming were a stock, and you bought it in 1979 at zero (par) and decided to sell it this month to buy a house, 29 years later you aren't very happy with your investment. At it's peak in 1998, the temperature only went to a 0.8 increase, and in April it dipped to very nearly unchanged. Click on link to see temperature data.

National Review - Global-Warming Bubble – June 20, 2008

Excerpt: Lately, we’ve seen the tech and housing bubbles burst, and now — at least as an urgent political issue — the global-warming bubble is getting pricked.

Poll: most Britons doubt global warming caused by mankind (UK Guardian)

Excerpt: The majority of the British public is still not convinced that climate change is caused by humans - and many others believe scientists are exaggerating the problem, according to an exclusive poll for The Observer. The results have shocked campaigners who hoped that doubts would have been silenced by a report last year by more than 2,500 scientists for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which found a 90 per cent chance that humans were the main cause of climate change and warned that drastic action was needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions. [...] There is growing concern that an economic depression and rising fuel and food prices are denting public interest in environmental issues. Some environmentalists blame the public's doubts on last year's Channel 4 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, and on recent books, including one by Lord Lawson, the former Chancellor, that question the consensus on climate change. [...] 'Despite many attempts to broaden the environment movement, it doesn't seem to have become fully embedded as a mainstream concern,' he said.

CO2 hysteria fading fast in China – June 21, 2008

Excerpt: CO2 hysteria fading fast in China FT.com - Less than half – 42 per cent – of people in the US think the rising temperature of the planet is a serious problem. In China, the figure is a mere 24 per cent.

Flashback: National Post: Global Cooling! 'Spotless Sun' prompts scientists to fear 'dramatic turn for the worse' – May 31, 2008
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17824
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Don’t Panic Over Predictions of Climate Doom- Get the Fa

Postby admin » Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:09 am

Part Two: Don’t Panic Over Predictions of Climate Doom- Get the Facts on James Hansen
by Marc Morano
June 23, 2008
Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov

NASA scientist James Hansen has created worldwide media frenzy with his call for trials against those who dissent against man-made global warming fears.

[ See: UK Register: Veteran climate scientist says 'lock up the oil men' – June 23, 2008 & UK Guardian: NASA scientist calls for putting oil firm chiefs on trial for 'high crimes against humanity' for spreading doubt about man-made global warming – June 23, 2008 ]

Click Here to Read Part One of report:

Meteorologist Brian Sussman: James Hansen: ‘Abusing the Public Trust’ – Links to Soros Funding? – June 24, 2008

Excerpt: Hansen has allegedly received hundreds of thousands of additional dollars to further politicize the issue of global warming. According to Investors Business Daily, "How many people, for instance, know that James Hansen, a man billed as a lonely ‘NASA whistleblower' standing up to the mighty U.S. government, was really funded by [George] Soros' Open Society Institute (OSI), which gave him ‘legal and media advice'? That's right, Hansen was packaged for the media by Soros' flagship ‘philanthropy' by as much as $720,000, most likely under the OSI's ‘politicization of science' program." Hansen denied any relationship with OSI, but Investor's Business Daily refused to back off on their story, "claiming the funding first passed through the Government Accountability Project, which then used it to package Hansen for the media." With that kind of cash allegedly lining his pockets, do you think that Hansen will ever allow the data that he is charged with maintaining to point to anything but disaster? […] As a NASA Director, his role should be collecting data and truthfully sharing results, not trying to influence policy and legislation. Congressman Darryl Issa (R-San Diego) called Hansen on his continual talking out of turn. During a hearing on Capitol Hill regarding his abuse of his government status, Issa said, "You're speaking on federal paid time. Your employer happens to be the American taxpayer." Issa went on to say that an internet search showed Hansen had had stated on more than 1,400 occasions in over a year's worth of interviews and appearances (15 interviews alone in the month that the congressional hearings were taking place) that the Bush Administration had censored him.

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY: Hansen - A Desperate Man – June 24, 2008

Excerpt: Hansen: Crushing dissent. Out of this has emerged a madness that has divided Westerners into "us," the believers, and "them," the skeptics who are looked down upon as socially irresponsible reprobates. That's not enough for Hansen, though. He now wants to ratchet his machine up a few notches. Put the oil men on trial, he says, because it's "a crime" for them to "have been putting out misinformation" that places doubt on his unproved — and unprovable — premise that man's use of fossil fuels is warming Earth. We wonder: Will it be up to NASA's secret police to make the arrests that will be necessary to drag these men before the tribunal? Al Gore, the most famous face of the global warming-industrial complex, has been saying for years that the debate is over, that science has declared humans are responsible for climate change. He, of course, is wrong. There are skeptics in the scientific community, literally thousands of them. Many are on the leash, however, afraid to speak out for fear of being bullied, denied research grants and ostracized for expressing politically incorrect doubt. For them, the debate is indeed over. Those who refuse to be browbeaten, though, are in danger of seeing their careers ruined or, perhaps someday, sharing a prison cell with the oil executives Hansen wants to try. Criminalize dissent: That's one way to ensure the debate is over. Hansen's comment is revealing. It's the sort of declaration made by a desperate man trying to hang on to his declining relevance. Hansen knows the climate of fear he has stoked is receding as more people start to see through his nonsense. He's just trying to stir up some storm clouds.

Wash Times editorial: James Hansen for Congress – June 24, 2008

Excerpt: Mr. Hansen sounds like a member of Congress, or perhaps Al Gore - which, indeed, points to two of the legitimate options a vocal, caustic public advocate such as Mr. Hansen has in a representative democracy. High technocrat for global warming is not one of them. The question is: Would Mr. Hansen's blatant political advocacy be tolerated anywhere else in the federal government? Could a decorated general advocate an invasion of Iran or North Korea, calling his congressional opponents weak or traitorous, without violating his office? Of course not. The NASA climate-science chief should stop trading on the public trust of an unappointed federal scientific position and try running for one of the offices that possess the legitimate powers he seeks to usurp. Short of that, he could convince George Soros to fund a think tank. In some respects, we tilt at windmills to even make the suggestion, since certainly there is no political will to sack Mr. Hansen for violating the public trust. Mr. Hansen makes more media appearances than the average cabinet secretary. He knows how to get attention. Certainly no one should expect Mr. Hansen to act upon the merits of this argument on his own. A scientific institution such as the Goddard Institute for Space Studies is perhaps the ideal place for an ambitious empire-builder to push the limits of political advocacy while retaining the credibility of science. Housed in New York City's Columbia University and affiliated with its well-funded, well-connected Earth Institute, Mr. Hansen's operation is far removed from Washington's political tentacles at Goddard's main campus in Beltsville, Md. The United States is still a representative democracy. The sort of high-priest technocrat that Mr. Hansen presumes to be stands outside that tradition. An advocate is an advocate.

Hansen concedes defining surface air temperature is not easy – May 6, 2008:

Excerpt: "I doubt that there is a general agreement how to answer this question [of what is surface air temperature]. Even at the same location, the temperature near the ground may be very different from the temperature 5 ft above the ground and different again from 10 ft or 50 ft above the ground. Particularly in the presence of vegetation (say in a rain forest), the temperature above the vegetation may be very different from the temperature below the top of the vegetation. A reasonable suggestion might be to use the average temperature of the first 50 ft of air either above ground or above the top of the vegetation. To measure SAT we have to agree on what it is and, as far as I know, no such standard has been suggested or generally adopted. Even if the 50 ft standard were adopted, I cannot imagine that a weather station would build a 50 ft stack of thermometers to be able to find the true SAT at its location." He is also ambiguous when it comes to daily mean surface air temperatures: "Again, there is no universally accepted correct answer. Should we note the temperature every 6 hours and report the mean, should we do it every 2 hours, hourly, have a machine record it every second, or simply take the average of the highest and lowest temperature of the day ? On some days the various methods may lead to drastically different results." (LINK)

Energy Tribune: Nature may soon cool climate debate as 'fairly cold period' set to begin – June 18, 2008

Excerpt: Measurements by four major temperature tracking outlets reported that world temperatures dropped by about 0.65° C to 0.75° C during 2007, the fastest temperature changes ever recorded (either up or down). The cooling approached the total of all warming that occurred over the past 100 years, which is commonly estimated at about 1° C. Antarctic sea ice expanded by about 1 million square kilometers – more than the 28-year average since altimeter satellite monitoring began. But have these collective announcements ended the global warming debates? No, stay tuned for further developments. […] Based upon current solar data, the Russian Pulkovo Observatory concludes that Earth has passed its latest warming cycle, and predicts that a fairly cold period will set in by 2012. Temperatures may drop much lower by 2041, and remain very cold for 50 to 60 years. Kenneth Tapping at Canada’s National Research Council thinks we may be in for an even longer cold spell. He predicts that the sun’s unusually quiet current 11-year cycle might signal the beginning of a new “Maunder Minimum” cold period, which occurs every couple of centuries and can last a century or more.

Flashback: National Post: Global Cooling! 'Spotless Sun' prompts scientists to fear 'dramatic turn for the worse' – May 31, 2008

Flashback: Science Daily: Scientists not sure why Sun 'continues to be dead' – June 9, 2008

Flashback: Cooling Underway: Global Temperature Continues to Drop in May 2008 - 'Significantly Colder' - 16-month temperature drop of -0.774°C!

Flashback: 'Global Warming Will Stop,' New Peer-Reviewed Study Says - Global Warming Takes a Break for Nearly 20 Years? – April 30, 2008

Excerpt: The UK Telegraph reports on April 30: Global warming will stop until at least 2015 because of natural variations in the climate, scientists have said.

June 22, 2008: Global Cooling Predicted to Continue – By Lord Christopher Monckton, the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, a climate researcher

Excerpt: This projection of a prolonged solar cooling, to commence at the end of Solar Cycle 24 in about a decade and lasting for perhaps the remainder of this century, is consistent with Usoskin et al. (2003); Hathaway et al. (2004); Solanki et al. (2005); the proceedings of the 2004 Symposium of the International Astronomical Union; and the consensus of opinion among solar physicists (though we should be cautious about relying upon any "consensus" now that science has become so intensely politicized). The Sun's activity is now declining from the Grand Maximum of the past 70 years, that peaked in the early 1960s. During the Grand Maximum (which you won't hear much about in the media, but which has had a great deal of attention from solar physicists in the peer-reviewed literature), the Sun was more active, and for longer, than at almost any previous similar period in at least the past 11,400 years. It is only by some dubious prestidigitation that the UN manages to relegate the role of the Sun to a minuscule bit-part in recent warming.

Update: June 15, 2008: More Signs of the Sun Slowing Down - 'We continue to slide into a deeper than normal solar minima, one not seen in decades' By Meteorologist Anthony Watts:

Excerpt: It appears we continue to slide into a deeper than normal solar minima, one not seen in decades. Given the signs, I think we are about to embark upon a grand experiment, over which we have no control [...] I had noted that there was a curios step function in 2005, almost as if something had “switched off” [...] As you can see, the Ap Index has continued along at the low level (slightly above zero) that was established during the drop in October 2005. As of June 2008, we now have 32 months of the Ap hovering around a value just slightly above zero, with occasional blips of noise. [...] What is most striking is that since 1932, there have not been ANY years prior to 2007 that have zero data.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/20 ... wing-down/

Meteorologist says Man-Made Global Warming Movement ‘Rapidly Running Out of Gas’ In last year (By Meteorologist James Spann) - June 17, 2008

Excerpt: A year and a half ago, James Spann questioned the money and the so-called scientific consensus pushing the idea that mankind is causing global warming. Today, he says it’s losing steam. Two imminent surveys of meteorologists may further complicate the climate debate. […] “[Y]ou know, there was some great power in that movement back in January of 2007,” Spann said. “It’s pretty rapidly running out of gas and it just seems like every day more and more people are coming out with the fact that that’s pretty much a hoax. And these are Ph.D climatologists that are pretty much saying what I said all along.”

Sea Level Falling? – By Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo of IceCap.US

Icecap note: Note that sea levels are not accelerating up but appear to be falling in part due to ocean cooling and compression and perhaps part due to record extent of Antarctic ice. Certainly there is no signs of an alarming increase threatening coastal areas as Gore and Hansen have prophesized.

See Latest Sea Level Chart here: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SeaLevel_TOPEX.jpg

More and more scientists declare dissent – March 2008

Excerpt: Since the release of the December 20 Senate minority report detailing the hundreds of skeptics, a steady stream of scientists from around the world have continued to declare themselves dissenters of the alleged “climate crisis.” Just days before the international climate conference began, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, Dr. Joanne Simpson, declared she was “skeptical” of catastrophic man-made warming. “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly,” Simpson, formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies, wrote in a public letter on February 27. Simpson was described by former Colorado State Climatologist Roger Pielke, Sr. as “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.” (LINK) “The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system. We only need to watch the weather forecasts,” Simpson explained. “But as a scientist I remain skeptical,” she added.

Another Scientist Dissents: Dr. Fred W. Decker, Professor of Meteorology at Oregon State University, signed the 2008 Oregon Petition dissenting from man-made climate fears. "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth,” the petition that Decker signed states. Decker also challenged temperature data. “One day the Gazette-Times told of a minimum temperature about 15 degrees Fahrenheit, whereas the radio station at the Marys River bridge into Avery Park reported much colder, a ‘minus’ reading, which agreed with home thermometers of some readers. Inquiring about locations, I learned the ‘official’ minimum came from the shelter atop the steam-heated agricultural building on campus. Moreover, the professor moved the instruments to the greenhouses to the west in the summers when he worked there. What poor practice!” Decker wrote on June 22, 2008. “I appealed to the agricultural dean upon learning of the imminent retirement of the professor responsible. I suggested a site near the KOAC towers if possible. The compromise site at Hyslop got selected, and Wheeler Calhoun’s data got quoted daily in the Gazette-Times,” Decker wrote. (LINK) & (LINK) & (LINK)

Sampling of key inconvenient developments for promoters of a man-made climate “crisis” so far in 2008:

1) Oceans Cooling! Scientists puzzled by “mystery of global warming's missing heat” (LINK)

2) New Data from NASA’s Aqua satellite is showing “greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide.” (LINK )

3) Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer, formerly of NASA, found not one peer-reviewed paper has 'ruled out a natural cause for most of our recent warmth' (LINK)

4) UN IPCC in 'Panic Mode' as Earth Fails to Warm, Scientist says (LINK )

5) UN IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri “to look into the apparent temperature plateau so far this century.” (LINK)

6) New scientific analysis shows Sun “could account for as much as 69% of the increase in Earth's average temperature” (LINK) & (LINK)

7) Scientists find dust free atmosphere may be responsible for up to .36 F rise in global temps (LINK)

8) Analysis in peer-reviewed journal finds cold periods – not warm periods – see increase in floods, droughts, storms, famine (LINK)

9) New York Times Laments Media's incorrect hyping of frogs and global warming (LINK)

10) Prominent hurricane expert reconsiders global warming's impact (LINK)

11) MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen’s March 2008 presentation of data from the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office found the Earth has had “no statistically significant warming since 1995.”- (LINK)

12) An International team of scientists released a March 2008 report to counter UN IPCC, declaring: “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate” (LINK)

13) Emitting MORE CO2 may 'be good for life on Earth', says climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer, formerly of NASA in May 2008. (LINK)

14) New Report finds global sea ice GROWING: ‘World sea ice in April 2008 reached levels that were ‘unprecedented’ for the month of April in over 25 years.’ (LINK)

# #

Canadian Climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball: CO2 from human or natural sources is not causing global warming – June 23, 2008

Excerpt: There is no scientific justification for any of the energy or economic policies designed to reduce greenhouse gases or stop warming or climate change. CO2 from human or natural sources is not causing global warming or climate change. The IPCC and their computer models, an agency and approach set up to mislead the world, are the sole source of this belief. […] Global warming provided the perfect vehicle for environmentalists to spread their claim of human destruction of the planet. Previously they could only point at local or regional problems, but now they had a genuine “the sky is falling” cause that encompassed the entire globe. Now the demand was for global policies and Strong provided this at the Rio Conference in 1992 in the formation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC or FCCC). This agency was to create the Kyoto Protocol that became the battleground. Interestingly, it encompassed what is wrong with the entire argument that CO2 is the problem. Only the industrialized countries Strong sought to “get rid of” were required to reduce CO2 emissions. Developing nations were excluded and were to receive the payments as penance from the sinful industrialized nations. It was the transfer of capitalist wealth the socialist Strong foresaw. Futility of the exercise was that if all nations participated and met their original targets no measurable difference in atmospheric CO2 would occur; yet that was the purported objective.

#
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17824
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Don’t Panic Over Predictions of Climate Doom: Get the Fa

Postby admin » Sun Dec 06, 2015 8:41 am

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


Image

[Naomi Oreskes, Science Historian] I was always interested in broader questions about scientific knowledge.

Image

Why we believe some things, and not others.
How do scientists come to consensus?

Image

What does it take for scientists to say, "Yes, we know this is true"?

Image

[Expert] The problem is, there's no consensus on what's causing it.

[FOX NEWS: GORE, GOV. CUOMO QUICK TO BLAME STORM ON CLIMATE CHANGE]

Image

[Expert] Consensus has not been met among scientists ...

[FOX NEWS: CRITICS TO UN: STOP USING SANDY TRAGEDY TO PUSH AGENDA]

[Naomi Oreskes, Science Historian] A decade after Hansen had testified in Congress,

Image

the media are still presenting this as a big scientific debate.

Image

[Stuart Varney] Gentlemen, I'm sure that this debate is gonna continue for a long, long time.

Image

[Naomi Oreskes, Science Historian] I had the idea that we could test this question ...

Image

of whether or not there was a consensus among scientists: active scientists, people who are doing research and publishing in journals. Not the public at large. Not politicians. But scientists.

Image

Image

And so we got a list of all the papers ...

Image

that had been published from 1992 to 2002, that had used that key word phrase "global climate change."

Image

And then we read them.

Image

The question was,

Image

how many of these papers disagree that most of the observed warming is due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations?

Image

So I certainly thought we would get some that disagreed.

Image

And when we found nothing,

Image

then I thought, "Oh, this is a result that needs to be published."

Image

Image

When my article on the scientific consensus came out,

[Essay Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus On Climate Change, by Naomi Oreskes]



Image

I started getting threatening emails, saying that I was a communist,

Image

that I should be fired from my job. A few people began to say to me:
"Other people have also been attacked in a way that seems similar."

Image

People who worked on acid rain, who worked on the ozone hole.

Image

I started doing research on the people who were attacking me.

Image

And that's when I discovered a startling fact.

Image

They were the same people ...
who had attacked the scientists on all these issues.

Image

Then I began to realize, "This is a debate, but this is not a scientific debate."

[Coverup in the Greenhouse?]

And if it's not scientific, then the question becomes:

Image

"Well, what sort of a debate is it?"

-- Merchants of Doubt, directed by Robert Kenner
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17824
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Don’t Panic Over Predictions of Climate Doom: Get the Fa

Postby admin » Sun Dec 06, 2015 10:40 am

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


Image

[Ben Santer, Climate Scientist] As a scientist, you're trained to defend the science that you do. What you don't expect is to have people ...

Image

threaten you with all kinds of dire consequences ...

Image

for continuing to do the research that you do.
I was contacted by the IPCC to act as convening lead author ...
for one chapter of the second assessment report.
That final sentence, "The balance of evidence suggests ...
a discernible human influence on global climate" ...

Image

was finalized at the end of November, 1995.

Image

I had no idea that my life would be so dramatically changed by that one sentence.

Image

These are a few emails from a large number of emails that I received.

Image

"Yeah, you -- You arrogant, fucking piece-of-crap con man. I hope you are hung by your pathetic, little neck. I'd love nothing more than to beat you with a large stick, you shit-eating Yank. Go die."

[Subject: dirtbag; Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010; From: DrDetail; To: Santer, Ben: Ya you you arrogant fuckin peice of crap conman, I hope you are hung by you pathetic little neck, because of cunts like you , the world suffers,i,d love nothing more than to beat you with a large stick you shit eating yank.Go Die]

Image

[Marc Morano, Environmental Journalist] It's possible I posted Santer's email in the early days of Climate Depot.

Image

He's far from the only one I've done that to.

[Michael Mann, Climate Scientist] "You're an effing terrorist, you and your colleagues ...

Image

ought to be fed to the pigs, along with your whole families.
"How come no one has beat the living piss out of you yet? I was hoping I would see the news and you committed suicide."

Image

[Katharine Hayhoe, Climate Scientist] "You stupid bitch. I would like to see you convicted and beheaded. If you have a child, then women in the future will be even more leery ...

Image

of lying to get ahead when they see your baby crying next to the guillotine."

[Subject: Slimey-cunted Nazi Bitch Whore Climatebeche. You stupid bitch, You are a mass murderer and will be convicted at the Realitly TV Grand Jury in Nuremberg ... eugenical scam. It was ... thing as radiative forcing. There is a fake solar constant in the models, ignoring so ... numercially by ten orders of magnitude, the NIMBUS satellite data was fudged according .... the 2000s. The glaciers are not melting abnormally, the ice pack at the poles is just about ... through lack of refrigerators. IPCC admits there has never been a single measurement of ... see you convicted and beheaded by guillotine in the public square, to show women that if ... the men do when they get caught. If you have a child, then women in the future will be even more leery of lying to get ahead when they see your baby crying next to the guillotine. Stan in Seattle. Comment today on Tom Nelson blog. I am the supposed culprit. I read how horrified she was that people were calling climate ... do every day. My usual litany includes, "When the Grand Jury is done with you, I'll enjoy ... not a death threat. It's an effective counter-propaganda tactic, thank you very much. Stan Lippmann Ph.D. (radiative transfer in ionized gases, 1989) J.D. 1998]

Sometimes it's one a week. When your email address ...

Image

gets posted online at Morano's website, it's 200 or more in a day.

[Ben Santer, Climate Scientist] Well, I think the most disturbing emails and letters were ones that ...

Image

suggest there will be harm to you, direct physical harm to you and your family.

Image

[Marc Morano, Environmental Journalist] I don't know what his complaint is -- I'll give you the philosophy behind it.

[Robert Kenner] Yeah, that's more important.

Image

[Marc Morano, Environmental Journalist] Is he ready? This is one of my favorite topics.

Image

In fact, I got on ABC Nightly News just because I posted emails.

I did a whole segment.

Image

[Marc Morano, ABC News.com] The public is appropriately angry at these scientists. No one's advocating violence, but it is refreshing to see these scientists hear from the public.
I think people should be thanking me. I was doing a service.

Image

People go, "Oh, your death threats." I get death threats. I enjoy them.
It was one of the healthiest things that could have happened in the climate debate.

Image

I make no apologies. I still do it. I enjoy doing it.

-- Merchants of Doubt, directed by Robert Kenner
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17824
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Don’t Panic Over Predictions of Climate Doom: Get the Fa

Postby admin » Mon Dec 07, 2015 9:36 pm

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


Image

[Naomi Oreskes, Science Historian] Every time we see the world beginning to act on the science ...

Image

we see some kind of attack designed to undermine it.

Image

1995, the IPCC comes out with its second assessment report that says ...
yes, there's climate change. What do we get?

Image

Massive attack on Ben Santer, who's the lead author of the key chapter.

Image

In the second case, before the run-up to the Kyoto negotiations ...

Image

when it looked like the world was going to agree,

Image

we had the Oregon Petition. It's a completely discredited document,
nevertheless, it did a lot of damage.

New light on the putative value of intelligence dossiers issued by Tony Blair’s office in Number 10 Downing Street was not long in coming. In September 2002, Blair published amid great fanfare his dossier purporting to demonstrate that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq currently possessed weapons of mass destruction. This was entitled “Iraq: Its Infrastructure of Concealment, Deception, and Intimidation,” and it was clearly crafted to provide a pretext for waging unprovoked and aggressive war against Iraq. This dossier was exposed as a fraud in two distinct waves of demystification. The first exposure took place in February 2003, when it emerged that entire sections of this report, which had been billed as the most up-to-date evaluation that could be offered by the very formidable capabilities of MI-6 and the rest of the British intelligence machine, had simply been lifted, plagiarized without attribution, from older documents in the public domain. The Iraq dossier had been concocted by Blair and his media guru Alistair Campbell, a figure who combined the worst of image-mongers like Michael Deaver and Karl Rove, using materials provided by British intelligence. Parts of Blair’s dossier had been stolen from articles written by Sean Boyne of Jane’s Intelligence Review, who was horrified by the nefarious use to which his work had been put. “I don’t like to think that anything I wrote has been used as an argument for war. I am concerned because I am against the war,” complained Boyne. Another source from which Blair had lifted material verbatim was a thesis entitled “Iraq’s Security and Intelligence Network,” published in September 2002 by a graduate student, Ibrahim al-Marashi, a California resident. Al-Marashi was equally indignant, commenting that “this is wholesale deception. How can the British public trust the government if it is up to this sort of tricks? People will treat any other information they publish now with a lot of skepticism from now on.” And not just from now on; it is our contention here that this disbelief in regard to Tony Blair’s work product should also be applied retrospectively.

The British Parliament was appalled by Blair’s mendacity, which was so crude that the coded titles of the Microsoft Word documents that made up the dossier had been allowed to remain visible on the Number 10 Downing Street web site. Many pointed to Alistair Hamilton as the dervish of spin behind the entire sordid operation. Former Labour Party Defense Minister and current Member of Parliament Peter Kilfoyle observed that Blair’s deception merely “adds to the general impression that what we have been treated to is a farrago of half-truths. I am shocked that on such thin evidence that we should be trying to convince the British people that this war is worth fighting. Labour MP Glenda Jackson added “It is another example of how the Government is attempting to mislead the country and Parliament. And of course to mislead is a Parliamentary euphemism for lying.” (Daily Mirror, February 8, 2003)

Blair’s nonchalance in cribbing together dossiers on subjects of vast importance also attracted the barbs of British wits. AheadOfNews.com spoofed Blair’s plagiarized Iraq dossier by writing that “a spokesman for Prime Minister Tony Blair acknowledged recently that the report, ‘Iraq: Its Infrastructure of Concealment, Deception, and Intimidation,’ had been cobbled together from a variety of sources, including old term papers, Readers Digest, and several tabloids. John Miller, Undersecretary for Cutting- and-Pasting, explained that ‘plagiarized’ sections of the report included spelling errors, such as ‘weapons of mass distraction,’ and ‘Untied States’ found in the originals. “Our deceptions might have succeeded,’ he said, ‘except for our bloody incompetent proofreaders.” (February 12, 2003) Blair’s Iraq dossier was an international laughingstock, but that had not prevented Colin Powell from praising it in his infamous speech to the United Nations Security Council.

But Blair’s dossier was in the end no laughing matter: it contributed to the deaths of perhaps 15,000 people in Iraq within a year. It also brought tragedy to one of the British intelligence officials who had collaborated in its creation.

In June, 2003, when the Iraq war had already begun to go badly for the aggressors, BBC News broadcast a story by correspondent Barnaby Mason reporting that Blair and Campbell had personally supervised the concoction of the Iraq WMD dossier, sending proposed drafts back to the Joint Intelligence Committee “six to eight times” to be “sexed up” through the addition of more lurid and sensational details. One of these details was thought to be Blair’s fantastic claim that Iraq had WMD which could be launched within 45 minutes. Blair delivered this warning in such a way as to suggest that Iraq would be capable of striking the UK within 45 minutes, despite the fact that Iraq possessed no delivery systems capable of doling this.

The response of the Blair regime to this report was to promote a witch-hunt to ferret out the source inside the government who had leaked such embarrassing material to Barnaby Mason. Officials of the British Defense Ministry allowed journalists to read them lists of persons suspected of being the leaker, and were willing to confirm the identity of their prime suspect as soon as the journalists mentioned his name. In this way, the Defense Ministry in effect betrayed one of its own employees, Dr. David Kelly. A few days later Kelly was found dead in a forest near his home, with his wrists slashed. His death was quickly ruled a suicide. After Kelly’s death, a UN diplomat recalled that he had asked Kelly back in February 2003 what would happen if Tony Blair went through with his plan to join Bush in attacking Iraq. “I will probably be found dead in the woods,” was Kelly’s prophetic reply.

-- 9/11 Synthetic Terror Made in USA, by Webster Griffin Tarpley


Image

Third time, Copenhagen. Finally, we're gonna get an agreement.

Image

The U.S. is on board. Obama has gone to Copenhagen.

Image

Image

[Brian Williams, MSNBC] A new scandal that's burning up the Net these days that began with emails that were stolen --

Image

[Naomi Oreskes, Science Historian] Suddenly, we see this release of stolen emails.

Image

Lines taken out of context to make it seem as if ...

Image

scientists were involved in nefarious activities.

Image

People started saying, "What's going on in Copenhagen?"

Image

[Marc Morano, Environmental Journalist] This is the upper echelon of the U.N. It's been exposed as the best science that politics and activists can manufacture.

Image

[Michael Shermer, Director, Skeptic Society] My initial reaction with the Climategate, I thought, "Okay, mm, gosh, I hope I didn't flip at the wrong point there. Maybe this is all baloney."

Image

When you actually read the emails in context, you go, "Oh. Okay, he's not actually saying what Rush Limbaugh said he was saying."

Image

There's been three investigations into Climategate, where they had ...
independent committees go through every email. There was nothing.

Image

[John Passacantando, Former Director, Greenpeace USA] They were trying to find yet new ways to weaken ...
this growing international accord.

Image

All they have to do is slow down action.

Image

[Marc Morano, Environmental Journalist] Gridlock is the greatest friend a global warming skeptic has. That's all you really want. There's no legislation we're championing.

Image

We're the negative force, just trying to stop stuff.

This raises the question of the violent revolt against the universal homogeneous state, which is what Strauss regards as inevitable and desirable: "Yet there is no reason for despair as long as human nature has not been conquered completely, i.e., as long as sun and man still generate man. There will always be men (andres) who will revolt against a state which is destructive of humanity or in which there is no longer a possibility of noble action or of great deeds." (Strauss 209)

When the real men revolt against too much peace, progress, and prosperity, what will be their program? Strauss: "They may be forced into a mere negation of the universal and homogeneous state, into a negation not enlightened by any positive goal, into a nihilistic negation. While perhaps doomed to failure, that nihilist revolution may be the only great and noble deed that is possible once the universal and homogeneous state has become inevitable. But no one can know whether it will fail or succeed. (Strauss 209, emphasis added)

What can be understood by nihilistic negation and nihilist revolution? In the nineteenth century, nihilism was an ideology of terrorism; the crazed bomb-throwers who assassinated statesmen and rulers across Europe and America (including President McKinley) were atheists, anarchists and nihilists. In the twentieth century, the nihilist revolution was synonymous with some of the most extreme factions of fascism and Nazis. "Long live death!" was a slogan of some of them. With these lines, Strauss has opened the door to fascism, murder, mayhem, war, genocide, and most emphatically to terrorism. And he is not shy about spelling this out.

-- 9/11 Synthetic Terror Made in USA, by Webster Griffin Tarpley


Image

[Naomi Oreskes, Science Historian] It's all about distraction, it's all about confusion.

Image

It's about preventing you from looking where the action really is, which is in the science.

Friends,

There are times when words are hard to come by, and when you find them they feel inadequate.

I’m writing you from France, with a heavy heart. Following Friday's attacks in Paris, the mood here is tense. People are angry, and many are afraid. Many of our staff members are in Paris to get ready for the climate talks in a couple of weeks, and they are feeling the pain of this moment sharply.

I am heartbroken -- for the lives lost in Paris, and for those lost in Beirut and Baghdad, which also suffered devastating attacks late last week. Clearly the world is hurting in many places right now.

As we’ve struggled to find the right words and the right response to Friday night’s attacks, one thing rises to the top for me:

The upcoming Paris Climate Summit is, in a sense, a peace summit -- perhaps the most important peace summit that has ever been held.

We need global solidarity more than ever right now, and that is, really, what this movement is all about. Even as climate change fans the flames of conflict in many parts of the world -- through drought, displacement, and other compounding factors -- a global movement that transcends borders and cultural differences is rising up to confront this common existential threat.

Let’s hang on to that solidarity and love. Let’s learn from it. Especially at a time like this.

Friday night’s events were horrific, and we must clearly and unequivocally condemn such violence. Their aftermath has also been frightening though, and we should stand in equal condemnation of the instinct to meet violence with more violence. It is a cycle as old as it is ugly: after tragedy comes the rush to judgement, the scapegoating, the xenophobia and Islamophobia, the blame.

There is a real danger here that those already impacted by both the climate crisis and the wars that are so intimately bound up with it -- migrants, refugees, poor communities, and communities of color -- will be further marginalized.

If there is a thing we must resist, it is our own fear and short-sightedness. No government should use a moment like this to increase the burden of hatred and fear in the world -- sowing suspicion, calling for war, and reducing people’s civil liberties in the name of security. This is a mistake we've seen too often before, compounding tragedy with more tragedy.

The Paris Climate Summit, scheduled to begin in just a couple of weeks, will proceed. The government is promising heightened security measures, which is understandable but also worrisome.

We don't yet know what Friday night's events mean for our work in Paris. The coalition on the ground is committed to working with the French authorities to see if there is a way for the big planned march and other demonstrations to safely go forward. We fully share their concerns about public safety -- just as we fully oppose unnecessary crackdowns on civil liberties and minority populations.

We do know that this global movement cannot and will not be stopped:

The Global Climate March -- a worldwide day of action scheduled for November 28th and 29th -- will also proceed, no matter what. We can think of few better responses to violence and terror than this movement's push for peace and hope.

We hope you’ll join us at the end of the month.

There couldn't be a more important time to work for climate justice, and the peace it can help bring.

With love and determination,

Nico and team at 350.org

-- Paris, by Nicolas Haeringer - 350.org


-- Merchants of Doubt, directed by Robert Kenner
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17824
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am


Return to A Growing Corpus of Analytical Materials

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests