‘Fraud, Fake…Worthless Words’: NASA’s James Hansen on UN Paris Pact – Trump should take note
By Robert Bradley Jr. — May 9, 2017
“Watch what happens in Paris carefully to see if all that the leaders do is sign off on the pap that UN bureaucrats are putting together, indulgences and promises to reduce future emissions, and then clap each other on the back and declare success.”
“Big Green consists of several ‘environmental’ organizations, including Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), each with $100+M budgets, each springing from high-minded useful beginnings, each with more high-priced lawyers than you can shake a stick at. EDF …was chief architect of the disastrous Kyoto lemon. NRDC proudly claims credit for Obama’s EPA strategy and foolishly allows it to migrate to Paris.”
– James Hansen, “Isolation of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue: Part I,” November 27, 2015.
“[The Paris agreement] is a fraud really, a fake. It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.”
– James Hansen, quoted in Oliver Milman, “James Hansen, Father of Climate Change Awareness, Calls Paris ‘A Fraud’.” The Guardian, December 12, 2015.
James Hansen has weighted in the Paris agreement, which is now on the firing line with the U.S. threating to set into motion a pullout. Hansen’s disfavor of this global climate agreement, setting voluntary targets for greenhouse gas reductions globally, might rival that of President Trump, but for contrary reasons.
The good news is that the father of climate alarmism has repeatedly spoken truth to power when it comes to the politics of energy and climate.
NASA’s Lead ‘Global Warming’ scientist goes political: Calls for a carbon tax
By Paul Homewood
Gavin claims to be a climate scientist.
Yet as a supposedly objective scientist in charge of GISS, why is he making overtly political interventions.
In this interview with the Vancouver Sun last year, he stated:
We have to have a price on carbon because right now it’s still free to put carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So if you put a price on carbon that is commensurate with the damage that carbon-dioxide emissions cause, then people will be smarter. They will say: ‘Well, I can spend that money and damage the planet or I can spend less money and buy an electric car that’s fed by hydro. Vancouver is trying to be a real leader in switching to carbon-neutral energy sources and moving away from oil for transportation. All those things are very positive and the B.C. carbon tax is one of the most progressive and far-reaching ideas — even though in practice it hasn’t made a huge difference yet.
It is surely the job of taxpayer funded scientists to stick to the science, and leave policy making to the politicians.
Not that his scientific credentials are up to much, if his next comment in the interview is anything to go by:
Q: What is the future for waterfront cities like Vancouver?
A: You are going to have to put up with rising sea levels; they are not going to go down. But there’s a huge difference between a foot or two over 100 years and a metre or two metres. There’s a lot of waterfront development going on but is it sea-level-rise smart? I don’t know that it is. So don’t put stuff in the basement, have all your electrical equipment on the second floor or on the roof.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, sea levels at Vancouver have been rising at a rate of just 0.37mm/yr since 1910:
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.htm?stnid=822-071
At this rate, Gavin’s two meters of sea level rise will take 5405 years.
#
Related Link:
Gavin Schmidt’s climate change foibles:
SHOCK: The ‘Father of global warming’, James Hansen, dials back alarm
James Hansen: We Have a Little More Time After All (Whew!)
By Robert Bradley Jr.
“Contrary to the impression favored by governments, the corner has not been turned toward declining emissions and GHG amounts…. Negative CO2 emissions, i. e., extraction of CO2 from the air, is now required.”
– James Hansen, “Young People’s Burden.” October 4, 2016.
“The ponderous response of the climate system also means that we don’t need to instantaneously reduce GHG amounts.”
– James Hansen, “We Hold Truths to be Self-Evident“ December 2, 2016.
What a difference a few months make!
Just in time for holiday season, and for the Trump Administration, the father of the climate alarm, formerly a climate scientist with NASA/GISS, and now a full-time scientist/activist, has ameliorated his grand climate alarm. The 10-year ultimatum announced in 2006, made more dire in 2009 and since, is now moderated.
…
The ponderous response of the climate system also means that we don’t need to instantaneously reduce GHG amounts. However, despite uncertainties about some climate processes, we know enough to say that the time scale on which we must begin to reduce atmospheric GHG amounts is measured in decades, not centuries. Given the fact that the fastest time scale to replace energy systems is decades, that means that we must get the political processes moving now. And that won’t happen until the public has understanding of what is actually needed and demands it.…
Seattle Times edited James Hansen’s description of cap-and-trade from ‘bribes’ to ‘politics’
The Seattle Times doesn’t want anyone — especially James Hansen — to sully the image of Washington State’s proposed carbon tax.
Here’s the paragraph in the op-ed that Hansen submitted to the Seattle Times:
Here’s the paragraph in the op-ed that the Seattle Times ran:
The Seattle Times also made this change to Hansen’s op-ed:
…
James Hansen Slams Paris Agreement As ‘Wishful Thinking’
James Hansen Slams Paris Agreement As “Wishful Thinking”
By Paul Homewood http://www.ecowatch.com/james-hansen-climate-change-2030724330.html Eco-loon Hansen has been at it again. From Eco Watch: Many hail the Paris agreement—set to cross the threshold this week to come into effect—as a panacea for global climate change. Yet tragically, this perspective neglects to take into account the scientific reality of our climate system, which tells a much different story. Our latest research, Young People’s Burden: Requirement of Negative CO2 Emissions, appeared Monday as a “Discussion” paper in Earth System Dynamics Discussion, and outlines how—if national governments neglect to take aggressive climate action today—today’s young people will inherit a climate system so altered it will require prohibitively expensive—and possibly infeasible—extraction of CO2 from the atmosphere. Global temperatures are already at the level of the Eemian period (130,000 to 115,000 years ago), when sea level was 6-9 meters higher than today. Considering the additional warming “in the pipeline,” due to delayed response of the climate system and the impossibility of instant replacement of fossil fuels, additional temperature rise is inevitable. Continued high fossil fuel emissions place a burden on young people to undertake “negative CO2 emissions,” which would require massive technological CO extraction with minimal estimated costs of $104-$570 trillion this century, with large risks and uncertain feasibility. Continued high fossil fuel emissions unarguably sentences young people to either a massive, possibly implausible cleanup or growing deleterious climate impacts or both, scenarios that should provide incentive and obligation for governments to alter energy policies without further delay. The paper provides the underlying scientific backing for the Our Children’s Trust lawsuit against the U.S. government, which argues that climate change jeopardizes the next generation’s inalienable rights under the U.S. Constitution to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The paper offers an opportunity to examine the current state of the planet with respect to climate change. Four key takeaways include: 1. The Paris Climate Accord is a precatory agreement, wishful thinking that mainly reaffirms, 23 years later, the 1992 Rio Framework Convention on Climate Change. The developing world need for abundant, affordable, reliable energy is largely ignored, even though it is a basic requirement to eliminate global poverty and war. Instead the developed world pretends to offer reparations, a vaporous $100B/year, while allowing climate impacts to grow. 2. As long as fossil fuels are allowed to be held up as the cheapest reliable energy, they will …
Warmist James Hansen calls UN Paris agreement ‘wishful thinking’ – Offers 4 Reasons Why It ‘Won’t Solve Climate Change’
Many hail the Paris agreement—set to cross the threshold this week to come into effect—as a panacea for global climate change. Yet tragically, this perspective neglects to take into account the scientific reality of our climate system, which tells a much different story.
Our latest research, Young People’s Burden: Requirement of Negative CO2 Emissions, appeared Monday as a “Discussion” paper in Earth System Dynamics Discussion, and outlines how—if national governments neglect to take aggressive climate action today—today’s young people will inherit a climate system so altered it will require prohibitively expensive—and possibly infeasible—extraction of CO2 from the atmosphere.
…
Four key takeaways include:
1. The Paris Climate Accord is a precatory agreement, wishful thinking that mainly reaffirms, 23 years later, the 1992 Rio Framework Convention on Climate Change. The developing world need for abundant, affordable, reliable energy is largely ignored, even though it is a basic requirement to eliminate global poverty and war. Instead the developed world pretends to offer reparations, a vaporous $100B/year, while allowing climate impacts to grow.
2. As long as fossil fuels are allowed to be held up as the cheapest reliable energy, they will continue to be the world’s largest energy source and the likelihood of disastrous consequences for young people will grow to near certainty.
3. Technically, it is still possible to solve the climate problem, but there are two essential requirements: (1) a simple across-the-board rising carbon fee collected from fossil fuel companies at the source, and (2) government support for RD&D (research, development and demonstration) of clean energy technologies, including advanced generation, safe nuclear power.
4. Courts are crucial to solution of the climate problem. The climate “problem” was and is an opportunity for transformation to a clean energy future. However, the heavy hand of the fossil fuel industry works mostly in legal ways such as the “I’m an Energy Voter” campaign in the U.S. Failure of executive and legislative branches to deal with climate change makes it essential for courts, less subject to pressure and bribery from special financial interests, to step in and protect young people, as they did minorities in the case of civil rights.…
Ex-NASA climate guru suing President Obama wants Big Oil to fork over trillions
James Hansen, NASA’s ex-climate chief at the forefront of the global warming movement, has a new paper that previews an apocalyptic future from#Climate Change unless we stop emitting all carbon dioxide. And he wants the fossil fuel industry to foot the trillion-dollar bill.
For Hansen, these types of papers are nothing new. He has been warning of Earth’s looming demise since 1988 when he told Congress that the Earth was heating up and it was our fault; he gave a ten-year temperature prediction that was off by 300 percent. Other predictions over his storied career were just as unsuccessful. Now the scientist-turned-activist wants fossil fuel companies held responsible and forced to pay for the so-called climate change problem via judicial activism. And he wrote this paper to support his contention.
He has called the Paris Climate Agreement “toothless” and no better than its predecessor, the Kyoto Protocol. He noted the countries that have signed on to this latest climate deal are deluding themselves. These “governments clapped themselves on the back but when you look at the #Science it doesn’t compute, it’s not true.” Ouch.
Lawsuit = Fines & Settlements. “Extract” needs to be replaced with “Extort.” Consumer pays more vs supply/demand.
Former NASA climate chief says fossil industry must pay trillions
A former NASA climate scientist is urging a full-court press against the fossil fuel industry to get the hundreds of trillions of dollars necessary for the next generation to combat global warming….
washingtonexaminer.com
