James Hansen was not proposing to level charges at poorly informed people who speak their minds freely. I recall that he was directing his charges at people who are taking concrete actions to destroy the atmosphere. For example, corporate decision makers who push for more coal plants or oppose auto emission reductions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is just to show how far the thought-police have ventured to grow.

Anyone, yes ANYONE with basic high school knowledge of sciences and math can go back to the sources and see for themselves.

There simply is NO conclusive empirical evidence for Anthropogenic Global Warming - which 30.000 scientists have also concluded in a recent manifesto.

Fine, in a computer model with dubious input we could all get a nice hockey-stick graph, but that is far from real science.

For G_ds sake, even the IPCC now acknowledge that the temperature has gone DOWN since 1998...

Get a breath of fresh air, see for yourself, google some of the REAL EMPIRICAL research on Sunspot cycles, sea level research, historical temperature data (including vikings growing wheat on Greenland) and youll feel a lot better...

I guess the Trillions in upcoming Carbon taxes does make most of the establishment a bit giddy...

John L

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Power plant emissions from the US Senate:

http://leahy.senate.gov/issues/environment/ca_stats.html

1 MW-hour of conventional electricity production typically causes emission of about 1 ton of CO2 (average across many fossil fuel-fired power plants)

CO2 density = 2 grams/liter at 1 atm and 0C = 2.2E-6 tons/liter = 2.2E-3 tons/cubic meter = 6E-5 tons/cubic foot

Volume of 1 ton of pure CO2 = 16,040 cubic feet (at sea level on a cold day) = emission for 1 MW-hr

My 1000 sq. ft. 2 br/1 bath high efficiency home (thick insulation, double pane windows, gas heater/stove/dryer, no central A/C and limited room A/C use only on the hottest days) consumes a little over 4000 kw-hr/year = 4MW-hr/year = 64k cubic feet of pure CO2 /year

With a volume of about 10k cubic feet, it could fill itself with pure CO2 in 2 months based on its share of the power plant emissions. Remember, you could survive in pure CO2 only as long as you could hold your breath.

KEY POINT: This could be scaled for any size house or apartment, since energy use tends to be directly proportional to size. So an efficient home or apartment would fill itself with pure CO2 every 2 months, inefficient homes will fill more quickly, some would fill once a month or more.

CO2 is generated, absorbed and converted in various natural processes, but these processes were in balance before the industrial revolution. CO2 absorption and conversion have decreased since then due to deforestation, spreading deserts, increased ocean temperatures, and other factors. Therefore it is reasonable to say that human-generated CO2 effectively persists until it is destroyed by solar radiation, which takes tens of thousands of years to have significant effect. This is illustrated well on Mars, which has an atmosphere consisting primarily of CO2, as it has for millions of years.

Therefore, if you had to store your own power plant emissions rather than dumping them over the fence, you could stack your houses full of pure CO2 on top of each other on your own property. Try to imagine where you would put the CO2 after just 10 years; 60 or more houses (or apartment buildings) would be stacked on your property.

Where does the CO2 go? Most of the planet surface is oceans and deserts; it gets spread all over them. The result is that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 40% since the start of the industrial revolution, going from 275 ppm to 387 ppm, a dramatic change in the atmosphere. The current level of CO2 has made the climate unstable, as demonstrated by the melting of the Arctic ice cap and other symptoms too numerous to list. Reducing carbon emissions will not stabilize the climate, going carbon negative for a long time might. As long as we get power from fossil fuel-fired power plants we cannot even hope to have a stable climate.


(Please feel free to forward and discuss this public domain material.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I know it's asking a lot, especially to a left wing god like James Hansen. But it might be useful if someone described the LEGAL definition of treason. Hint: very few Americans have ever been convicted of treason. Why? Expression of opinion against the government or against conventional wisdom, right or wrong, is NOT treason.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think that it would be great to put someone on trial for global warming! Really. That way we could actually have someone from the global warming camp (algore, hansen) actually show up for a debate. When there were hearings in the senate, gore wouldn't appear with Monkton for fear of being crushed on the science.

Global warming is a theory, and it is a widely discredited theory. That is why the AGW crowd won't debate. They smear, they poop their talking points, then jet away to Bali.

A trial would be a capitol idea. We could actually subpoena the lying scammers like gore & hansen and clear this up once and for all.

Wasn't hansen supposed to be at that D.C. global warming protest in a howling blizzard last March? I was ROFL for three days about that one, and it is still pretty funny. Friggin idiots..

You want climate change? Go study Bond Events or my favorite, the Younger-Dryas Stadial. Now there is climate change you can believe in. Unlike the current AGW hoax, it is actually pretty scary.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Our charming economic system is all about the short term. Long-term thinking usually surfaces when we're about half a step from catastrophe. Short-term thinking makes money. Long-term thinking costs money. All clear now? Remember the Bush administration plan to bury nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain? Yeah, right, like they had any idea how long 10,000 years is.

What I don't understand is why some people manage to believe in a god for which there is no empirical proof whatsoever but can't accept climate change, for which there is considerable evidence.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One of the ethical dilemma studied in ethics courses all over the world is this:

If you could go back in time and had the opportunity to kill Hitler and save the six million Jews that he had murdered would you? Most people would answer yes.

Now I have to wonder if future generations will some day study the same dilemma but in a context of the World Leaders or Corporate CEOs today that are, doing nothing about climate change, or preventing action being taken which may result in the death of hundreds of millions of people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

according to a recent study at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

The Goddard site also has comprehensive temperature data.

So, yes, see for yourself:
GISS home page

Check out GISS Quick Links for temp data.

peace,
Paul

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]