ames Hansen is the First Acolyte in the Algorian Church of Global Doom, first breaking out of the warmie scientist clutter and into media stardom by – what else? – Bush bashing. Here’s the NYT at the time:
The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.
The scientist, James E. Hansen, longtime director of the agency’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said in an interview that officials at NASA headquarters had ordered the public affairs staff to review his coming lectures, papers, postings on the Goddard Web site and requests for interviews from journalists.
Despite swift and complete denials from NASA, Hansen’s charge has become Algorian Church canon, chanted in a steady drone by acolytes, altar chicks, scribes and high pundits around the world ever since, and has served as the primary anti-Bush church dogma ever since.
Except, of course, it’s just not true.
Sen. James Inhoff, always ready to throw the Whore of Babble-On out of the temple, has busted Hansen by publishing on his Environment and Public Works Committee Minority Blog a letter from Hansen’s former supervisor, Dr. John S. Theon. Let’s first establish who’s boss here:
Yes, one could say that I was, in effect, Hansen’s supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results. I did not have the authority to give him his annual performance evaluation. He was never muzzled even though he violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it). He thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress.
So he wasn’t muzzled. If you still want to believe Hansen’s teachings after finding out that he’s a grandstanding liar, you might want to consider what the guy with more cred at NASA than Hansen has to say about the teachings of the Algorian Church:
My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit. Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy.
You’d think that would put an end to James Hansen and his brand of science charlatanry – but you’d be wrong. Being a warmie scientist means never having to say you’re sorry. Here are excerpts from a letter Hansen sent to John Holdren, science adviser to Obama – and to Obama and his wife, concerning his recommendations for global warming policy, starting with the letter to Holdren:
A few weeks ago in London, where Anniek was running after me from one meeting to another, she had a heart attack (fortunately we were near a very good hospital — the problem should be permanently fixed via the stent they inserted plus a better diet). As we waited a week for her to be able to fly I wrote the attached letter to the Obamas. Could you possibly forward this letter to them? I realize that it is a long letter (4 pages + a page of footnotes). But global warming likely will be, eventually, the problem of their lifetime. His presidency may be judged in good part on whether he was able to turn the tide — more important, the futures of young people and other life will depend on that. …
The critical need to cut off the coal source soon must be recognized. …
A carbon tax (across all fossil fuels at their source) is essential, I believe, for effectiveness. Any less comprehensive cap will reduce the price of the fuel for any other uses. A rising tax (with all the other needed measures such as building codes, vehicle efficiencies, renewable energies…) will help constrain demand for the fuel. … A rising tax will help keep the price paid for the oil itself (or other fossil fuel) lower …
Yes, a rising tax will constrain demand – by placing economic hardship on everyone, especially the poor. But constrained demand will lead to lower prices for oil? Not if the tax is high enough to accomplish what Hansen wants it to. By definition, fuel + carbon tax must always be much higher than the old price of fuel, or people will return to their old fuel-buying habits. In other words, you can’t talk about just the price of oil if consumers and industry must pay for oil + carbon tax.
And the letter to the Obamas, which was co-signed by Hansen’s wife Anniek:
Dear Michelle and Barack,
We write to you as fellow parents concerned about the Earth that will be inherited by our children, grandchildren, and those yet to be born.
Barack has spoken of ‘a planet in peril’ and noted that actions needed to stem climate change have other merits. However, the nature of the chosen actions will be of crucial importance.
We apologize for the length of this letter. But your personal attention to these ‘details’ could make all the difference in what surely will be the most important matter of our times. Jim has advised governments previously through regular channels. But urgency now dictates a personal appeal. Scientists at the forefront of climate research have seen a stream of new data in the past few years with startling implications for humanity and all life on Earth. …
Science and policy cannot be divorced. It is still feasible to avert climate disasters, but only if policies are consistent with what science indicates to be required.
Remember what Theon said of the “science” proffered by Hansen and his fellow monks:
They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done.
Nevertheless, Hansen pleads with the Obamas to make critical and extremely costly policy decisions based on his brand of science. He goes on to use his dirty science to call for a moratorium and phase out of most coal-burning power plants, a tough carbon tax, and more nuclear plants. (Kudos on the nukes.) The carbon tax is the most onerous, a club in the hands of regulators …
A rising carbon price is the one practical way to obtain compliance with codes designed to increase energy efficiency.
… as a social(ist) engineering tool of grand proportions:
A rising carbon price is essential to “decarbonize” the economy, i.e., to move the nation toward the era beyond fossil fuels. The most effective way to achieve this is a carbon tax (on oil, gas, and coal) at the well-head or port of entry. The tax will then appropriately affect all products and activities that use fossil fuels. The public’s near-term, mid-term, and long-term lifestyle choices will be affected by knowledge that the carbon tax rate will be rising.
In other words, price the cheap energy that fuels the pursuit of happiness so the pursuit becomes futile and we return to a more primitive, less productive, less bountiful time. If the world were about to die because of global warming, all Hansen’s draconian measures were be justified – heck, let’s take it even further. But it’s not. The global climate system isn’t playing by the rules set by the warmies sacred computer models, a fact that has only made them more shrill:
An urgent geophysical fact has become clear. Burning all the fossil fuels will destroy the planet we know, Creation, the planet of stable climate in which civilization developed.
Note that Hansen has taken to the Algorian Church irritation of renaming the Earth “Creation,” as if Earth were our creator instead of Almighty God, who created the Earth and all on it. Godless, running on empty science, Hansen pleads his case to Obama and his science czar.
Holdren, the science advisor, is definitely indoctrinated enough in Algorian dogma to buy Hansen’s letter hook, line and sinker. Obama’s the question mark. Was the whole Warmie platform just a political consideration, no more to be stuck to than the now broken platform of bipartisanship? Or does Obama really believe this stuff?
In either case, he ought to spend more time reading Theon than Hansen.
Hat-tip: Watt’s Up With That. Top photo: Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times