Patrick J. Michaels points out in "Hansen Unhinged" that NASA's James E. Hansen is and has been out of control. As I have already pointed out, Hansen has called for having people who spread doubts about future global warming catastrophe "should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature." Among those he wants prosecuted are the CEOs of Exxon-Mobil and Peabody Energy. He violates the Hatch Act routinely, which says that Federal Employees cannot campaign for political candidates. He calls for tax hikes and attacks businessmen.
Presumably when he calls for the prosecution of businessmen who have doubts about a looming man-made global warming meltdown he does so because he knows them to be wrong about this subject. Yet twenty years ago, he testified before Congress that given a certain increase in CO2 similar to that which has happened since, that the global temperature would rise about 1.48 degrees F above the 1951 to 1980 average temperature. Michaels says this is about 33% more than the actual rise, so Hansen is wrong about global warming. Should this not make him eligible for prosecution by the courts by his own criterion that it is a high crime to be wrong about global warming?
Michaels, who really does know the climate and wrote a very useful book, Meltdown, concludes by saying "You have to hand it to him, though: he's a single, scientific outlier, terrorizing the American people."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. It's a religion.
I used to talk about the fervently anti-religion fantasy writer, Philip Pullman, who is on the other hand devoted to the global warming agenda like no tomorrow. The blogposts in which I talk about this issue are here and here.
Sorry for the blatant self-promotion, but my point is how those who claim to hate religion can be incredibly...well, religious on this issue of global warming.
I think this Hansen guy is similar. Scientists are not supposed to act like the Church prosecuting Galileo for going against official views! In my scientific education, I've learnt that you are supposed to read people's research and analyze whether they've done it properly, and done it right. Yes, pick faults, by all means. You still don't stop them from saying what they have to say. Nothing is supposed to be beyond question. Which is the opposite of what people like Hansen advocate.
I am happy to serve the promotion, self-promotion included, of such intelligent and insightful opinions as yours are. Actually, there are far too few people who have such strength of conviction and confidence in their own rational ability to understand the world. We very badly need more people to devote sufficient time thinking about the important issues of our day to form rational assessments and then take the time to make those assessments known.
Yes, I agree with you and with Robert Bidinotto that the global warming alarmist behave as though adherents of a mystic religion. Those of the socialist agenda very often do also, as Jonah Goldberg in his book Liberal Fascism does a good job of illustrating.
Post a Comment