A Scientist’s Misguided Crusade, op ed, NY Times
“As a private citizen, Hansen, 71, has the same First Amendment rights as everyone else. He can publicly oppose the Keystone XL pipeline if he so chooses, just as he can be as politically active as he wants to be in the anti-Keystone movement, and even be arrested during protests, something he managed to do recently in front of the White House. But the blast e-mail didn’t come from James Hansen, private citizen. It specifically identified Hansen as the head of the Goddard Institute, and went on to describe him as someone who “has drawn attention to the danger of passing climate tipping points, producing irreversible climate impacts that would yield a different planet from the one on which civilization developed.”
Keystone XL Pipeline Gets Upbeat Analysis From State Department, ENN
“Keystone XL, if the public were to allow our well-oiled government to shepherd it into existence, would be the first step down the wrong road, perpetuating our addiction to dirty fossil fuels, moving to ever dirtier ones,” warned Dr. James Hansen on Friday. Hansen directs the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City and is adjunct professor of Earth Sciences at Columbia University’s Earth Institute.”
Jim Hansen Arrested For Yelling or Something (Again), earlier post
James Hansen Continues To Have Special Privileges, earlier post
Keith’s note: Why is it that only Jim Hansen can overtly identify himself as a NASA Employee and say whatever he wants with regard to what he does during his day job (paid with NASA money) and yet other NASA employees cannot? Before the snarky comments ensue, let me say that I agree with 90+% or more of what he says. That’s not the issue. I am just baffled as to why he gets a special pass by NASA.
As Keith said, it does not matter if you agree with him or not, it is about the role of someone on the taxpayer payroll advocating a political position.
Reporting scientific evidence and drawing scientifically sound conclusions from them is NOT advocating a political position.
Lets see the State department said otherwise in its environmental impact report. Hansen’s contracts and day work have nothing to do with that environmental impact report, and thus his comments on the subject are outside of the scope of his job and are thus political communication.
The only reason that it is pertinent here is that people at NASA get sanctioned for this type of activity.
It is a scientific issue with a political component. Obviously many interest groups think they would be hurt if action were taken to remediate climate change. This is reflected in lobbying, political posturing, and the projection of misinformation.
So, it is primarily a scientific matter with scientific proof, and only secondarily political because certain groups fear for their rice bowls.
Let me repeat, it has nothing to do with whether or not you agree with him, it has to do with the role of a federal employee lobbying the government related to a matter of law. That is forbidden, by law.
I personally would like to see predictions of the next few years stated and then checked for accuracy. I would also like to see it stated what it would take to reduce or stop the temperature increase. In my opinion, it is near impossible for us to model the global environment anywhere near reality. Look at weather forecasts. I only seem to hear “reduce your emissions” but how much will be required to slow any temperature increase? How much will it cost? What will the impact be to the US and world economy? It doesn’t help to reduce gas emissions if it doesn’t impact it significantly or the US goes bankrupt. In that case, it’s likely that for people to survive, gases would greatly increase as they burn cheap fuels.
Some questions would be: What effect does the ocean have on absorbing greenhouse gases? How much of the gases are emitted by undersea volcanoes? How much does the sun affect temperature?
If someone takes the “correct” scientific and engineering approach, and
its adopted as a political position, is this advocating a political
position?
For example:
“NASA requires a Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle”, now how many folks from NASA are on the public record advocating a political position? 😉
So if the rest of NASA advocates for a cheaper and faster alternative, are they taking a political position as well?
—
hansen:
“The public must demand that the government begin serving the public’s
interest, not the fossil fuel industry’s interest.”
So consider the public interest versus the corporate interest:
Public:
The ecosystem is undergoing major changes.
“Taken as a whole, the range of published evidence indicates that the net
damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to
increase over time” IPCC http://climate.nasa.gov/eff…
Corporation:
A) short term some jobs and the economy benefit at the expense of the environment– this generation versus future generations.
B) Let corporations make profit with loop holes, so that the debt and environment is left to future generations, to grow the economy now.
this is the classic debate. hansen’s statement is correct.
—
Article:
the whole article basically comes down to one sentence:
“Even in the unlikely
event the pipeline is stopped, the tar sands oil will still be extracted
and shipped”
IOW, you can’t do anything about it so do not argue about it. Implied is that the long term damage is “minimal”. Oh really?
Corporate interests over the environment? Any revenue brought in to pay for the future implications? Nada. Why…minimal damage is perceived.
This country simply allows many groups to claim minimal damage when long term costs are significant, at the expense of future generations.
the debate is the amount of damage being done by burning fuel in automobiles during hour long commutes to work vs the next generation, but there does not seem be anything one can do about the later.
muomega0,
I agree absolutely with what you’ve said. There’s one catch to be aware of though — in simple terms, you’ve indirectly made the point that “how” can be important, too, not just “if.” While that’s true in your context, it’s an argument that can be used by either side to “prove” points, so heading off the other side’s argument is as necessary as presenting your own.
As an example, while you “headed off” the “later” argument in your last paragraph, the tar sands issue is left open. With no consequences stated, all your opponent has to do is agree with you.
Steve
“The public must demand that the government begin serving the public’s interest, not the fossil fuel industry’s interest.”
This is a political statement, not a scientific statement.
No it is not a political statement. It makes no endorsement of any candidate or party. It’s not even controversial statement.
It is no more political than my church which also has a right to advocate principles and civic duty AND not lose it’s tax free status.
James Hansen does not work for a church. James Hansen is a government employee bound to follow the law related to lobbying for laws. It is called the Hatch Act. Even the New York Times sees this. I am amazed that you don’t and it is telling at how polarized and how ignorant we have become. We subordinate all sense of propriety as long as we agree with the subject at hand.
Again, He’s not involved in a political campaign. He’s not doing political advocacy from his work place. He’s not violating the Hatch Act. Sorry for confusing you with similar examples.
I’ll keep is simple and the point. Because you don’t like his speech doesn’t make it political. This is on his personal time.
I could care less what Keller or the NYTimes thinks.
Hansen has been at the forefront of advancing a hypothesis about man made climate change that only the most gullible among us would accept without challenge, a narrative that is 5% fact and 95% hype. The doomsday predictions are failing to materialize, so Hansen is becoming increasingly more bizarre in his predictions and his behavior. It is to NASA’s shame that he continues to sully their name, but apparently he is so politically connected that he can continue to do whatever he wants.
5% Fact? Care to take a minute to back that up?
Here is a summary of some of the events that will take place:
http://climate.nasa.gov/eff…
snowpack is not going to decrease?
forests not replaced by savannah?
(in)significant changes in water availability for humans?
no increased chance for flash floods?
no extensive species losses?
no water shortage for 100Ms of people?
colder days and nights more frequent?
no chance of increased heat waves?
local drought unlikely?
no precipitation increases in high latitudes?
no precipitation decreases in the subtropics?
no chance of the northeast being swamped by storms?
no chance of the polar bear population declining?
no chance of significant ice melting? or if it does, no significant impacts?
Please provide references, or simply state its your OPINION in the response to back up the 5% fact.
Also state the amount of CO2 by produced by humans in each of the future years in your assessment.
Muomega provides a perfect illustration of what I mean by the 95% hype, listing 14 potential impacts, and then placing the burden on me to prove that they will not occur. Sorry, that is not how it works. The burden is on Hansen et al to prove their theory in a systematic way, and to provide evidence that it is the human contribution that is the dominant factor. Instead, and I will exaggerate for effect, all we get is, “the cute little polar bears are dying, and it is the fault of Americans driving SUVs, and if we give a lot of money to Al Gore and the third world, maybe we can fix it”.
Read this: These people rely on scientific observation and then develop their future predictions based on advanced simulations. No one can “prove” the future, but these people provide logic and facts much more systematic than anything you’ve written here. With the weight of the evidence that is available, it would seem to me to be idiotic for anyone to simply dismiss it out of hand. Right or wrong, Hansen has committed a lot of time and energy to substantiating his views; have you?
That’s quite a litany of possible disasters! Oddly similar to the speculative catalog of woe we were promised when I was a wee lad. http://www.populartechnolog…
Polar bears? Population exploding.
Ice melting? Normal now in Arctic, increasing in Antarctic.
This ever-attractive, groovy “we’re all doomed” meme is exactly why Hansen should be with Greenpeace or 350.org, not NASA.
There’s absolutely nothing “groovy” about it.
Hansen aside, what “doomsday” predictions are “failing to materialize”? Increases in global temperature seem to be tracking the leading models fairly well.
And the unprecedented changes in storm behavior. And the changes in the ocean currents and ocean temperature regions, which adversely affect the sea food populations upon which many hundreds of millions of people depend for survival.
Just curious, what “unprecedented changes in storm behavior” are you referring to?
Only 0.17% of peer-reviewed papers question global warming, or the fact that there is some role played by humanity. If you disagree, you need to learn to use Google. There may be other forces at work, and probably are, but to the degree that our science agrees about the problem–and it does–Hansen isn’t sullying anyone’s name or reputation, least of all NASA’s. I think you should take your misinformation elsewhere.
Mark,
I suspect that your comments may indirectly answer Keith’s question as well. Why does NASA seem to allow Hansen more leeway than other NASA employees? Perhaps it’s because the decision makers at the top know he’s right, and this is their silent, non-controversial way of supporting the issue.
He doesn’t exactly have universal support within NASA. His previous supervisor wasn’t a fan. And then there’s the astronauts and scientists: http://alturl.com/vtpti
I disagree with 90% of what he says. He has taken a hypothesis from undergraduate physics and used it to try to ‘explain’ one of the most complex systems we know, to the exclusion of all other factors. His predictions are now looking plain wrong, and his behavoir is increasingly oafish. Yet because he’s a ‘hero’ to a small section of society he can seemingly get away with anything.
Time for NASA to pull the plug, especially in these straitened times.
You have a right to disagree, of course, but this is your first amendment right to be wrong. What the amateur pundits fail to pay attention to is the vast amount of data we actually have. The greenhouse effect is not merely a “hypothesis from undergraduate physics,” it is something you can measure: point an infrared spectrometer into the sky and you can directly read out the infrared forcing function. If you disagree that this is causing warming of the planet, you have to come up with a hypothesis that explains three things: (1) you have to explain why the greenhouse effect, based as you say on undergraduate physics, doesn’t cause heating. (2) you have to come up with alternate new cause that explains why the temperature record DOES show warming, by an amount that turns out to be pretty close to the predicted warming. (3) that alternative cause will include a feedback loop that amplifies a small effect (it has to, because we MEASURE the input, and there isn’t a change in, say, solar intensity that’s enough to cause the change)– so you have to explain why that feedback loop DOES affect your proposed new cause, but does NOT amplify the greenhouse warming.
Now, there are a LOT of scientists looking for such an alternate hypothesis. Over the last 40 years, nobody has found one that is not ruled out when analyzed the measured data.
So far, the greenhouse effect hypothesis continues to look good– it matches the data better than any other model proposed.
Oh, and you also stated “His predictions are now looking plain wrong.”
No, actually, his predictions so far have been reasonably accurate. In 1988 Hansen published a set of predictions that included high, medium, and low scenarios for carbon dioxide emission. (pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/198… The actual CO2 emission record since then has been close to Hansen’s “medium” scenario, with greenhouse gasses other than CO2 actually a bit lower than the scenario. That prediction is well within error bars of the measured values of scenario B, the “medium” emissions scenario. Pretty good for a 25 years old prediction baslined to 30 year old data.
It is true that the “high” scenario (“scenario A”) doesn’t match the temperature record, and the skeptics shout that out to the world– but that only says that humanity’s actual CO2 emissions weren’t as high as the “high” emission prediction, but do match the medium prediction. (Some of that is due to the global economic downturn. The take-home lesson here is that it turns out to be harder to predict CO2 emission than it is to predict the effect of CO2 on climate. But that’s why there were three different scenarios in the prediction.)
Geoffrey – Hansen’s 3 scenarios for 1988 (medium in blue; actual GISStemps in red). http://alturl.com/ybqik
Which scenario is being followed again?
That graph has pretty ratty resolution, and I don’t trust graphs where the curves aren’t labelled. Here’s the same data, but with a little better resolution, and the curves labelled: http://www.skepticalscience…
You may try to say that the red and black curves are beginning to diverge from the blue curve, but no, they haven’t yet diverged to outside the error bars. For reference, the scenario B prediction was about 0.033°C per year from 1984 to 2012, while the RMS best fit of the data comes to about 0.027 °C. Twenty percent is well within experimental error (not to mention well within the emissions, since the prediction was for modelled emission, not real emission). The data seem so rule out the null hypothesis, however, 0°C per year.
So far, the data is tracking the predictions. If you’re going to say “but you can see that they’re about to diverge”– well, wait until they diverge by an amount significantly greater than the noise, and get back to me.
The ‘ratty resolution’ was caused by taking the graph from the original paper, so we’ll go with your graph. The original paper was for land + ocean (see paper), so the proper comparator is the black line. Also, Sks are pulling a typical fast one by stopping the line in 2009. Try extending it to now. The gap is 0.5 degrees and rising. For Hansen’s attempt at an explanation, see http://preview.alturl.com/e….
PS: If you’re Geoffrey A. Landis I love your work. Respect!
Thanks!
I was being deliberately mild, not wishing to start a debate on warming on a space blog (there are plenty of climate blogs for that).
However, I think you have it backwards. The warming expected from a doubling of CO2 is 1 degree. I’m happy to accept that in response to your point(1), and so would most sceptics.
Point(2): half of the 0.8C warming in the last 150 years pre-dates any probable effect from CO2. Far from the recent warming being in line with Hansen’s projections, it is now (as of 2013) running severely below them, with no significant warming in the 21st century (a fact that, to his credit, Hansen has tried to explain rather than ignore).
Point(3): It is the AGW proponents who introduced feedback ‘multiplier’ factors to increase the uncontroversial 1 degree rise from CO2 to the 3.5 degrees predicted by Hansen. That is where the disagreement lies.
Sceptics, who are anything but anti-science and in many cases not ‘amateurs’ (Lindzen, Curry, etc) accept the 1 degree, which is backed up by the empirical evidence. They cavil at the > 3 degrees favoured by Hansen, and the accumulating evidence suggests they are right to do so. They also disagree on CO2 being the sole ‘control knob’ of climate change.
Hansen is using his NASA bona fides to advocate an extreme version view of climate, with coal ‘death trains’ and Keystone ‘game over for climate’. This is professionally and ethically wrong, and hurts NASA.
It may be an overreaction to the hate spewed at climate scientists by the right (see comment above). NASA managers being overprotective for fear of playing into “their” anti-science hands. Gives him an immunity which he abuses, refusing to see the damage that he’s doing.
paul451;
I am a life long Dem. I DO NOT subscribe to the whole notion that Man is so powerful as to affect planet Earth in the manner described by the scientists on the payroll of the groups who have it out for the Oil industry. I find most (97%) of their claims hold the same mud as the ones they have about the planet running out of oil period. If that were true, why are we finding huge new reserves all the time? Why are we finding reserves in areas where oil shouldn’t be? (sedimentary rock is the “only place” oil should be yet is now found in vast amounts in non-sedimentary rock formations) I would ask you this: Show me PROOF of one Man, one Company, heck one Nation that can start/stop a hurricane, tornado, blizzard and I will gladly admitt I am wrong about climate change. I’ll be waiting…
When you choose to leave out the qualifying factors, you can make just about any argument. For example, the easy to acquire oil deposits are becoming depleted; all of the oil companies and independent geologists have admitted this, with only a handful of hold-outs. The new deposits being discovered are a lot harder and more expensive to get at and/or extract oil from, which means ever higher oil prices, of course. Your assertion implies that there’s plenty of oil left, period, which is misleading.
“hurricane, tornado, blizzard” — you picked the most complex examples to illustrate as your argument. But these are all on the increase — fact. Their initiations can all be scientifically traced back to changes in temperature, heat distribution, and particle migrations (dust, pollen, etc.) across oceans and between continents, all of which were either caused by or significantly multiplied by human actions. And that’s before we even get to the CO2 issue.
PBS recently ran a special called “The Earth From Space” on their NOVA series. It shows the incredible amount of information that satellites have given us about climate change and related factors on Earth over the last few decades. Based on the observed and fully documented trends that it shows, I would think that instead of nit-picking about the relative contributions of any one cause, we should be dealing seriously with each and every known and possible cause. Assuming that the trends are the cumulative result of multiple contributing factors (which I don’t think anyone can argue), we can’t afford to tackle some and ignore others. We’re fighting for our survival, even though some still deny it, and we need to fight on every front or we’re going to lose and perish.
Facts! Hurricanes – decreasing. From NASA and NOAA. Even the climate scientists agree. Eg: http://alturl.com/3as2k
Try reading scientific papers rather than watching PBS.
“scientists on the payroll of the groups
who have it out for the Oil industry.”
Governments? Universities?
Because most climate scientists are employed by government science agencies or by universities. Very little original research is produced environmental groups. (Or anti-environmental groups.)
“I find most (97%) of their claims
hold the same mud as the ones they have about the planet running out of
oil period.”
You’ve just demonstrated how little you’ve actually bothered to read the science. “Peak oil” is about production rates of oil. It says nothing about “the planet running out of oil period”.
Anyone who confuses the idea of peak oil with “the planet running out of oil period”, whether they are greens or anti-greens, has shown you that they have no idea what they are talking about and you should ignore anything they ever say.
And, just for the record, the the ideas behind peak oil came from an oil industry geologist in the 1950s. Not from some green group.
“If that were true, why are we finding huge new reserves
all the time?”
We aren’t. Rate of new discovery has been in decline for over 50 years. “Huge new reserves” are tiny by historical standards.
“Show me PROOF of one Man, one Company, heck one Nation that can start/stop a hurricane, tornado, blizzard”
Just so you know, that argument was created by the “Discovery Institute”. That’s a far-right anti-science lobby group, originally funded to promote Creationsim and to fight the teaching of evolution in science classes. Since then they’ve expanded into lobbying against stem-cell research and climate-change research.
However, think of climate change as an avalanche. While you can’t imagine a single person stopping an avalanche, it’s pretty easy to imagine him/her starting one.
We’ll start with baby steps. Do you at least accept that humans are emitting CO2 from burning fossil fuels, in roughly the quantities described by climate researchers? Is that, at least, part of 3% of climate science that you find worthy?
Keith has it right here: Hansen is entitled to his opinions, and he has first amendment rights to state them, but he should not be using his position at NASA to advocate them in any way.
I don’t mind the fact that he is damaging his own credibility– that’s his business– but I find it unacceptable that he is damaging the credibility of hardworking scientists who are painstakingly trying to put together an accurate record of climate– hard, unrewarding work that gets even harder when you’re working for someone who seems more interested in headlines than in science.
It would benefit everybody– including Hansen– if he were to be fired from his NASA position, allowing him to do his political theatre without tarnishing the work of the scientists still working in the field.
I don’t argue your point, Geoff, but I would like to point out that, as I see it, Hansen and the hardworking scientists are performing two different tasks.
The scientists are putting together a record, as you’ve said, for the purpose of hopefully proving the claims. Hansen, on the other hand, appears to be trying to convince the public, the non-scientists, that the problem is real and that we are all contributing to it.
His task may be as tough as that of the scientists since, even if he convinces a majority of the public, he still then has to go on to teach them how we are all contributing to the problem, and then hardest of all, convince people to change their ways. That’s one hell of a daunting task, which I think most people would give up on before even trying. Hansen may be on the wild side, but he’s certainly not afraid to tackle a challenge.
Hansen is free to say what he wants as a private citizen. As a NASA employee he should restrict himself to the scientific data and the conclusions that can be drawn from it.The evidence that I have read supporting the rate of climate change and the theory that burning fossil fuels is the primary cause of climate change appears solid.
But the pipeline is a separate issue. The oil will be used by somebody and global CO2 emissions will be the same whether the pipeline goes south to the US or west to Vancouver and China. In the US it would be subject to tighter regulations that would reduce pollution somewhat. We might as well keep the jobs in the US.
vulture4,
To be fair, right now both the US and China are outright refusing to consider any treaties on the greenhouse gasses issue. And it’s not over any differences of opinions or terms; they just both want to keep on burning coal for electricity.
I agree, and I strongly support a treaty limiting CO2 emissions.
My point was that blocking the pipeline is a poor tactic in the fight to preserve our environment. It accomplishes nothing to slow global warming since it does not materially affect the economics of development of the tar sands and CO2 is global. Moreover, the fight against the pipeline will cost US jobs and undermine public support for US environmental policy. Arguably the risk of pollution is greater if the crude is shipped to Asia by tanker. You have to choose your battles, and this one is a pointless and costly choice. Increased funding for alternative energy development would be more effective. Maybe NASA could help.
Jim Hansen is a brilliant scientist, and his team at Goddard has done outstanding work in climate science. I am amazed at some of the statements made here suggesting that climate science is some sort of mumbo jumbo or conspiracy. At least 95% of climate scientists and more than 99% of the published science, in peer-revewed journals, agrees with the reality of human caused global warming and the threat a warming planet poses. Keith raises a legitimate question about whether NASA is consistent in the way it treats outspoken scientists. But we NASA scientists are supposed to communicate our science to the public and to draw conclusions from our research. That is what Jim has done for the past 30 years. Good for him!
As you well know, David, NASA applies the rules in an inconsistent fashion. If the person speaking out ruffles the wrong feathers, they get fried. If, however, the person speaking out has allies that the WH does not want to alienate, then that person is safe. NASA’s official policies are enforced only when the agency wants to enforce them – not when they should.
And I don’t for a minute think he hasn’t been fried – I think he’s toughter than you think which is why he’s still pushing it. What do we know about the conversations and pressure he’s faced down and continues to speak out?
Is this permissiveness or bravery?
Is it much different than Paul Broun, a Rep who controls a lot of Science $$$ appropriations from spouting the science staples of “evolution and embryology and
the Big Bang Theory” are all “lies straight from the pit of Hell.”? either one is scary!!
Scary or not, there is no comparison between the two. Anyone over the age of 10 should be able to understand the basics of Hansen’s claims, since they are real-world and observable. Anyone who agrees with Broun’s nonsense is not living in the real world.
Keith asks an excellent question. Maybe the answer is that it all ended so well last time anyone tried. Whatever you think of Hansen he is a top notch bureaucratic infighter who has survived as Director of GISS over 30 years.