NASA's James Hansen Recycles Myths in His Pointless Attack on U.S. Climate Action

[kristopher]

Joe Romm takes Hansen to the woodshed:

NASA's James Hansen Recycles Myths in His Pointless Attack on U.S. Climate Action

Much as I am happy to publicize Hansen's leading edge climate science (see links below), I am unhappy to have to waste any time debunking his bleeding edge climate policy analysis (see "Memo to Hansen: Your opposition to Waxman-Markey is ill-conceived and unhelpful. There isn't going to be a carbon tax nor should there be." and "Memo to Hansen 2: Why is the country's top anti-science blog reprinting your stuff?").

Still, his arguments need debunking because he is mostly recycling myths that others are pushing -- and with the country's top climate scientist putting his name on this collection of false and misleading statements, they will no doubt be parroted by yet more people. Hansen has just written, "G-8 Failure Reflects U.S. Failure on Climate Change" for The Huffington Post.

UPDATE: Predictably, Swift Boat smearer Marc Morano has made Hansen's post his top story at ClimateDepotted, again revealing that Hansen is mostly providing aid-and-comfort to the deniers and delayers.

Let me go straight to his needlessly (and pointlessly) provocative attacks on the "counterfeit climate bill known as Waxman-Markey," which is filled with right-wing and left-wing myths -- and very little understanding of the basics of either this bill or cap-and-trade systems.

Hansen claims "For all its 'green' aura, Waxman-Markey locks in fossil fuel business-as-usual and garlands it with a Ponzi-like 'cap-and-trade' scheme." Not so. I have previously explained why W-M takes us sharply off of the BAU emissions path over the next decade, probably reducing coal use more than 25% by 2020 (see "Game changer, Part 2: Why unconventional natural gas makes the 2020 Waxman-Markey target so damn easy and cheap to meet"). And then it requires a 42% emissions reduction by 2030 and an 83% reduction by 2050, which will drive a massive energy transition over the next few decades.

The global economy is indeed a Ponzi scheme, but this is the first piece of legislation by any major country that makes a serious effort to end that Ponzi scheme.

Hansen then lists "a few of the bill's egregious flaws":


* It guts the Clean Air Act, removing EPA's ability to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants.


No. The EPA doesn't have the "ability to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants." EPA might well use its recent endangerment finding to get that ability (partially and eventually), but it hasn't asserted that regulatory capability yet.


More importantly, the CAA authority is most readily translated into regulating emissions from new power plants. Regulating CO2 emissions from existing power plants would take a long time, engendering a great deal of litigation. As John Podesta, former Clinton Administration Chief of Staff and now CEO of CAP, recently said, "it would be difficult for the EPA to enact a CO2 cap and trade without congressional cooperation."

Moreover, for a man who wants to "phase out coal emissions over the next two decades," as Hansen does, this is a pretty pointless complaint. The Obama EPA was certainly never going to use the endangerment finding to do anything like that.

This "EPA can solve the problem on its own" myth is so commonplace that I will do separate post next week addressing it. I certainly agree with NRDC that...

much more at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-romm/nasas-james-hansen-mostly_b_229459.html

[NNadir]

1. When Joe Romm ran the EPA climate office, he was a real "Heckuva job" kind of guy.

He was there from 1997 to 2000.

The release of dangerous fossil fuel waste from electrical generation went up 92 million tons, almost 10% in three years.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/excel/historical_co2.xls

For the nation as a whole, while Joe was on his knees genuflecting before all the dangerous fossil fuel companies that were paying his salary when he worked at the dangerous fossil fuel greenwashing front at RMI, dangerous fossil fuel waste dumping by the United States into earth's atmosphere rose by 268.7 million tons.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1co2.xls

The dumb little fundie therefore presided over an increase in dangerous fossil fuel dumping into the atmosphere that was the equivalent of the entire output of the Nation of Indonesia at the time, a nation with a population that has a population of around 240,000,000 people and which is notoriously dependent on dangerous fossil fuels, except when it's busy destroying the Sumatran Rain Forest to meet German "renewables portfolio standards" by installing palm oil monocultures.

Joe Romm is so full of horseshit that he qualifies to run the Arabian Horse Show group that Michael Brown used to run, if Michael hasn't gotten his old job back.

It's pure "Heckuva job!"

Romm's an ignoramus and a fool, and the fact that he feels entitled to lecture real scientists is, in fact, pretty typical of other anti-science illiterates who don't know shit from shinola about energy or climate.

[kristopher]

2. Lunatic rantings...

Is it getting harder and harder to hold it all together, my friend?

The basic form of your argument is this:

Romm held an office with no control of CO2 emissions.

CO2 emissions increased while he held the office.

He is therefore responsible for the increase in CO2 emissions.

Your follow on argument goes:

Indonesia's CO2 output from fossil fuels matches the amount of increase that occurred in the US while Romm held a position with no control of CO2 emissions.

Indonesia is engaging in the cultivation of plants for palm oil.

Joe Romm is therefore not qualified to tell real scientists anything.



I'm sure that seems airtight to you...

[bananas]

4. Romm wasn't even in the EPA.

NNadir is wrong again, as usual.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_J._Romm

[bananas]

3. "If you don't know what you're talking about, make stuff up"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[The Croquist]

5. Maybe we should concentrate on what James Hansen and what Joe Romm said

and not on what Nnadir said.

Hansen doesn't think that Cap and Trade goes far enough while Romm likes it. The thing that impresses me most is the tone of them both. Hansen is preaching Doom and Gloom as usual but Romm's response is a personal attack on Hansen. Usually you see that on attacks across the "Global Warming aisle" (I like that term) not among members of the same side. It would be equivalent to Byrd launching a personal attack on Franken because he didn't like Franken's tie.

I don't read Climate Progress much because I think it uses too many personal attacks in lieu of well reasoned arguments but I've never seen Romm attack a "believer" before in this way.

It's kind of weird and it's not good for your side either. The "deniers" have already been laughing at Hansen's post. This will give them even more fodder. As a denier I could just sit back and laugh but it's sad.

The saddest thing is just how political and mean spirited this whole debate is. This is supposed to be about science but in many ways it's about anything but science. The "deniers" attack the "believers" and vice-versa each claiming the other one started it. Guys like Hansen mix science, politics and doomsday like a baptist preacher on Sunday talking about creationism and guys like Inhofe just make stuff up.

And let's not kid ourselves. The personal attacks extend to this site as well. Nnadir blew the EPA thing. What he meant was the Department of Energy and the attacks were immediate. Of course Nnadir was his usual pleasant self trying to make friends and win people over with his charming personality.

[kristopher]

6. That's probably the most off target set of comments this week

Romm is much more familiar with how policy works and is crafted than Hansen is. Hansen makes a number of assertions that demonstrate his lack of knowledge. Romm addresses these assertions specifically - not with personal attacks but with reasoned discourse that focuses on the issues at hand.

You on the other hand, are just stirring shit by doing what deniers do - screwing up the facts beyond all recognition.

[The Croquist]

8. Does this count as a personal attack?

I am unhappy to have to waste any time debunking his bleeding edge climate policy analysis.

Does that count as a personal attack?

Still, his arguments need debunking because he is mostly recycling myths that others are pushing and with the country's top climate scientist putting his name on this collection of false and misleading statements, they will no doubt be parroted by yet more people. Hansen has just written.

Does that count as a personal attack?

Let me go straight to his needlessly (and pointlessly) provocative attacks on the "counterfeit climate bill known as Waxman-Markey," which is filled with right-wing and left-wing myths -- and very little understanding of the basics of either this bill or cap-and-trade systems.

Does that count as a personal attack?

Moreover, for a man who wants to "phase out coal emissions over the next two decades," as Hansen does, this is a pretty pointless complaint. The Obama EPA was certainly never going to use the endangerment finding to do anything like that.

Does that count as a personal attack?

Hansen's next "egregious" flaw in W-M: It sets meager targets -- 2020 emissions are to be a paltry 13% less than this year's level -- and sabotages even these by permitting fictitious "offsets," by which other nations are paid to preserve forests -- while logging and food production will simply move elsewhere to meet market demand.

Does that count as a personal attack?

And it is really quite out of character for Hansen to make such a factually untrue assertion as

Does that count as a personal attack?

...sabotages even these by permitting fictitious "offsets," by which other nations are paid to preserve forests -- while logging and food production will simply move elsewhere to meet market demand.

Does that count as a personal attack?

This is an utter falsehood. Indeed, it is a repackaged version of a falsehood that anti-scientific anti-clean-energy Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour put forward.

Does that count as a personal attack?

Now Hansen apparently hasn't bothered to look at the bill or any of the many summaries.

Does that count as a personal attack?

Since Hansen really doesn't follow this sort of policy issue closely

Does that count as a personal attack?

Actually I don't think I am "stirring shit" at all. I didn't start this thread nor did I hurl insults like you and Joseph Romm have felt the need to.

I specifically said that it should be about science. Is that "stirring shit?" What facts am I screwing up?

[bananas]

11. 'Actually I don't think I am "stirring shit" at all.' ***Busted***

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=201217&mesg_id=201272">I think I'll just sit back and watch the carnage! Actually I'll probably dive it.

:rofl:

[kristopher]

12. No, that doesn't count as a personal attack

Those are statements about the content of Hansen's positions. Every one is germane to the underlying issue - Hansen's criticisms of the policies are not only filled with factual errors, but they follow from poor understanding of the mechanics of public policy (ie what works and what doesn't). Romm is a bit snarky but he isn't making an attack of the person of Hansen, only the ideas of Hansen.

I've noticed that a few people around here have trouble telling the difference.


debunking his ... climate policy analysis

he is... recycling myths that others are pushing

putting his name on this collection of false and misleading statements

his needlessly (and pointlessly) provocative attacks

quite out of character for Hansen to make such a factually untrue assertion


None of these nor any of the rest are attacks on Hansen. All relate to actions or positions taken by Hansen that are legitimately subject to discussion.

And the facts that you got wrong are all of the above. And you got it wrong precisely because it is more important to you to try and turn it into a catfight than it is to actually discuss substantively the issues that are raised. It is the modus operandi of wingnuts who can't compete in the realm of ideas...

[The Croquist]

14. Maybe Hansen is wrong. I think he is.

I also think that Romm is wrong. I'm a "denier". My whole point is that Romm attacking Hansen is sad and counter productive.

I am not a fan of Hansen but if you criticize him personally you are criticizing the most well known scientist of the "believer" community.

I got no facts wrong. I simply provided examples of what I consider personal attacks. That is my opinion and you are certainly entitled to your own opinion. Nor am I turning this into a cat-fight. Hansen wrote an opinion piece and Romm responded to it in (my opinion) a personal and ugly way. He could have disputed Hansen's opinions but instead he attacked him personally (my opinion). I've seen him do it before against "Denialists". Now he is doing it with one of his own who doesn't totally agree with him. What ever happened to civility? Since when is a scientific disagreement grounds for personal attacks?

It is up to Hansen and Romm to either drop the matter or escalate it. If Hansen drops it I say good for him.

PS: How can you say that accusing Hansen of "putting his name on this collection of false and misleading statements" is not a personal attack?

[kristopher]

17. Is it true of false?

Are the statements false and misleading?
Yes.

Did Hansen lend his name to those statements?
Yes, he did.


You started your post with the lead that we should pay attention to what they said, then you proceeded to select about 10 quotations that have zero substance as it relates to the policies or the science.

You talk out both sides of your face when you play this tsk tsk tsk routine and claim you lament the lack of substance in Romms reply. The reply was entirely substantive - and that isn't opinion. It is documented in the words of article. The "opinion" defense is another ploy of those that simply can't deal with a discussion of factual reality; you want to make false assertions and hide behind the veil of "that's my opinion."

That isn't a personal attack, either. It is a statement of objective reality.

[The Croquist]

18. Sorry but I disagree

I'll leave it at that.

[bananas]

7. This is a discussion forum

and I am discussing the content in post #1.
Post #1 is supposed to be a personal attack on Romm,
but the content is so wrong,
it's obvious that the author doesn't know what he's talking about,
and is just making stuff up.
:rofl:

[The Croquist]

9. You're right

Nnadir screwed up but he wasn't really making things up. He got the EPA and the Department of Energy wrong. Even his links were (I think) DOE. It's not the biggest screwup I've ever seen here.

You are right about it being a personal attack by Nnadir. Sometimes (OK always) he can be a bit on the gruff side.

[kristopher]

13. He wan't making things up

No, not unless you want to count making up totally false arguments in an effort to impeach the character of Romm. When you make a false logical construction deliberately that is called "fabrication" among other, less polite terms like prevarication and lying.

[The Croquist]

16. Nnadir blew it

It was DOE and not EPA. Nnadir condemned him for "allowing" CO2 levels to rise when he had no control of it. It didn't matter if it was EPA or DOE (as far as I know) he had no control on either. I still don't call it a lie. He blew the EPA angle but the bottom line is he doesn't trust what Romm says.

I don't think it was an intentional lie. I think he just blew it.

Nnadir is a big fan of nuclear power. I'm a fan too but he knows more then me. It's not perfect but neither is anything else.

[bananas]

19. What makes you think he knows more than you?

A lot of what he "knows" is wrong.

There have been studies done, the more people watch Fox News, the less they know, because there is so much misinformation on Fox News, they get more answers wrong than if they just guessed. Reading NNadir's posts is like watching Fox News - he posts so much misinformation and junk science, you wind up knowing less than you did before. Reading NNadir's posts actually makes you stupid.

And that's not just my opinion: "Anyone with any grasp of energy numbers should have noticed the mistake"

[The Croquist]

20. Maybe you're right but he sure is passionate!

I went to that Daily Kos rant of his but I wasn't interested enough to check his math.

The funny thing is I knew most of what he started with. When I diet I walk and count about 120 calories per mile and 3,500 calories per pound. I figure that works out about 30 miles per pound but you burn 2,000 - 2,500 calories a day just by not dying.

I've never done the car conversion though.

[bananas]

10. Get real.

First, post #1 is still wrong, Romm wasn't head of DOE Climate office from 1997-2000 either.

Second, post #1 was flamebait, and you wrote:

18. Way to get around that block Nnadir!
XemaSab started it but it got blocked before you could get into the action. I think I'll just sit back and watch the carnage!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=201217&mesg_id=201272">Actually I'll probably dive it.

Thanks for telling us you're just trolling!
:rofl:

[The Croquist]

15. Everybody who posted on that thread or the previous one could be accused of being a troll.

It was designed for that.