Put oil firm chiefs on trial, says leading climate change scientist

[Pirate Smile]

Source: The Guardian

Put oil firm chiefs on trial, says leading climate change scientist·
-Speech to US Congress will also criticise lobbyists
-'Revolutionary' policies needed to tackle crisis

Ed Pilkington in New York The Guardian, Monday June 23, 2008

James Hansen, one of the world's leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer.

Hansen will use the symbolically charged 20th anniversary of his groundbreaking speech to the US Congress - in which he was among the first to sound the alarm over the reality of global warming - to argue that radical steps need to be taken immediately if the "perfect storm" of irreversible climate change is not to become inevitable.

Speaking before Congress again, he will accuse the chief executive officers of companies such as ExxonMobil and Peabody Energy of being fully aware of the disinformation about climate change they are spreading.

In an interview with the Guardian he said: "When you are in that kind of position, as the CEO of one the primary players who have been putting out misinformation even via organisations that affect what gets into school textbooks, then I think that's a crime."



Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/23/fossilfuels.climatechange

[paparush]

1. Great Idea. I'm sure our Congress will get right on that..right after they

approve billions more for an illegal war and vote to gut surveillance laws (again).

God, I'm disgusted.

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. And practice keeping their powder dry

[paparush]

3. Yeah..and making sure that table is clear..that NOTHING is on the table.

ack..

I'm going fishing.

[Canuckistanian]

5. Hey! Dry powder is IMPORTANT

If only I could remember why......
:shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug:

[Psephos]

4. That worked so well during the Inquisition

So let's do it again!!!

The critical quote: "...I think that's a crime." As a legal theory, the rule that "if James Hansen thinks it's a crime, then it is," has a few shortcomings.

Criminalizing speech would be the actual crime. The Bill of Rights has to protect everyone, even (or especially) the assholes, or you might as well wad it up and throw it away.

That Hansen said this indicates his outlook has moved from scientific towards religious. Persecution of nonbelievers is a defining religious indicator.

[Hugabear]

7. We're talking about CRIMES against humanity, the planet - billions of lives are at stake

Spreading doubt about climate change IS a crime, IMHO. Climate change is a PROVEN FACT, and unless we take immediate steps to rein it in, will kill BILLIONS of people over the next century. That doesn't even begin to take into account the countless species that will become EXTINCT.

This isn't about free speech. The time for debate is OVER, there is no more debate - how can you debate something that is a proven scientific fact? But unlike the "debate" over evolution, this one is going to have deadly consequences.

[Psephos]

13. The climate has always changed, and always will. AGW is a factor.

I agree with you that climate change is a proven fact. It's the first thing you learn in Atmospheric Sciences 101. Earth's climate is a dynamic system whose major attribute is its continual transformation. We've been living in one of the mildest little bubbles of good climate for the past few thousand years. It cannot and will not last.

The time for debate over the causes of climate change is not over. It's never over. To declare it over would be to return to medieval methods of dealing with heretics. How many times have I heard on this board that dissent is patriotic, that dissent is as important as assent, that dissent proves that we haven't succumbed to the tyranny of the majority? Apparently those platitudes only apply in causes we like.

"Free speech for me but not for thee."

Ocean-atmosphere interactions that underlie climate are among the most complex physical processes known. They are extraordinarily resistant to accurate modeling, because they involve nonlinear ("chaotic"), nondeterministic feedback connections. The average layperson who solemnly believes there's a linear relationship between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature sounds far more stupid than someone who merely shrugs their shoulders. Such simplistic reductionism is a flaw of Western thinking in general, and a marker of an unmathematic appreciation for how physical systems interact. Most people do not know what nondeterministic mathematics even is, let alone how counterintuitive or maddening it can be when applied to actual events. Yet the less they know, the louder and ruder they become. That's an inverse relationship always seen in nasty, intolerant religious die-hards and true-believers.

Trying to enforce 100% unanimity through criminalization of dissenting opinion is the heart and soul of totalitarian practice, whether political or religious.

Thank heaven we have a Constitution that protects us all from those who want to put people who disagree with them behind bars, or worse.

However, the fact that scientific opinion is not unanimous, and that oil company fatsos say things even a fourth-grader knows are self-serving bullshit, does not prevent a practical majority of us from directing policy. We have assembled a working majority now who will politically abide things like carbon taxes, cap and trade, alternative energy, conservation, etc. People have heard the arguments from all sides and enough now have formed a judgment to let us move forward.

So let's move forward and leave the torch-and-pitchfork stuff alone. It's intolerant, unscientific, and illiberal.

[bean fidhleir]

18. To say that the relationship is chaotic and non-linear is not to say that we can't determine

the trend. I believe the trend is well-understood (and the reason for the IPCC warnings), even if predicting the momentary magnitude is too hard for the tools we have.

As to criminalizing speech - does no one have an obligation to tell us the truth? It's a federal felony for *us* to lie (regardless of the effect of the lie) to the FBI. I suspect that it's a crime to lie to any police force. Should we be the only ones forced to tell the truth?

When the oil-company guys lie to us, it's not political speech. It's commercial speech - they're doing it to increase or protect their profits. Why should that be protected, when it's a disaster for us?

[Psephos]

46. Good questions

"does no one have an obligation to tell us the truth?"

That depends on the venue. In a court of law under oath: yes. In the court of public opinion: often, or even usually, no. Who would be the arbiter of "truth"? You? Me? Look around D.U. Most here view "truth" as synonymous with "what I feel." So who exactly are we going to trust to determine "truth"? You got a Star Chamber ready to issue edicts?

Wasn't that long ago (less than fifty years) that it was a known scientific fact that plate tectonics was a whacko theory, and believing it would short-circuit an aspiring geoscientist's career. By applying the standards evidenced in this thread, because of the overwhelming consensus of scientists, dissent should have been forbidden and vilified. Instead, dissent led to a revolution in understanding. No one saw it coming. They never do.

The perpetually outraged seem to believe they are living in historically unique times now, witnessing horrors never before seen. All that shows is how unschooled in history they are, how bereft of perspective and critical skills. We live in culturally and climatically mild times. Human history and climate history are filled with catastrophes and extremes beyond most contemporary ken.

Commercial speech is an ambiguous realm where regulations rightly exist to ensure that consumers do not receive fraudulent or deceptive information about products and services they purchase. Forbidding the expression of opinion by people involved in a business is legally and conceptually different from regulating the accuracy of factual information regarding their products. Forbidding the expression of non-approved opinion is a classic marker of authoritarian tyranny.

Where does this idea come from that lying isn't commonplace and that we don't have any defenses against it? How naive. One of the greatest skills we can acquire is the ability to think critically and skeptically, and then to apply those skills to discern between b.s. and fact. This skill seems in retreat. What's replaced it is damn-fool acceptance of whatever you can find on the internet that supports the way you already think and feel.

Anyone who believes what comes out of an oil company executive's mouth is a dope beyond redemption. What's next, we have to teach them not to believe Rush Limbaugh?!?

Meanwhile, those oily snakes are utterly and sincerely convinced that people like you and me are the dangerous liars and fools. Since they seem to have more power than you or me, are you sure you want to mess with the Constitutional protections that let us all safely express our opinions - and that let us all freely discard those opinions that we consider bullshit, and loudly and vigorously try to convert others to our point of view?


"To say that the relationship is chaotic and non-linear is not to say that we can't determine the trend."

I fully disagree. We *can* determine the general trend. We simply measure it. The trend is clear and well-documented.

What we can't do is correlate it with an independent variable in a deterministic equation, or establish a one-to-one causal relationship. Climate is a system of dynamic equilibria, full of devilish and not-yet-understood feedback loops, yet not one post on this thread (or a dozen others I've seen) acknowledges that. They all treat climate as a static system, and fail to comprehend the nature of negative feedback damping. Sorry, but you have to be *this* tall to ride this ride.

Gleick's book Chaos: Making A New Science is still one of the best introductions for nonscientists to the nonintuitive reasoning necessary to understand nondeterministic systems. Read that and see the world in a new and unexpected way.

It's frustrating to hear the same false assumptions about what shapes climate plied over and over here as though they're insightful or convincing. What they are is innumerate. And then on top of that, they're coupled with predictable, inappropriate outrage. Exactly the same level of outrage for everything, from the trivial to the profound. Vomited out I suppose because it makes marginal people feel self-important.

When everyone is outraged, no one is. What a stupid way to try to get things done.

[bean fidhleir]

48. But not good enough, apparently

Who would be the arbiter of "truth"? You? Me? Look around D.U. Most here view "truth" as synonymous with "what I feel." So who exactly are we going to trust to determine "truth"? You got a Star Chamber ready to issue edicts?

Wasn't that long ago (less than fifty years) that it was a known scientific fact that plate tectonics was a whacko theory, and believing it would short-circuit an aspiring geoscientist's career. By applying the standards evidenced in this thread, because of the overwhelming consensus of scientists, dissent should have been forbidden and vilified. Instead, dissent led to a revolution in understanding. No one saw it coming. They never do.

It doesn't seem unwise to you, to adhere to the same standard regardless of what's at stake? If the climate guys are right (as we have every reason to suppose they are), then the stakes are prospectively the extinction of all life higher than, maybe, bacteria. That certainly wasn't true about the tectonics theory. A few thousand or even hundred thousand careers is a much smaller stakes than global pan-extinction, I hope you'll agree.

I think there's an accepted principle of law that the standards for evidence are highest where the risk of harm is greatest. Why shouldn't that principle apply to claims that, judging by the best evidence we have, are narrowly self-interested lies that bring us closer to ultimate global disaster?





"To say that the relationship is chaotic and non-linear is not to say that we can't determine the trend."

I fully disagree. We *can* determine the general trend. We simply measure it. The trend is clear and well-documented.

If you fully disagree, you didn't fully understand what I wrote :)

[PATRICK]

22. We need more martyrs obviously

so that these inherent rights of free speech which in the future will be immensely enjoyed by the few surviving humans patching up their biodomes will thrive. A few more martyrs from a class that is underrepresented in the Freedom Hall of Fame to date. Torture, silence, imprison and even hang a few CEO's and I think we will all be impressed and change our freedom hating ways. I suppose we could do the same to a corporate entity in effigy, but the learning effect will not be the same.

Comparing laws applied to great crimes against humanity, obstruction of civil society PER SE and freedom of speech IN TOTO as going after the perps with pitchforks and torches(which would be be primitively more exciting no doubt than a Michael Reagan led pogrom) is an attempt to label justice itself as extreme.

Most of the scientific community and its product is business and government oriented already. Most of the accepted possible ways to deal with the mess are moderately inadequate and easily foiled by real determined men whose base brain is a stock portfolio. The consensus of the financed scientific community is more likely to be corporate friendly, optimistic rather than objective, timid rather than activist and out of its depth in politics. In this circumstance or not, powerful forces destroying the free ability of nations to effect their own destinies and stifling all manner of information and public media cannot be easily characterized as a personal free speech side of the argument. It is a propaganda situation toward the end of a crime against humanity for selfish motives whose end result will likely cause the deaths of billions. They put real, not mere verbal, impediments to staving off extinctions.

We realize that Nuremberg was an awkward sometime half-hearted attempt to get at the notion of globalized crime and the staggering abuse of law and national sovereignty in the pursuit of evil. The good professor Hansen is speaking as a frsutrated amateur here. If someone wants to hear from a good international lawyer instead, I am all for it. Interestingly, it is the law that insists on waiting until there is a good pile of bodies before adjudicating and the dispassionate scientists who are rushing ahead of the results.

There are other grounds to really get at the very very few self entitled oligarchs blinding the human race and regressing all progress or justice anywhere and everywhere. There are bodies aplenty already for that purpose. The perception of climate change is massively disordered in many directions because we the mess are not very good judges of other messes. The fact we are not managing anything but our own incapacity to survive our own world is our inescapable place in the ecology. Things are changing. Deaths are predictable according to our response or lack thereof. So what is wrong with curbing the thousand tongued beast of lies and deception? Does it hurt our dignity as noble suckers and the eternally crucified?

Business came to this crisis with a bullhorn. We enter the debate with democracy and law. Yet what will really be done when the real shit hits the fan? All of our free speech will then be expletives deleted and deleted with a final, silencing vengeance.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Barrett808]

29. Should tobacco CEOs be tried for systematically disinforming society, and thereby causing...

...perhaps millions of excess deaths?

Because oil execs are paying the Heartland Institute for its propaganda services, too.

[LanternWaste]

74. From my perspective...

From my perspective, it's quite a stretch to go from a leading scientist simply stating "I *think* these people should be brought to trial..." to "torch-and-pitchfork stuff".

For my part, I've said in the past, say in the present, and will most likely say in the future that A or B should outlawed, and that those responsible for A or B should be put on trial. I certainly do not perceive that as "torch and pitchfork stuff", nor so I see it as limiting the free speech of anyone I don't agree with.

Since I have little to no standing in the courts or the judiciary, my statement that A or B should be illegal is nothing more than an attempt to bring a dramatic awareness that may or may not have been lacking to the discussion.

[0rganism]

77. "chaotic" has implications beyond complexity

I don't know if you're already aware of this, but people reading your objections on the basis of chaos and complexity ought to have a chance to know about it too.

One characteristic of some classic chaotic systems is a sensitivity to perturbation. Such systems can indeed be driven into quasiperiodic or even straight-up cyclic behavior by applying particular stimuli at particular times. The Poincare' section, when used as a return map, becomes a recipe for controlling chaotic systems to act as versatile oscillators.

Also, continuous applied stimulus of sufficient strength can disrupt a complex flow if it continues for long enough to saturate the system. The amount of time for such systems to return to an attractor with stable limits is dependent on system parameters, in the absence of external stimulus. There may be secondary feedback effects which amplify and sustain such a disruption well beyond the point where the disrupting stimulus itself stops.

How long is long enough? How strong is strong enough? As you said, it's difficult to model, but that's part of the overall problem! Humanity is carrying out the experiment directly on its own biosphere, in real time, without a solid model for the danger zone. When we find out how long and how strong through current "experimental" methods, we'll be in the deep shit.

Now consider the problem with fossil fuels. We get that fuel from the remains of plants, mostly, and the natural process of carbon absorption they've undergone throughout their lifetimes, millions of years ago. By any reasonable measure, over the course of the industrial age, we've been putting a noticeable percentage of the available carbon back into the atmosphere, and along the way upped the CO2 concentration in ppm to something close to what it was during the carboniferous period, when temperatures were much higher.

It's a helluva perturbation and it appears to be having an effect.

[HiddenCSLib]

14. Debate is not over

Exactly what proof is there the there is any man made effect on the climate. The climate is changing and always has been changing. I have NEVER seen any proof that anything that man has been able to effect the climate. If the small increase in CO2 has anything to do with the climate, which is a tiny increase, what about the major Green House effect from water vapor. Water vapor has a greater effect on the climate than anything that nam could ever do. How about methane? The only people that declare that the debate is OVER are idiots. And I will put it to all of the people that have declared that the debate is over, then stop contributing yourself. Plastic bag over the head/3 foot of duct tape will decrease your carbon dioxide to nill.

Please can I have any all of the idiots, like paint it black, that declare the debate over on climate change, please declare is it Global Warming or Global Cooling as I heard 20 years ago. It is one or the other and if some people are so dedicated about this and declared the debate over they those persons should do the right thing and go to a ZERO carbon existence, no trade/no nothing, stop breathing.

Climate change is a fact, it is all driven by the SUN nothing else.

I would like to see the scientific proof and the rebuttal. And NOTHING that Al Gore says counts until that fat bastard consumes less energy that I or any average person in the US. The IPCC are even worse. To make the process fair, should not ALL research funds be split 50/50 to prove and disprove the so called climate change theory. IS THE EARTH WARMING OR COOLING?

I will believe that Global WARMING is caused by mankind WHEN AND ONLY WHEN these so called experts can plug in the exact data for the last 50 years and the so called forecast program they use can EXACTLY match the weather that we are experiencing NOW. If the forecast programs are so accurate about the future, have them enter the data gathered from the past and show that the temperatures and weather patterns we are experiencing now are accurate.

Unlike most of the Global Warming/Global Cooling/and now Climate Change sheep out there, I want proven and verified scenic PROOF. I want to see where the temperature changes are being recorded, as some of these official temperate station are now in a comprised position, (by buildings/AC units/high traffic areas).

Most people here tear up the republicans and the christians about having blind faith, but I believe that people that bow down to Al Gore and the Climate Change gospel are worse.

Unlike others that just want to believe the news and web site that they limit them selves to, I will not go quietly into the night.

I want the truth.

[Hugabear]

20. "People that bow down to Al Gore are worse"

Spoken like a true neocon. There is irrefutable evidence that mankind has had a huge impact on climate change, just open your eyes. Quit getting your info from the likes of Limbaugh, Boortz, etc (which is exactly where I've heard some of your arguments).

Enjoy your stay here.

[acsmith]

34. .

Had to register just to reply to this message. I've been
following DU for a while and one thing that frustrates is how
quickly arguments boil down to petty name calling. On the
whole I agree with the politique of DU but threads like this
one really make me despair, both for DU and the possibility
for real political change (and I am not talking about nebulous
Obama like change here). 

This forum is supposed to be for people to exchange ideas,
arguments and insights. But, all too often it comes down to a
simple (and quite pathetic) battle of inflated ego(s). What I
often see is an insightful and well argued post, in effect,
shouted down because the conclusion of the argument does not
match a perceived 'party line'. In my opinion a bad argument
should be shot to pieces, but not following the contents of an
argument because the conclusion is contrary to ones world view
is the road to intellectual bankruptcy.

Feel free to shoot.

[Barrett808]

37. Welcome to DU, acsmith!

:hi:

[Hugabear]

40. Exchange of ideas is fine. Parroting RW talking points is not

And that's basically what HiddenCSLib was doing, especially when he got to the part about people bowing down to Al Gore.

As I've stated a few times already, climate change is a deadly serious issue, and we need to take issue right now. We simply cannot afford to "exchange ideas, arguments, and insights" for another dozen years or so. The science is already there on this issue, the vast majority of climatologists are in agreement on this issue. The RW would like people to believe that the issue is still debatable. They trot out a few scientists who spew their pseudo-science, and try to confuse the public with their smoke & mirrors. You can pretty much find anybody who will back up your position on any given topic. However, like I said before, the vast majority of scientists around the globe agree that the debate is closed, and that we're currently witnessing the effects that were predicted ten years ago.

[klyon]

50. it has been shot with so many holes people around here are tired

of people posting unsubstantiated opinions and faux news propaganda

but welcome to DU anyway
sometimes civil discussion is difficult
don't judge us by one post or thread
have a great day

[HiddenCSLib]

44. What evidence

I agree that mankind has had a huge impact on animal populations around the world but not on climate change, again is is Warming or Cooling? I am in Colorado Springs and it is 74 degrees here, a LOT cooler than normal, the furnace has kicked on a lot this month. I would appreciate as to where to get my information that is accurate and by the way I have not listened to Rush for over 2 years (got tired of his pompous attitude, but was a good source of info that you can't get on the MSM networks, I used to listen to him while driving to work just to hear what he said about the Dem's). And who the hell is Boortz?

I get my info off of the internet and I will not bow down to any side without proof. I generally read posts on the internet to further my knowledge about things but when anyone says the debate is over, that will make me believe that they are a complete idiot. Nothing is ever closed for debate, if so why are thing like they way they are now. I am pretty sure that sometime in the past some high level judge/politician/group said something like (and I paraphrase) that blacks are inferior to whites and that any male that loves another male is a mental case that needs to be locked up.

If the above conceptions can be overcome because some people did not believe that the debate is not over, what is the difference on the climate change issue.

If I do not want to believe a blow hard like Al Gore, who consumes more electricity in 1 day than I do in about 3 months, so be it. I believe that anyone who attempts to lead the climate change issue should be a leading example.

If I get tomb stoned because of saying what I believe than so be it, but I will not jump into the mind death that both progressives and neocons are experiencing. I will continue to challenge myself to learn by examine BOTH sides of every issue I choose to explore.

[Hugabear]

47. Keep saying shit like "a blow hard like Al Gore", you're not fooling anyone

There is an overwhelming abundance of information out there, I am not going to sit here and spoon-feed it to you.

Sorry, but you haven't been around DU nearly long enough to start throwing out phrases like "a blow hard like Al Gore" - and even someone with thousands of posts would be looked at suspiciously for saying shit like that.

[HiddenCSLib]

67. I am not asking to be spoon fed

But I have been examining all of the evidence on the internet as to Climate Change and I am still not con viced one way or the oater. I guess that I will continue to read and examine the evidence that is provided on both sides and decide for myself. As for Al Gore, sorry when he practices what he preaches then he will not be a blow hard to me, One should practice what they preach.

And why is it wrong to examine all side of a discussion or an issue?

I see that you are the type that will not tolerate anyone who has a different opinion than you have. I am glad I will never put myself into that area as I have an open mind on most everything.

[Hugabear]

68. Back for more, I see...

"Why is it wrong to examine all side of a discussion or an issue?"

Because, if we do nothing and continue this pointless debate, then billions of people are going to die. I don't understand why that's so difficult to understand.

Don't take my word for it. Hell, don't even take anyone on DU's word for it. The vast majority of climatologists worldwide agree that manmade climate change is real. Sure, you'll find a few Big Oil funded or right-wing types who will claim that there's nothing wrong, but those voices are few and far between. Wanna know why? I'll give you a hint - it's because they don't have the facts on their side, only anecdotal stories.

[HiddenCSLib]

70. Hell yeah I am back

I never said at any time that I would would be leaving or backing down on my ideas and I hope you will not either. I am doing a lot of research on the internet on this issue and I will continue to enjoy this debate. A question that I have to for you if as you say if billions of people are going to die and according to Wiki the population of the entire earth is 6.7+billion people, would not the death of billions (unknown amount) of people solve this problem.

I have read that a vast majority of pure climatologists and scientists has said that the global warming panic is false and that a majority of the climatologists are studying this as that is the way the get government grants and survive on those and that is it. I will be responding with the links that I have found of the scientists and climatologists that state that the warming period (of which there has been no warming for 8 years) is a false, along with the ones that I have found that state it is a fact and is MANS fault. I believe that most of the so called Climate Global experts could not pay for the gas in their cars except for the monies that they are paid to research this so called global warming).

Shall we continue this debate???


I have no fear and unlike you I do keep an open mind.

To ever believe that a debate is over on anything, shows that you mind is a small closed pitifull empty black empty hole....

[Hugabear]

73. Just do me a huge favor

When you're prepared to list your evidence that "a vast majority of pure climatologists" say that the global warming "panic" is false, please start a new thread for this. Obviously you've found something that 99.9999% of people here on DU are unaware of, so please don't hide your newfound evidence in this thread where only you and I are going to really pay it any attention. Something like that deserves its own thread.

Heck, if your evidence is as strong as you think it is - if a vast majority of climatologists are on your side - then you shouldn't be afraid to start a new thread proclaiming global warming to be a hoax.

I'll be watching.

[Nihil]

21. Apparently not (if you are an avid swallower of RW bullshit).

On the off-chance that you get to read this before being tomb-stoned
as the RW troll that you are, your last line ...

> I want the truth.

... completely negates everything you have written in that post as you
have repeated stated that you disregard all of the scientific evidence
presented to date.

Buh-bye bubba!

[Virginia Dare]

24. You want the truth but refuse to accept it...

okay so you want the truth, let's start here--climate change is driven by the SUN and nothing else, huh? You sure about that?

Hey HiddenCSlib, if you're serious about wanting the truth, turn off FOX news and Rush Limbaugh, heck, turn off your TV and your computer altogether walk down to your local library (or cruise down in your SUV, your choice) and pick up some books on climate (not weather). Read them.

Come back and give us a report, and we'll move on to the next lesson.

[Barrett808]

28. Please explain how dumping hundreds of gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere...

...over a geologically brief timespan will not change the planet's radiation balance.

[fascisthunter]

35. blah blah blah... DEBATE IS OVER...Global Warming is ...

excerbated by man, especially big energy and their greedy investors. Too bad..... things will change. The greedy polluters have done enough damage... the debate is over. Time for folks to ignore you and maybe ridicule you for being so obtuse and dishonest.

"...go quietly into the night" Use something more original and less dramatic next time.

[muriel_volestrangler]

42. Let me take you through this

First, you seem to completely misunderstand the IPCC. You say they are "even worse" than Al Gore. but you ask for the scientific proof. The IPCC is the summary of the science. They collect all relevant scientific research (which isn't, by the way, done by giving funds in a certain proportion to prove or disprove any particular theory - it's done to find out what reality is), discuss it, and summarise it - in a fairly conservative manner, so that the latest research which may not be definite isn't included (that has led to people saying their estimates of sea level rise are smaller than the latest research now predicts).

So, the science you want to see says:

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is
now evident from observations of increases in global
average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting
of snow and ice and rising global average sea level.

Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among
the twelve warmest years in the instrumental record of global
surface temperature (since 1850).
...
Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the
second half of the 20th century were very likely higher than
during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely
the highest in at least the past 1300 years.

It cannot just be put down to the location of some thermometers in cities. The warming is clear all over the world. This is not just the gradual variation that we've seen in the past.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most important anthropogenic
GHG. Its annual emissions grew by about 80% between 1970
and 2004. The long-term trend of declining CO2 emissions
per unit of energy supplied reversed after 2000. {2.1}

Global atmospheric concentrations of CO2, methane
(CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) have increased markedly
as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far
exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores
spanning many thousands of years. {2.2}

Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (379ppm) and CH4
(1774ppb) in 2005 exceed by far the natural range over the
last 650,000 years. Global increases in CO2 concentrations
are due primarily to fossil fuel use, with land-use change providing
another significant but smaller contribution. It is very
likely that the observed increase in CH4 concentration is predominantly
due to agriculture and fossil fuel use. CH4 growth
rates have declined since the early 1990s, consistent with total
emissions (sum of anthropogenic and natural sources) being
nearly constant during this period. The increase in N2O
concentration is primarily due to agriculture. {2.2}

There is very high confidence that the net effect of human
activities since 1750 has been one of warming.6 {2.2}
Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures
since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the
observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.
7 It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic
warming over the past 50 years averaged over
each continent (except Antarctica) (Figure SPM.4). {2.4}

During the past 50 years, the sum of solar and volcanic
forcings would likely have produced cooling. Observed patterns
of warming and their changes are simulated only by
models that include anthropogenic forcings. Difficulties remain
in simulating and attributing observed temperature
changes at smaller than continental scales.

If you want to know how united scientists are on this subject, look at this statement from the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the UK and the USA.

Carbon dioixde in the atmosphere has increased nearly 40% since the start of the industrial revolution. That's not 'small'. There's a fundamental difference in the role of water vapour and carbon dioxide in the greenhouse effect: water vapour content in the atmosphere is largely determined by the temperature of the atmosphere (the hotter it is, the more water evaporates from oceans), but water precipitates out of the atmosphere, in a cycle that lasts a matter of days. Carbon dioxide takes decades to be removed from the atmosphere. So any increase in temperature from the CO2 gets amplified by increased water vapour in the atmosphere.

Finally, calling members here 'idiots' and 'sheep', and Al Gore a 'fat bastard' is rude, and unlikely to win you any friends or persuade anyone that you're serious about wanting to know about climate change.

[klyon]

49. I will say again, maybe we need to take out an insurance policy

just in case you are wrong. Would it be so bad to scrub some coal fired smokestacks or end our dependence on burning fossil fuel. Or maybe push for clean solar power just in case mankind is heading for extinction. I think we should cover our ass just in case the worst is possible.

[LanternWaste]

75. And your valid, peer-reviewed evidence for this is...?

"it is all driven by the SUN nothing else."

And your valid, peer-reviewed evidence for this is...?

[Hugabear]

78. I'm waiting to see if he'll take up my challenge

He claims that a vast majority of climatologists agree with his position. I've challenged him to start a brand new thread, posting his evidence to back up his claims. After all, if he has all this evidence that he's gathered, it should hold up under scrutiny, shouldn't it?

Let's see if he does that.

[tidy_bowl]

30. Please roll up your fascism...

....and take it somewhere else. You are the very definition of totalitarianism. Take any issue at any time in our history to apply the same nonsense: 1860, "Why we all know that Africans are sub-human and must remain slaves the debate is over!", or in 1616, "The debate is over, Galileo, the sun revolves around the earth!". I could cite thousands more examples of fascists that ahve uttered those words over and over again, "The debate is over.....". To a thinking, rational person the debate is NEVER over.

[Psephos]

31. By your use of the word, you clearly don't even know what a fascist is

And it appears you're a bit weak on the meaning of totalitarianism, too.

Try this one next time you're at the library:

http://www.amazon.com/True-Believer-Thoughts-Movements-Perennial/dp/0060505915/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214250364&sr=8-1

lol on second thought, never mind...I'm sure you think Eric Hoffer's a "totalitarian fascist" too

[Hugabear]

36. Sure - let's debate for another decade or so, while billions of people DIE

This isn't a mere scientific debate like the Galileo example you gave, and your slavery example is just pure stupidity.

It is a fact that billions will DIE over the next few decades if we take no action. The science is in, it cannot be refuted, at least not by any credible sources. So do you really want to put off action while we engage the RW in their insipid mind games?

[LanternWaste]

76. Therefore, you must allow for the possibility...

"To a thinking, rational person the debate is NEVER over."

Therefore, you allow for the possibility that the sun does revolve around the earth, correct? Or that there are some cultures "deserve" slavery, yes?

[Trillo]

8. Maybe, but "freedom" has its limits.

I forget the precise saying, something about tempering speech with responsibility.

That what I see Hansen asserting, that when one is in a top position, with access to all kinds of information, continuing to lie (if they did so) because it's good for profit and shareholders, when the consequences are so grave for all of us, seems much like yelling fire in the theater when there is no fire.

[defendandprotect]

11. Of course, ExxonMobil didn't do this alone . . .

BP was involved as well as a number of other oil companies who dropped out a few years ago ---

AND, of course, there was the coup on JFK which was a good deal about oil interests ---

Actually, as we talk often about the coup on JFK, we have to remember that it was really an

"overturning of government" --- cause that's what the results were.

The oil industry interests are still well covered by Cheney/Bush -

[johnaries]

9. It's not free speech to knowingly spread lies. nt.

[Spouting Horn]

16. You're absolutely correct

Science is being attacked from all sides...from "Global Warming" to "Intelligent Design."

[Hugabear]

41. "Intelligent Design" is science?

:rofl::rofl:

[muriel_volestrangler]

43. "Global Warming" is a universally acknowledged fact of climate science

"Intelligent Design" is an attempt by creationists to claim that evolution does not happen. They're not even in the same category. How is reality, in the form of global warming, 'attacking' science?

[fascisthunter]

32. you compare this with an Inquisition

Talk about extreme.
Everything for money....

These dicks are destroying the environment and helping to create wars, while charging the soldiers for the very oil they are fighting for and you claim this is the same as an inquisition. If only......

[Psephos]

39. You've completely misrepresented what I said. Why?

My point is that criminalizing opinions we don't approve of is what the Inquisition did. That is the exact opposite of science, where critics are indispensable, and theories must face a barrage of attempts to prove them wrong before they can be accepted as valuable. Eliminate the skeptics from science and you end up with religion instead, which deals with revealed truths, not evolved ones.

I did *not* say that those oil dicks are right. They're wrong. Duh.

I *did* say that AGW is real, that we need to do something about it now, and it appears we finally have the political ability to carry forward with it.

Now, back to what prompted my posts. Silencing those who think differently from us is a chief aim of fascists. The tools we should use are to prove them wrong with evidence, ridicule them, criticize them, protest against them, make them unpopular, hit them in the pocketbook. All of which I advocate. I also advocate respecting constitutional guarantees that each person can say what they believe without fearing the police, which an awful lot of posters here seem to no longer think valuable. They will when the cops come for them someday.

WTF? I expect better from you. For a "liberal" site, DU has a lot of people who want to toss out the protections of our civil liberties. I've never thought you were one of them.

[fascisthunter]

56. criminalizing opinions? You Sure Have a Way with Warping the Truth

don't you..... that's not what this is about. Inquisition now criminalizing opinions. Riiiiiigggghhhht. And never tell me what a liberal should behave like. You don't know what a liberal is nor do you have the proper insite into liberals... your point of view is too warped.

[Psephos]

58. Read the headline of the O.P. Q.E.D. n/t

[fascisthunter]

59. uhuh.... am I supposed to see a pattern of Jesus' face

sorry... no sale.


Debate really is over. Have fun, I know I am.

[Psephos]

60. Whoa! Strong argument technique there.

[Psephos]

61. Why bother with an argument when you can just fling a turd instead? n/t

[nodehopper]

66. you are buying into corporate personhood

so by your logic it's okay for tobacco companies to produce speech denying links between smoking and cancer?

[The Doctor.]

6. All for it.

K+R

[defendandprotect]

10. When you finally get to see who is behind the curtain . . . it's always pitiful . ..

We're close to losing this planet-- and humanity --

and behind the curtain all this time -- over decades --- has been ExxonMobil --

criticized about a year ago by the Royal Academy of Science for their lies/propaganda

in decieiving the public re Global Warming --

Also keep in mind the NY Times role in this -- giving ExxonMobil a soap box on their
Op-Ed pages for decades to spread their propaganda ---



Exxon's Obsession With Paying For Anti-Global-Warming Propaganda
http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/exxon.html
Interesting article in many ways!

ExxonMobil-Funded Group Offers Scientists Cash to Attack Major New ...
ExxonMobil-Funded Group Offers Scientists Cash to Attack Major New Global Warming Study ... past few months, ExxonMobil has been criticized by U.S. senators ...
environment.about.com/b/2007/02/02/exxonmobil-offers-scientists-cash-to-attack-major-new-global... - Cached

[mcg]

12. Here is one of the culprits ...

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1841989
Lee Raymond's retirement package -- worth nearly $400 million -- is one of the largest in history.
(ABC News)

[nilram]

15. Funny, the NYT report of the same scheduled testimony

says nothing about his insisting that the CEOs be put on trial.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/science/earth/23climate.html

I hate how the US is held hostage by liberal media bias!

[dipsydoodle]

17. No different from the cigarette companies

in reality.

[NashVegas]

19. Stuff Like This

Is why Obama will be president. The power elites are scared shitless of a possible repeat of La Francais 1789. He's got them half convinced he can pacify the rabble.

[zazen]

23. link to hearing? don't think it's the one live on CSPAN 1

Is this being broadcast on CSPAN or over the net? I can't find a link to it. Thx.

[zazen]

25. (link to committee) it's at 3 PM, but I don't see if/where it will be broadcast

<http://globalwarming.house.gov/mediacenter/pressreleases_2008?id=0009#main_content>

I'm sure they'll tape it and one can watch it later. I just hope it plays on CSPAN for a larger audience.

[fascisthunter]

38. Well.... it Would Be a Start

They are well aware they are hugely contributing to Global Warming and are afraid once the public knows for sure what they know, they may be held accountable. Poor poor babies.

[MasonJar]

45. Boy, even DU has cretins. I will take Hansen's word anytime on this

issue. He is the expert, who was in fact so much the expert that the Bushistas tried to silence him. He refused to be threatened into submission. He and Al Gore are heroes. They have stood tall against the mighty for the good of the planet. Man may not deserve to survive, but he is taking way too many innocent species with him. That has to stop!!!!!!!! Thank you, Mr Hansen, for your expertise and your insistence on telling those intelligent enough to listen. The oil companies even have the Science Education Foundation (whatever its official name is) under their thumbs. I know this because Al Gore offered all the schools his incredible book on global warming, The Inconvenient Truth, and it was obviously too inconvenient for the official science education organization, which turned down his free offer and deprived an entire generation of this marvelous opportunity. And guess why! They get funding from "you guessed it"...the oil companies. In tandem the two maliciously try to promote misinformation just as the tobacco companies did and these two are even more culpable. The tobacco industry might have been killing individual smokers, but the oil companies are killing the planet.

[cobalt1999]

51. I disagree.

The problem is us. We all loved our cheap energy and sucked that tit until it dry.

If disinformation was the only cause, those that never bought the oil company stories would have radically reduced our consumption.

Guess what? Even those that do know the reality of the situation are only making token changes in behavior.

This problem starts with the person in the mirror.

[Bacchus39]

52. yeah, I agree with you

and if anything the high gas prices will lead to a reduction of emissions.

[blindpig]

53. Backwards

It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. -Karl Marx's 1859 Preface to the Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy

[cobalt1999]

54. Nope it all starts with our value and thought system.

I can toss in quotes too.

From Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance...

"But to tear down a factory or to revolt against a government or to avoid repair of a motorcycle because it is a system is to attack effects rather than causes; and as long as the attack is upon effects only, no change is possible. The true system, the real system, is our present construction of systematic thought itself, rationality itself, and if a factory is torn down but the rationality which produced it is left standing, then that rationality will simply produce another factory. If a revolution destroys a systematic government, but the systematic patterns of thought that produced that government are left intact, then those patterns will repeat themselves in the succeeding government. There’s so much talk about the system. And so little understanding."


Attacking the oil companies is tearing down the factory without changing the rationality that built them in the first place.

[blindpig]

55. Tell you what

I'll stick with intellectual rigor and you can keep the New Age nonsense. That stuff has done as much damage to the American mind as the oil companies have done to the environment,

[cobalt1999]

57. LOL. Marx and intellectual rigor hardly go together.

While I consider Zen more of a philosophy book vs. a new age book, I can't really see what damage it's done to the American mind. I'd love to see your list of ills this little book has perpetrated on society.

Putting that aside, attacking the oil companies for providing what WE demanded they produce for generations and then blaming them for it, isn't logical either.

If the lawsuit as presented claims that their misinformation (which is true) is the cause for global warming, that argument also fails any empirical test. You want to demonstrate your intellectual rigor, provide some examples as I did in my original post. Hell, provide something that shows cause and effect on any level.

I won't be holding my breath for a response, but thanks for the laugh.

[blindpig]

62. What the New Age has done

It has turned people away from politics in favor of "self-improvement". This suits the Man just fine, a bunch of navel-gazers are no threat to him. Instead of taking political action you sit around waiting for the unenlightened to catch up with you, grousing about their stupidity while you munch over-priced so-called organic carrots.

Who demanded the product? The entire landscape has been engineered to demand ever more quantities of that product. Mass transit was purposefully gutted to that end. The media was instrumental in making consumption of that product desirable, to make one feel inadequate if one did not consume in quantity.
Demand in our society is not 'organic', it is created by the seller.

If the lawsuit is rather simplistic it is of little matter to me, I'll take any stick available to beat those bastards with, they've much to answer for.

To say that Marx lacks intellectual rigor is to display profound ignorance and proof positive that you've never read a page. I've only read a bit(there is a lot) and I guarantee that there's more good sense and profound insight there than I ever imagined, only sorry I started so late.

[Tech 9]

63. Oh YEAH

Marx was an idiot but Robert Pirsig (who is borderline insane) is someone we should go around quoting. And of course, our problem today is our value system not anything material like say rapacious capitalism (and, yes, that is redundant)

My favorite New Age sophism is "scholars" who produce translations of the I Ching..but can't read a word of the original. Brilliant! It'd be like me translating Finnegan's Wake into English..

[emad]

64. Tosser. The biggest hydrocarbons user /pollution emitter is the US military.

Getting rich quick peddling dubious global warming theories quite a lucrative business these days.

[Vidar]

65. "Crimes against humanity" would be the most suitable charge.

[dysfunctional press]

69. what BULLSHIT. we are ALL to blame. WE lived the life. WE should take our share of the blame.

instead of squabbling over blame though- action needs to be taken for the future, not the past.

[Blue_Tires]

71. they deserve to be on trial, but let's be honest: we are all accomplices

[blindpig]

72. Leadership implies responsibility

Can there be any doubt that the owners of big capital are the true leaders of our society?