The trap was sprung in February 2006. The White House ordered that Dr Jim
Hansen was to be denied the oxygen of publicity forthwith. He was to be
banned from appearing in newspapers and on TV and radio. He was effectively
to disappear.
It was the kind of treatment that might be reserved for terrorists, criminals
or, in a totalitarian regime, for political dissidents.
Hansen, however, was none of these things. The director of Nasa’s renowned
Goddard space science laboratories was a dry, rather self-effacing climate
change scientist with a worldwide reputation for accurate and high-quality
research. What had happened?
“All I had done was to give a talk to the American Geophysical Union, setting
out how 2005 had been the warmest year on record,” recalled Hansen, in a
visit to London last week.
“But someone at Nasa got a call right from the top, from the White House. They
were very annoyed.”
It was not quite all he had done. Hansen had also e-mailed a transcript of the
talk to a raft of reporters before he spoke. “I did make sure it hit the
headlines,” he recalls modestly. In his talk he declared that humanity,
especially Americans and Europeans, were burning fossil fuels so fast that
they risked transforming Earth into “a different planet”.
Government scientists were not supposed to say things like that. Shortly
afterwards the head of Nasa’s public affairs office, one of George Bush’s
political appointees, banned Hansen from speaking to the media.
“Then they also forced us to remove all our data about the latest temperature
rises from the website,” says Hansen. “I realised they really were going to
stop me communicating.”
It looked like a classic case of a naive scientist being ruthlessly crushed by
a government machine.
In reality, however, it was Hansen who laid the trap – and the Bush
administration that got caught. A few more calls to the media and soon the
story of the lone scientist gagged by the mighty Bush administration hit the
front pages all over the world, carrying Hansen’s warning about climate
change with it once again.
It is a warning that Gordon Brown appears not to be heeding. Hansen’s visit to
London last week was partly inspired by the decision to approve construction
of a new coal-fired power station at Kingsnorth in Kent.
This, Hansen wants to warn us, is a recipe for global warming disaster. The
recent warm winters that Britain has experienced are a clear sign that the
climate is changing, he says.
“We are fast approaching a series of tipping points. Changes such as the
melting of the Arctic ice cap, the acidification of the oceans and the
global rises in temperature could be approaching the point of becoming
irreversible.
“In the face of such threats it is madness to propose a new generation of
power plants based on burning coal, which is the dirtiest and most polluting
of all the fossil fuels. We need a moratorium on the construction of
coal-fired power plants and we must phase out the existing ones within two
decades.”
Such warnings will not be popular. Coal provides 25% of global primary energy
needs and generates 40% of the world’s electricity. In 2006 about 5.4
billion tons were burnt – a 92% increase over the past 25 years. China alone
is building two new coal-fired power stations a year with CO2 emissions
rising by about 10% annually.
Coal also offers energy security. Some 70 countries can mine their own coal
and there are enough reserves to last at least 150 years.
Hansen, however, has come to the conclusion that coal will destroy the planet.
“If we release all that carbon into the air it will be catastrophic,” he
says.
At the heart of what Hansen is saying lies a welter of new research into what
kind of increase in CO2 can be borne by the Earth’s atmosphere.
In the preindustrial 18th century there were about 280 parts per million (ppm)
of CO2 in the air. Since then the 1,000 billion tons of CO2 released by
humanity has raised that to 385ppm – with another 49 billion tons being
added to that each year.
The global scientific consensus is that humanity can just about afford to let
CO2 levels creep up so long as they level off at around 450ppm. This would
mean accepting rises in global temperature averaging 2-3C.
Hansen used to accept such ideas – but he is now preparing a new research
paper showing that even this limit is far too high.
“If humanity wants to preserve a climate resembling that in which civilisation
developed, then the palaeoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change
suggest CO2 must be reduced from its current level to between 300-350ppm. A
350ppm target is only achievable by phasing out coal use,” he says.
This new agenda for tackling carbon emissions sounds radical but is rapidly
gaining ground among Britain’s own climate change researchers and
parliamentarians. What marks Hansen out is his success in getting such ideas
heard.
“My original media sin goes back to 1981,” says Hansen.
“I had written a paper for Science [the renowned academic journal] making
predictions about climate change, but I thought it might get ignored. So I
sent it to a reporter at The New York Times – and he put it on the front
page.”
The resulting row saw the Department for Energy, which oversaw research into
CO2 emissions, slashing his funding while its head of science launched a
furious attack on his work at a scientific conference.
Bloodied but not bowed, Hansen went back to his laboratory, spending the next
few years refining his global climate model, a computer simulation of the
planet’s climate that allows him, for example, to add extra CO2 to the
atmosphere and see what happens.
He also refined his tactics. The next time he wanted to speak out he did not
choose a scientific journal. It was June 1988 and America was hit by a
roasting summer and droughts.
When a congressional committee asked him to testify on climate change, he told
them that 1988 would set a new global temperature record, adding that he was
“99% confident” that it was due to the greenhouse effect.
He used similar cunning the following year. Called before a congressional
committee hearing looking at climate change, he sent an advance fax to Al
Gore, its chairman, suggesting some of the questions that he would like to
answer.
“What I told them was that the written evidence submitted in my name did not
contain my words. It had been rewritten by the president’s own budget office
to support their own agenda.”
This time the resulting storm was so great it saw climate change catapulted
into the political arena as never before. George Bush Sr (the father of
George W Bush), who was then running for president, promised to “fight the
greenhouse effect with the White House effect”.
Billions of pounds were allocated for research worldwide and by 1995 the
intergovern-mental panel on climate change had concluded that Hansen was
correct – humanity was indeed heating up the planet.
When Bill Clinton and Gore arrived in office, Gore had shown such interest in
climate change that Hansen had high hopes – but was again disappointed.
“America under Gore and Clinton let down the rest of the world once again.
They gave in to the special interests,” says Hansen. “That is the same
process we are seeing in the White House now.”
Hansen believes that the governments of Britain and Germany are also proving
vulnerable to such lobbying – and that the decision over Kingsnorth is a
direct consequence.
“I used to think that the politicians over here had simply not understood how
serious climate change really is,” he says.
“Nowadays, however, it is clear they do – but they have just given in.”
You will "get a different planet all right" if you keep on "gagging the honest" and at the same time allowing evil pirates to act as "if they were statesmen"!
HANS-JUERGEN LEINEWEBER, OGDEN, UTAH
No one disputes climate is changing. The issue is whether or not mankind is responsible for it. Most CO2 comes from natural sources, not machinery or transportation. How come the only solution is taxation and forcing people to live like subsistence farmers?
All these people who keep going on about CO2 as if it was a poison have lost the plot. It is an essential for life. There are 385 parts of CO2 per 1,000,000 parts of atmosphere - 0.0385%. Mankinds activities contribute a small fraction of that tiny percentage.
We should conserve energy and reduce consumption. We should stop the rainforests being cut down. But curbing other activity that has a negligible impact is nothing more than an excuse for taking money from our pockets.
So will these climate fanatics tell me again how anything we do is going to make any difference to the natural cycle of warming and cooling on this planet?
Dave, Northants,
EON appear to have abandoned their plans for carbon capture and storeage at Kingsnorth. Their 241-page proposal for the power station now has only 4 lines devoted to carbon dioxide, which only say that the CO2 per GWh will be less than the previous power station on the same site.
Since EON says the station will use 3.9 million tons of coal per year, the annual CO2 output to the atmosphere will be around 14 million tons, equivalent to 4,000,000 family cars or 2,500,000 "gas-guzzlers".
Alan, Chelmsford , UK
The really weird thing is that an extremely noisy zealot like Hansen is actually in charge of 'correcting' the GISS temperature figures! Needless to say, 'his' figures are higher than anyone else's.
John B, Middlesbrough, UK
And yet sea level has risen 249 feet since the end of the last ice age. That is a lot of land-ice. We didn't cause that, did we? CO2 levels were much lower then, weren't they?
Just a comment to find out if anyone remembers their climate history.
Simon, Bath, England
The sea have risen 249 feet since the end of the last of many ice ages. Obviously it was caused by human CO2 emissions! The environmental fascists must have killed everyone off to prevent the sea rising. Didn't work, did it?
Simon, Bath, England
Shocking amount of ignorance displayed here. Rampant denialism rarely seen outside the USA. Seems strange to me, who thought the Times was read by the informed.
One correction for your correspondent, Jonathan Leake - I think he will find that China is building 2 coal-fired power plants per week (not per year).
Kerryn Higgs, Wauchope, NSW, Australia
Global Warming is a misnomer. It is really Global Fleecing.
Anthropogenic Global Warming is discredited science at best, intentional fraud at worst. Hansen keeps pushing it because his professional reputation is at stake although his climate models are inaccurate. See:
U.S. Senate Report:
Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"
Report Released on December 20, 2007
U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
http://tinyurl.com/24ym5b
Introduction:
"Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore."
Yes folks, AGW is entirely Political Science!
Scott, Durham, NC, USA
THE WORLD MUST CME DOWN TO EARTH.
The solution to CO2 could be provided by H2O.
If it was organised, nature would do the rest !
Who is prepared to come aboard ?
Arthur Marson, huddersfield, west yorks
David Eicke says President Bush is an alien reptile. Perhaps the President is altering Earths climate for an invasion and colonisation of his alien species. I'm serious.
Keith Bentham, Wigan, UK
Jim Hansen is one of my heroes: speaking truth to power. The politicians don't care about truth: they care about power and money - the earth be damned.
We need more scientists, such as Jim Hansen, with the courage to speak out on critical issues that affect everyone.
Stephen Bach, CHARLOTTESVILLE VA, USA
Hansen is wrong... again. There's no way you can stabilise CO2 at 350ppm in the near future. Two reasons:
Natural variability at the present time is causing a background increase in CO2.
The climate system is a chaotic system. Attempting to stabilise one parameter for any length of time will be impossible due to the irrepressible feedbacks from other parameters that modify the parameter you are trying to stabilise.
Even the UN IPCC acknowledges both of these points, so Hansen obviously isn't reading something correctly.
Alex T, Wales,
All I can say about the absolutely naive and angry--but non-legit--statement from the Texas gentleman; is that you dont have a clue, which unfortunately is typical of most Americans who want to ignore anything that will make them change from their lovely middle-class life.
As far as the second gentleman from London, is concerned--please listen to him! I have had the benefit of living in over 10 different climates of the world and its more evident that climates are changing. And they are directly effecting developing countries(which I would like to remind all ultra-non-climate changers, thats where our oil and coal comes from). There is a new term, climate refugees, if that doesnt say something to anyone reading this, well then you are choosing to be blind and there isnt much else anyone can say.....
Ali, Melbourne, Australia
I think Jim Hansen should be fired from NASA. If he wants to be an activist, then thats his own business, but he should not be running around the world being an activist, while also heading up the GISS at NASA. Politics can prejudice a person's Science, and I find it awful interesting that Hansen consistently has the highest temperature anomilies in his data sets, and while being generous with his analysis of the Data, he reveals very little about his source data or his methodology.
Until GISS becomes more transparent, and fires Hansen, I am going to continue to consider GISS a second rate source of information, which is a sad testament to NASA.
johnnyb, Amarillo, TX
Meanwhile, in the print edition, the majority of the page with this piece seems to be dominated for a Tesco ad for cheap petrol - 'Every litre helps'.
Not quite clear as to what, in the circumstances.
Delicious irony?
Peter Martin, Ross on Wye, Herefordshire
dj cleve - Great post.
We have to remember that most scientists who agree with Hansen are on the public payroll, generally through direct government sponsorship. To put it bluntly, expressing doubts about man made global warming would be contrary to their best financial interests.
Those scientists (me included) who aren't tax payer funded are generally the most rational (and honest) in scientific debate. We have no moral judgement to make in our rational and evidence based search for the facts. I'm afraid all the emotional and moral certainty with which Hanson et all put forward their cod scientific theories identifies them as faith based eco cultists. And for some reason, liberals and progressives love the guilt trip fantasy of blame and tax, instead of striving for effective policy.
Tim, London, England
Christians are quick to point out it's better to be saved and find there is no God than not to be and find out there is. By the same logic it would seem these people would want to protect out precious gift of creation. Just in case. Nuclear plants have dangerous waste that must be stored for centuries or until fusion gives us a reason to dig it out of storage. Coal plants put excess trash in our atmosphere for certain. Probably the best one thing we can do for the earth is lead the way to cleaner energy. It couldn't hurt.
missie, dayton, ohio
Reverend Jeff,
I have been, though not a scientist, speaking against global warming. It is a ploy which is in the hands of those
avoiding the obvious culprits. Which could be multiple. However, they are unwilling or unaware to address correctly. I do not believe they are unaware.
Why they would suppress evidences to the contrary and advance global warming as a human sourced problem I could only speculate. But, it could be a spiritual conflict in the heart.
Walter Woodliff, ALAMEDA, Ca.
Boris you said: . If 0.028% didn't engender global warming, why should 0.038% do?
Because it isn't the amount of change that matters it's at the point it takes place. A system changes to absorb the stress put upon it up to a certain point (according to Le Chetalier's principle) and then changes catastrophically. This is true for the flash point of a liquid, a part failing in an engine or a beam collapsing when it surpasses it's load capacity.
A change of 0.001°C in temperature of a flammable liquid might not seem much but at some point that change will put it over its flash point and 'boom', all the Kings horses and all the Kings men.....
I don't know if global warming is a problem or not. It's difficult to predict the weather a week from now never mind climate change in 50 years, but those figures don't disprove it.
John, Paris,
No scientist, including Prof. Hanson, has said that humans are solely responcible for global warming. In fact, every scientist admits that global warming is a natural occuring event that has repeated itself thousands of times in global history before humans came to exist. However, since humans became industrialized the rate of advance towards the next global warming phase has been rapidly pushed forward. Humans are adding to the atmosphere every year what nature would normally take a hundred years to add. In addition, humans are stripping the planet of the very resources that nature uses to offset CO2 emissions by depleting the numbers of forests & other plants nature relies on. Dr. Hanson is correct & anyone with a basic knowledge of science, nature, history can see it if they push aside their biasness & actually look with open eyes & mind.
Guy Salsburg, Orlando, Florida
"Common sense suggests that a change in the density of a compound by a mere 0.01% in any substance is unlikely to result in the cataclysmic outcome of the magnitude the ecochondriacs are predicting."
Common sense suggests a lot of things. It suggests that if a spacecraft travelling at 1/2 lightspeed projects a laser ahead of it at lightspeed the laser will move forward at 1.5 lightspeed. This isn't what happens. Actual understanding of what is going on, sadly for people like Boris, often requires apprehending rather non-intuitive notions such as the fact that small changes can be amplified in their effects in complex systems. Without these kinds of effects Boris would be out of luck since the computer he used to type his drivel is full of transistors where a very small change in control current results in a large change in current through the transistor. This whole thread is just the usual garbage that comes up whenever Hansen is mentioned. Ad hominems, psuedoscience and lies.
Greg, Portland, OR
I appreciate the Big Brother aspect of the story, the plucky way the guy did bait the trap and the expectedly brainless way the Bush administration did leap into it. I'd rather have the Poles, since they are of little use for the raising of corn...nor do they seem pleasant enough for condos...yes, have the Poles fitted with towers, somewhat like the old RKO Studios symbol, with appropriately large heatpump devices at the top, out in space (a great place to gain or lose heat), so that down here someone from the United Nations, the assumption being that the UN can at least agree on what temperature the planet should be) could turn up or down the thermostat for Planet Earth. No one will have to shiver; non will be forced to fan. We can simply zip about in electric cars, munching on gigantic burgers, from international film festival to yet another international film festival...one big, happy, exquisitely comfortable family of nations.
Reverend Jeff, Winston-Salem, NC
Jeff. Ayers, Winston-Salem, US of A/North Carolina
The shy and modest scientist Jim Hansen, who it seems from your item by Jonathan Leake (Climate scientist they could not silence), keeps e-mailing and calling every journalist under the sun, tells us that before we began building factories and behaving badly the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere hovered around 280 ppm. Today, fueled by man's greed and the insensitivity to Mother Earth it reached 380 ppm. This translates into 0.028% then, up to 0.038% now. Common sense suggests that a change in the density of a compound by a mere 0.01% in any substance is unlikely to result in the cataclysmic outcome of the magnitude the ecochondriacs are predicting. If 0.028% didn't engender global warming, why should 0.038% do? Sir Thomas Huxley, who once defined science as the common sense at its best. Rigid accuracy in observation; and merciless to fallacy in logic, must be turning in his grave. A genuine scientist would conclude that some other mechanism must be responsible for global warming,
boris, sudbury, england
To Greg Anderson who demonizes the sold call "radical leftist technophobes" - I live in close proximity to the Indian Point Nuclear Plant and shiver each time the sirens sound - which is frequently.
Nuclear plants are great - providing they are in remote areas where a Chernobyl type accident will not threaten millions.
In my area, democrats, republicans - leftists, rightist and centrists all want the plant shut down.
Can't you folks get past your silly political labels and think?
Marti Cuevas, Pomona, NY
I agree with victor in the bronx sentiments that this reluctance or refusal to recognize global warming as reality is greed based.Its not in the interests of the oil and coal companies to see their profits reduced via widespread use of renewable fuels like biodiesel and ethanol.What was it exxon/mobil made last year in profits ? 45 billion something like ?no no no theyre not giving up so easily .Petroleum products are not just limited to gas and oil . Also coal products are not just limited to burning . They can make some really amazing materials out of oil and coal . There are some "plastics" that are stronger than steel. Since oil and coal are both finite resourses shouldnt we look to make better use of them than simply burning them whereby there gone forever ? very wasteful
sean, Astoria,
Think of all the coal that would still be unmined if radical leftist technophobes hadn't created so much fear of nuclear power in the sixties and seventies. The bulk of global warming can be squarely placed upon their shoulders.
Greg Anderson, Richland, USA / Washington State
This is a Crime aganst Mankind. To do nothing to prevent this from happening is not right. What about the Future. The greed of Money will destroy us all. God help us and the poor creatures who depends on us.
Victor Morris, Bx,New York, Bronx/New York
Hansen has brought the whole of science into disrepute, and silencing him might have improved the rationality of the climate debate.
He also appears to have failed to meet the quality and ethical requirements of his employer. "self-effacing climate change scientist with a worldwide reputation for accurate and high-quality research" is wildly inaccurate.
Go and read http://www.climateaudit.org/
Brian Sherwood Jones, Ayr,
"I used to think that the politicians over here had simply not understood how serious climate change really is,†he says. “Nowadays, however, it is clear they do – but they have just given in.â€
Exactly right - our polititicans are not leaders, not even followers, just facilitators for big money. I wish they would just stop pretending they care and get out of the way. A long holiday in the Maldives perhaps?
John, London,
As a retired,classically,trained physicist,what I find so disturbing about Hansen,et al, is the absolute certainty with which they express themselves.Forecasting the future climate using computer models is a scientific study which by its very nature,needs to be subjected to the most stringent,but constructive examination that is possible.I understand however,that the data required to do this has not always been made available.If this issue is of such great importance for the future of the human race,real scientific cooperation is of the essence,even if some reputations might suffer as a result.
Edward Welsh, Lampeter, Wales
The comments from fdj cleve, Cocoa, FL / USA are of no surprise. It seems to be a standard dismissive answer from a contingent of North Americans who are still in the denial stage. The logic goes that because some scientists had publicised the global climate cooling patterns that take tens of thousands of years then the climatologists now talking of overall rapid warming (that about 99%of them) are all mistaken. We can ignore them because they are clearly mistaken and God won't let it happen. Ha! Ha!
These guys from the USA scare me. They keep chanting this mantra as they stuff down their MacDonald burgers (causing rain forest destruction) whilst driving their mega sized gaz guzzling trucks.
I had hoped for oil prices of 200 dollars a barrel as the cure to their destructive tendency. But now it appears they will embark upon large scale bio-fuel at the expense of the worlds starving.
Maybe the first tipping point will change their minds? If so, the sooner the better.
PM, Malvern , Worcs, UK
I have no doubt Hansen is correct the climate is changing. However can we stop the change or even have any effect on it? The climate on earth has undergone catastrophic changes in the past so we have to ask what triggered these changes it wasnt carbon emissions from industry as there was none. I firmly believe what is happening is evolution, the same thing that has happened for millions of years.
We will have virtually no effect even if we lower our carbon emissions now (which seems increasingly unlikely). We will have to adapt just as we and creatures have in the past, those that do not will die out, these are the rules of evolution.
Alistair, Peterborough, England
As I recall, in the 1970s "Dr." Jim Hansen was kicking up a big fuss about the Ice Age that was coming. That was during the cool part of earth's climate cycle which is about 30 to 35 years long. Of course, he wants to make you think that 1981 was when he got involved with warning of "climate change" but actually it was "global warming" because the warm part of the climate cycle was coming around. Now the cool part of the climate cycle is coming back around so the environmental cultists felt the need to change the words they use to "climate change" and hope that no one remembers. Those who do remember and say something about it will be dealt with in the usual way by these people. You want to know why the separation of church and state is a great idea? Just look at these environmental cultists and their religionism (a new -ism for modern times!) and you should be able to figure it out...
dj cleve, Cocoa, FL / USA
God help us help our children.
Cherie, Blue Springs, MO