How soon till AOC claps back at him?
Climate movement grandpa James Hansen says the Green New Deal is ‘nonsense’
In the 1980s, NASA scientist James Hansen brought climate change to the attention of Congress, and shortly thereafter the public. Humans, he testified in 1988, were responsible for rising global temperatures.
But the man who put his reputation on the line to alert the world to the dangers of global warming doesn’t appear to agree with the most recent crop of climate advocates.
In April 20 debate with Sunrise Movement’s Varshini Prakash and Christian Aid’s Amanda Mukwashi, Hansen called the Green New Deal “nonsense.†(snip)
That tension came to a head when Hansen appeared visibly aggravated by the progressive proposal and Prakash, realizing that one of the most prominent climate scientists in the world was scoffing at her organization’s central focus, could only laugh in disbelief.
It’s not that James doesn’t want many of the things offered by the GND, he just thinks it is nonsense overall. Plus, he wants a carbon tax, which the GND doesn’t call for. Plus, he seems to understand that you can’t just do it all in one go, and that the GND is so far overboard that it’s idiotic.
Green New Deal Would Reward Rich, Hurt Poor
(snipping to end, worth reading everything in between)
If a Green New Deal is ever implemented, says Mills, it would rob the poor by raising energy costs, while “giving money to wealthy people in the form of subsidies to buy $100,000 cars, to put expensive solar arrays on their roofs, or to be investors in wind farms.â€
“It’s upside-down Robin Hood,†he adds. “That’s a bad deal.â€
Kinda like how Obama rewarded all his donors with loans for “green” projects with the Stimulus.
Here’s another take ion CO2.
https://youtu.be/BC1l4geSTP8
Kye: Here’s another take ion CO2.
Misleading.
1) The vast majority of the atmosphere doesn’t interact with infrared, so can be ignored. Carbon dioxide, even though it is a tiny proportion of the atmosphere, represents about 20% of the greenhouse effect. Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth’s mean surface temperature would be a chilly -18°C rather than the balmy +15°C that it is. Without the greenhouse effect, the oceans would be permanently frozen.
2) The increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide due to human emissions has been from about 270 ppm to 405 ppm, meaning human emissions have increased atmospheric carbon dioxide by 50%.
3) The “recycling” refers to specific molecules, which are constantly exchanged with the hydrosphere and biosphere. However, the residence time of the net increase is measured in decades. We know this because we know how much humans are emitting and we know how much of the excess has accumulated in the atmosphere.
z,
Once again your tired old worn out junk. Assume everything you say is true, which is a stretch. Show how enormous taxes and global communism will help with CO2 other than a total ruin of our way of life. Then, China and India have a huge CO2 foot print but they are not effected by your religion.
david7134: Assume everything you say is true, which is a stretch.
The radiative properties of atmospheric gases are well known, and easily tested.
david7134: Show how enormous taxes and global communism will help with CO2 other than a total ruin of our way of life.
It won’t take enormous taxes. Indeed, it may not take any additional net taxes, as carbon taxes can take the place of other forms of taxation.
david7134: China and India have a huge CO2 foot print
Sure. That’s the key. Economic growth has to continue while adapting to the new energy infrastructure. It’s not as hard a problem as people make it out to be. There will be some climate and ecological damage, but the worst effects can be avoided by moving towards a low-carbon future.
Z,
Now, everything you have commented on is either a lie, obfrucation, distortion, or a complete lack of knowledge and understanding of science and economics. I find this to be true of all the adherents to your religious belief. Instead of seeking a political solution to your imaginary problem, why not search for other means of reducing CO2? But when this is suggested, believers in your religion go crazy and indicate it is impossible. That seems very strange and is compatible with other more nefarious goals than elimination of fossil fuels. Maybe to convince nonbelievers would be to observe individuals in your sect making the necessary sacrifices to live their lives without modern benefits. But I don’t see Gore and others doing this in the least. In fact, as time goes by a number of scientist are withdrawing support for the climate change concepts. And it is appearing to be more of a hoax.
david7134: Instead of seeking a political solution to your imaginary problem, why not search for other means of reducing CO2?
There may be a technological solution. Did you have a suggestion? Otherwise, markets are the most powerful force for technological innovation. Placing the social cost of carbon emissions on emitters would incentivize markets to create and adapt technology to reducing emissions.
david7134: Maybe to convince nonbelievers would be to observe individuals in your sect making the necessary sacrifices to live their lives without modern benefits.
That ignores our position entirely. Rather, the problem is to allow continued economic growth and technological innovation while transitioning the energy infrastructure. Such growth and innovation isn’t just something people want and need, but essential to solving the problem.
Quote: “The radiative properties of atmospheric gases are well known, and easily tested.”
As are the thermal expansion coefficients of many materials.
Yet, the AGW shysters keep telling us (despite a long history of demonstrated, and repeatable, testing to prove the science) that a thermometer’s reading can’t be trusted, but has to be adjusted before we can know what temperature it really “measured”.
aporitic: Yet, the AGW shysters keep telling us (despite a long history of demonstrated, and repeatable, testing to prove the science) that a thermometer’s reading can’t be trusted, but has to be adjusted before we can know what temperature it really “measuredâ€.
Actually, adjustments are made for a variety of reasons. For instance, if a weather station had been making their reading in the morning, then switched to afternoons, this creates a discontinuity in the temperature trend. If the weather station is moved or instrumentation is changed, this can also create a discontinuity.
Do you agree with Dr. Hansen on global warming?
Hansen, on the other hand, seems to argue for a more economically incremental approach that is centered on a carbon tax.
“We should be phasing down emissions now,†he said, which seems like a bit of an understatement considering he’s been advocating for decreased emissions for the last, oh, four decades. “If we do that, we will get a little bit warmer than we are now, and then temperature(s) can begin to decline,†he said, adding that we will have to phase out fossil fuels over the “next several decades†in order to accomplish this goal.
It’s still all based on lies, so I don’t care what approach any of these clowns wants.
Wiz,
You are such a clown! Can you tell us which lies you mean?
Is the Earth warming? Yes. This is a fact.
Is atmospheric CO2 increasing? Yes. This is a fact.
Is the increase in atmospheric CO2 from burning fossil fuels? Yes. This is a fact.
Does atmospheric CO2 retard the loss of infrared radiation into space? Yes. This is a fact.
The increase is atmospheric CO2 is causing the Earth to warm. The debate is around how we slow or stop it. (Pro tip: It doesn’t require economy killing taxes or communism.)
“Causing the earth to warmâ€. “Actually, adjustments are made for a variety of reasonsâ€. Actually, most of the warming is due to adjustments. https://realclimatescience.com/2017/05/the-wildly-fraudulent-tobs-temperature-adjustment/
jl typed: “…most of the warming is due to adjustments.”
I thought you finally admitted that the Earth WAS warming? Have a change of heart?
How does faked warming cause ice to melt? Is arctic ice fooled by the IPCC?
Jl: Actually, most of the warming is due to adjustments.
“the net effect of adjustments is to reduce, not increase, the amount of warming that we’ve experienced over the past century.”
http://berkeleyearth.org/nature-not-noaa-ended-the-slowdown-in-temperatures/
No, it’s not a fact. It’s a lie based on data proven to be faked.
Atmospheric CO2 is consumed in photosynthesis. There’s a fact.
And atmospheric CO2 does not retard the loss of infrared radiation into space because it’s a heavy gas. There’s another fact.
The debate is around how we slow or stop it.
Then you’ve lost it because nobody but a clique of Commies buys this nonsense.
Elwood P. Dowd: Do you agree with Dr. Hansen on global warming?
Generally, yes. Economic growth and technological innovation are required to respond to the problem of global warming and climate change. The developing world has as much right to the fruits of industrialization as anyone else. However, ignoring the problem will result in a loss of economic growth over the long run. That’s the fundamental problem that needs to be solved.
An incremental approach whereby the costs of carbon are gradually applied to emitters seems to be the best approach. Businesses will then develop new technologies to avoid emissions over time.
“We should be phasing down emissions now,†he said, which seems like a bit of an understatement considering he’s been advocating for decreased emissions for the last, oh, four decades. “If we do that, we will get a little bit warmer than we are now, and then temperature(s) can begin to decline,†he said, adding that we will have to phase out fossil fuels over the “next several decades†in order to accomplish this goal.
The author of the latest IPCC assessment calls this hogwash. Go read what he has to say.
You start with the false premise that there’s a problem. What might that problem be?
“ How does fake warming cause the ice to melt?†How do colder temps and lower CO2 at the beginning of the last century cause ice to melt? https://realclimatescience.com/2016/01/disappearing-glaciers/
Generally, yes. Economic growth and technological innovation are required to respond to the problem of global warming and climate change. The developing world has as much right to the fruits of industrialization as anyone else. However, ignoring the problem will result in a loss of economic growth over the long run. That’s the fundamental problem that needs to be solved.
Explain what will happen if the planet warms 1.5 degree C over the next 100 years that will deprive industrial nations of the fruits of their labor. This is scaremongering and not rooted in facts at all.
Please explain how a warmer planet is going to destroy the worlds economies?
Mangoldielocks: Please explain how a warmer planet is going to destroy the worlds economies?
Warming could easily be 2-3°C. The warmer climate will disrupt agriculture, inundate coastal areas, and cause increased migration. This won’t “destroy” the world’s economies, but will be economically costly, as well as ecologically damaging. Nonetheless, humans will adapt. As the problem is foreseeable and largely preventable, humans will mitigate the extent of the problem.
I thought you finally admitted that the Earth WAS warming? Have a change of heart?
How does faked warming cause ice to melt? Is arctic ice fooled by the IPCC?
Anybody wanna bet he never did anything of the sort?
Jeffery just loves to assume (or just lie) and, when you assume, you make an ass of u in front of me.
Not to change the subject, but remember the Notre dame fire and how Jeffery insisted his Moslems weren’t at fault?
Well, Benjamin Mouton says otherwise. He explained that the oak timbers that made up the cathedral’s roof had become hardened after more than 800 years and wouldn’t burn easily.
“You would need a lot of kindling to succeed,†said Mouton, who served as the chief architect from 2000 to 2013. “It stupefies me.â€
Authorities suspect some type of electrical fire sparked the blaze, but Mouton believes that’s not possible.
“In the ’90s, we updated all the electrical wiring of Notre Dame. So there is no possibility of a short circuit,†he said. “We updated to conform with the contemporary norms, even going very far – all the detection and protection systems against fire in the cathedralâ€.
A bells specialist at the French Ministry of Culture, Regis Singer, said it’s plausible that the fire started in the bells in the spire.
But Nicolas Gueury, who electrified another set of bells in the cathedral in 2007, told the Times he thought about that possibility but has ruled it out.
“For me, this would be impossible,†he said, pointing out that numerous redundant safeguards, including circuit breakers and shielding, were installed.
“It was draconian. We tripled the precautions,†he said.
“We were all hyper-prudent. You don’t do just anything in the forest,†he said, referring to the medieval timbers that supported the roof. “It was hyper-securitizedâ€.
A contractor admitted last Wednesday that workers renovating the cathedral flouted a ban on smoking. But he insisted “in no way could a cigarette butt be the cause of the fire at Notre-Dameâ€.
Ol’ Dutch typed: Benjamin Mouton… blah, blah, blah…
“But fire safety experts said that Mr. Mouton and his team underestimated the risk — and that the fire response they designed was far too slow to fight a blaze in time.
“It doesn’t make any sense,†said Jonathan Barnett, a fire safety authority at Basic Expert in Australia. “Twenty minutes is a huge delay before you get people involved. Once that heavy timber starts to burn, you can’t put it out. So I have no idea why they built in this delay.â€
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/19/world/europe/notre-dame-fire-safety.html
So Benjamin Mouton says it’s not his fault! Surprising.
Nicolas Gueury, who did all the electrical renovations, says it’s not his fault! Surprising.
The contractor in charge of renovations says it’s not his fault! Surprising.
Based on these denials, this proves to Ol’ Dutch that it had to be Muslims that set Notre Dame on fire!!
You must have been a detective in a past life!!