.

Saturday, March 15, 2014

Hansen: "This is game over" and Anthony Watts tells a big fat lie!

Sou | 4:32 AM Go to the first of 4 comments. Add a comment

Anthony Watts is on a roll of misrepresentation.  He's just finished misrepresenting Dr Lawrence Torcello and I see that he's also been misrepresenting Dr James Hansen.  This time a small number of his followers don't let him get away with it.

What Anthony wrote (archived here):
Even Dr. James Hansen doesn’t  believe Keystone XL itself will significantly increase greenhouse gas emissions

What James Hansen said:
This is game over if you don’t understand; that we have to leave that extremely large amount of carbon in the ground.
Looking more like Mordor than planet earth - Canadian tar sands mines larger than Greater Manchester dominate the landscape next to the Athabasca River, with no proven way to reclaim the boreal forest. Oil sands are a mixture of bitumen and sand. The province of Alberta has proven reserves of 174 billion barrels of oil, second in size only to Saudi Arabia. (WWF)
Credit: © Rezac / WWF-UK Source: WWF-UK


Here's a transcript of what James Hansen said:
I’m glad you asked me that question because my comment continues to be misinterpreted.
My first chart showed how much carbon there is in conventional oil and gas and in coal and in the unconventional fossil fuels. It has been clear that conventional oil and gas are limited. We’re probably close to peak-oil for conventional oil. So the science was clear that we cannot burn all the coal, we’re going to have to phase that out. And that’s a solvable problem because coal is used mainly for electricity production and we can generate electricity in other ways including nuclear power, which is carbon-free.
Then there is this other huge source of carbon, the unconventional fossil fuels. And my statement was that if we are going to now open up that other source: unconventional fossil fuels. That’s what tar sands are: the first big step into that unconventional fossil fuels.  But the science tells us we can’t do that. We’re screwing our children and grandchildren and all the young people in future generations if we think we can use those, that unconventional fossil fuels.
The science is crystal clear on that and the world is just ignoring the science. The scientists are saying ‘wait you can’t do that,’ and that’s what I was saying.
This is game over if you don’t understand; that we have to leave that extremely large amount of carbon in the ground. 


The odd thing is that Anthony Watts posted the video and the transcript of what James Hansen said, and yet Anthony wrote that James Hansen said something completely different.  Here is the video:




Anthony then wrote the complete opposite of what Dr Hansen said, followed by a quote from Senator Menendez, who disagreed with James Hansen:

So not even James Hansen, the very person Keystone XL opponents quote incessantly, believes that Keystone XL itself will significantly increase greenhouse gas emissions.
But that’s not all.  Senator Menendez followed up on Hansen’s clarification, offering yet another blow to Keystone XL opponents.  As he explained,
“So I now have the greater definition.  I just personally don’t think that the approval or disapproval of the pipeline is a decline in global leadership, nor do I believe that the specific approval or disapproval is necessarily game over. I understand what you’re saying, there is a broader context which is whether you have access to this fuel and you start down that road. I just wanted to refine this as it relates to the question before the committee, which is the question of approval of the pipeline.”

Is Anthony just a bit slow, brain dead from protesting climate science? Or perhaps he thinks his readers are brain dead and will believe him rather than read what James Hansen actually said.


From the WUWT comments


Many of the WUWT-ers weren't buying what Anthony wrote this time around.


davidmhoffer says:
March 13, 2014 at 3:33 pm
We’re screwing our children and our grandchildren and all the young people in future generations if we think we can use those unconventional fossil fuels.
I’m not certain how that differs from “game over”?


parisparamus says:
March 13, 2014 at 3:58 pm
Am I stupid, or is there no money quote in that video or this post. What does “game over” mean per the global moroning crowd? And what did Hansen say to upset that? Can someone verify my stupidity (or disprove it), please?
By the way, the global moroning folk want “game over” to mean that if KXL would represent 0.33% of oil pipelines in North America, so I don’t understand how this cuts big either way.


Some of the WUWT-ers are almost brain dead, and are trying hard to accommodate Anthony's misrepresentation with what James Hansen said:

Grant A. Brown says:
March 13, 2014 at 3:42 pm
The point here seems to be that Keystone itself does not spell “game over,” but rather tapping into all of the unconventional oil and gas in the world would spell game over, and Keystone is the first step down that path.


While others are as brain dead as Anthony Watts. Col Mosby says:
March 13, 2014 at 5:01 pm
Let’s see now…. Hansen and colleagues first demand that nuclear power be used in place of “useless” renewables, and now no longer opposes the pipeline. I wonder how long before the greenie weenies come to the realization that Hansen is a “denier” and traitor to the cause?
When he demands that Obama , rather than himself, be handcuffed at the White House, they
may finally see the light. At last. Then Greenpeace will immediately make him a non-person. etc. etc. 

There were also the usual mish-mash, with some people boasting about how selfish they are and others showing that "all scientists look alike".


fhhaynie says he'll happily trade the future of the human race for burning fossil fuels now:
March 13, 2014 at 4:07 pm
When it comes to deciding between protecting our grandchildren from a possible degree rise in global temperature some time in the distant future and meeting our present day energy needs, most of us favor the latter. Smart politicians recognize that and will vote accordingly. “Game over”.


clark can't tell a Mann from a Hansen and says:
March 13, 2014 at 4:04 pm
So if I understand this correctly, Mann said it was game over if this oil came out of the ground and his opposition was to keep that from happening. But, it has become clear over the past few years that the oil will be put on the market no matter what. I think that is Obama’s way out of this. He says, “If not building the pipeline would keep the oil in the ground, I would oppose it, but since there is nothing we can do to stop it, I believe it should be delivered Americans in as safe and economically as possible”.


albertalad argues over terminology "tar sands" vs "oil sands" vs "bituminous sands" and says:
March 13, 2014 at 4:29 pm
tally says:
Man – there is no such thing as tar sands. Tar is a man made product. We do NOT mine tar. Never have.


Pat Frank tries to be "sciency", talking about "kinetic energy" and "sensible heat" and says:
March 13, 2014 at 5:24 pm
Hansen: “We’re screwing our children and our grandchildren [if we] use those unconventional fossil fuels. The science is crystal clear on that…
This is the crux of his thinking, but the science is no better than murky on that. Consensus greenhouse thinking is that all the extra kinetic energy produced by industrial CO2 ends up as sensible heat in the atmosphere and the oceans, as though the climate had no other channels of response. It is an utterly half-cocked idea.


Greg White goes through various mental contortions (distortions?) and says:
March 13, 2014 at 5:50 pm
Honest question; if Hansen is advocating nuclear energy as a solution to “global warming” this tells me that he is not a “no growth, lower energy, regressive” environmentalist. Is there a chance he fully understands the non-science of CAGW, but is using it as a tool to promote nuclear to the die-hard 60/70′s generation environmentalists? I feel that is what “Pandora’s Promise” is doing.


And a couple of comments after Greg has pointed out that Dr Hansen is favouring nuclear energy, David L. Hagen says:
March 13, 2014 at 6:01 pm
Hansen makes a perceptive comment: . We’re probably close to peak-oil for conventional oil. . . .we have to leave that extremely large amount of carbon in the ground.”
And yet no solution to provide replacement fuel in time. Consequently he appears seeking to shut down our economy.


In among the utter nutters there is one person whose brain still functions.  Fred Blackstone says:
March 13, 2014 at 6:13 pm
Only the WUWT lemmings could interpret Hansen’s position as pro pipeline

4 comments:

  1. "Is there a chance he fully understands the non-science of CAGW, but is using it as a tool to promote nuclear to the die-hard 60/70′s generation environmentalists?"

    I laughed out loud reading Greg White's comment. It's more like James Hansen is the godfather of global warming.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ahhh, shouldn't that title read "...and Anthony Watts tells YET ANOTHER big fat lie!"

    ;- }

    ReplyDelete
  3. Actually, you are citing what James Hansen said to explain what he said. Why not just cite to what he actually said in the first place?

    http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110603_SilenceIsDeadly.pdf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the link, Anonymous. You missed the point of my article though. It was in part about how Anthony Watts misrepresented what James Hansen said at that particular hearing.

      You are correct in that James Hansen essentially repeated what he has said before, unlike what Anthony wrote.

      Delete

Instead of commenting as "Anonymous", please comment using "Name/URL" and your name, initials or pseudonym or whatever. You can leave the "URL" box blank. This isn't mandatory. You can also sign in using your Google ID, Wordpress ID etc as indicated. NOTE: Some Wordpress users are having trouble signing in. If that's you, try signing in using Name/URL or OpenID. Details here.

Click here to read the HotWhopper comment policy.