By Dr. Fred Singer

Dr. James Hansen, chief of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City, came to Washington on June 18 at the invitation of Congressman Ed Markey (D-Mass) to recreate his famous testimony of the hot, drought-stricken summer of 1988.  In this testimony, presided over by Senator Tim Wirth, he had claimed, with 99 percent certainty, that global warming (GW) was manmade; it had a lot to do with starting the craze of climate catastrophism.  At that time, Hansen predicted huge temperature increases and apocalyptic consequences, such as sea level rise and catastrophic weather events, unless we stopped burning fossil fuels to generate energy. 

It was this hype that led me, first to publish an op-ed article in the Wall Street Journal, then a more detailed article (with oceanographer Roger Revelle and energy expert Chauncey Starr), and finally to studies which concluded that climate change was caused by natural forces rather than by man’s emission of greenhouse gases. Twenty years later, we find that temperatures have hardly increased—in fact they have been falling in the last ten years—and that sea level is nowhere near the levels predicted.  None of this has diminished Hansen’s stature as a “prophet” to “true believers” in GW.  The acolytes of Al Gore consider Hansen to be the oracle of climate science and have adopted his views uncritically.  He himself has not wavered; he now claims certainty “exceeding 99 percent.”

But Hansen has become delusional and this has affected his science adversely.  He is possessed by the idea of a “tipping point” - an irreversible change in climate.  He is also completely out of step with the “mainstream,” defined as the UN-sponsored group of climate experts, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), who also assert that the cause of climate change is mostly human.  Hansen is certainly in complete disagreement with the growing number of “climate skeptics,” who believe that the cause is mostly natural. It has become impossible to carry on a scientific discussion with Hansen.  His belief in climate catastrophes has reached a religious fervor; he sees himself as a lone figure, “muzzled” by evil forces, while “crying in the wilderness.” In his appearance in Washington last month he called for oil executives to be tried for “high crimes against humanity and nature.” It is Hansen, and people like him who are spreading disinformation by demonizing carbon dioxide, an innocuous gas and natural component of the atmosphere.  Strangely, we support his suggestion for a trial because it would allow the whole matter to be brought into a court of law where evidence has to be produced and cross-examination is permitted.  This may be the only way to stop the climate alarmism and quasi-religious movement of which Hansen has been a prime instigator. See English translation of this Italian Newspaper story here.

Icecap Note: Thanks to SPPI for this Hansen letter to Japanese Prime Minister. Hansen continues acting as international lobbyist and crusader again hydrocarbons. Pity he is so muzzled by the Bush Administration.

By Thomson Finanical on Hemscott

The UN’s top climate change official said Thursday that record oil prices, which have surged to $146 a barrel, were positive for the environment. ‘I think they are a net positive. First of all you see that through decreasing demand in Europe and North America where people are becoming much more conscious of petrol prices,’ Yvo de Boer told Agence France-Presse. ‘High oil prices also improve the competitiveness of renewable sources of energy and make it more interesting to focus on energy efficiency,’ he added. De Boer, who heads the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), noted however that high prices also made heavy forms of crude oil, which take energy-intensive extracting and refining, more attractive.

‘There is a risk that as dirty forms of oil become commercially more attractive that would lead to an increase in emissions,’ he said. One such worry is the Canadian tar sands, a dense mixture of sand, water and petroleum used to extract bitumen, which are controversial because of the environmental impact of extracting and refining the mixture. Experts say the tar sands are only viable if world oil prices remain high. There has been a surge in interest for the resources, however, given the possibility of a major source of oil from a stable country such as Canada. The head of India’s state oil company said Thursday that India could invest up to $10 billion dollars in the tar sands in the future. See more here.

First, do you know what ANWR is? ANWR = Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Now, a comparison (ANWR in orange, drill area in yellow):

And some perspective.

The parts of ANWR they show you in pictures.

The real ANWR coastal plain where drilling is proposed.

But what about the effect on the wildlife?

Read the real story in words and pictures here.

The USGS estimates that there is a 95 percent probability (a 19 in 20 chance) that at least 5.7 billion barrels of oil may be technically recoverable from the ANWR Coastal Plain of the Alaska North Slope. The original oil in place corresponding to this recovery is at least 15.6 billion barrels. EIA scheduled daily production rates for postulated yearly development rates of 250 and 400 million barrels per year. The production rate peaks at 650,000 barrels per day for the development of 250 million barrels per year and at 800,000 barrels per day for the 400 million barrels per year development case. Geologists say there could be less or much more.