Subscription Center
Jun 25, 2009 11:00 AM | 30
James Hansen, NASA's chief climate scientist, was arrested Tuesday while protesting against mountaintop coal mining in West Virginia.
Hansen was taking part in a demonstration organized by the Rainforest Action Network and that included actress Daryl Hannah, 94-year-old former Representative Ken Hechler (D-WV), and noted environmentalist Judy Bonds. He was one of 31 people cited and released for blocking traffic and obstructing an officer on a road near Massey Energy Company's Goals Coal plant, the Associated Press reported.
Coal miners were apparently miffed by the demonstration, preventing the protesters from trespassing as they had planned, and shouting for them to "Go home."
Hansen has criticized President Barack Obama for not tightening restrictions on the mining practice. "I am not a politician; I am a scientist and a citizen," Hansen said in a statement. "Mountaintop removal, providing only a small fraction of our energy, should be abolished."
The 68-year-old physicist is profiled in this week's issue of The New Yorker as a crusader who believes that if the world's coal plants are not shut down in the next twenty years, the planet is headed towards climate disaster. Thirty years ago, Hansen developed one of the world's first climate models, nicknamed Model Zero, and became one of the most outspoken critics of the George W. Bush White House for distorting and suppressing climate science. Notably, he is also opposed to the cap-and-trade system currently before Congress, because it will allow the construction of new coal plants.
Today, a Senate subcommittee is holding a hearing on the impact of mountaintop removal on water quality in Appalachia.
Image of James Hansen being arrested courtesy Rainforest Action Network
More News Blog: Next: Changing ocean chemistry might jam fish ears Previous: Cancer joins threats to wildlife
See what we're tweeting about
Deadline: Jul 30 2013
Reward: $100,000 USD
The Seeker desires a method for producing pseudoephedrine products in such a way that it will be extremely difficult for clandestine che
Deadline: Jul 15 2013
Reward: $5,000 USD
SciBX: Science-Business eXchange, a joint publication from the makers
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
30 Comments
Add CommentWell, obviously, he was paid to do this. Just like he is paid to do everything else.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince he cares so much about the environment, he must be making up his data. It makes no sense that he would find that the environment is tanking through his research and then become an activist. He was an activist first.
This proves global warming is a lie because he's in charge.
Well, looks like Shoshin is converting some followers of his religion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI guess you finally found your holy grail. Proof that global warming is a lie...and it didn't even take any proof or statistics...just one person's opinion on another...quite rigorous. The head of the conspiracy is in jail. You can all rest and go home now, the planet should cool in no time since he isn't at the helm to keep pushing the button to melt the glaciers.
I nominate sonOfShoshin to be senator from Oklahoma.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA second Shoshin and Hansen arrested. What a bunch of meaningless junk people are going to have to deal with...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisand the earth is flat, as I am sure Shoshin would agree; furthermore, since i am the exact centre of the world, what i say goes. Over the past decade, Canadian farmers have had to switch from cold-tolerant wheat to canola (rape seed). Could changing agricultural practices be a sign of global warming? I am glad to learn it is all a conspiracy--i can put my head back in the sand.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHe must be "making up his data" because he's an activist? In what reality do you live? He's the head of a NASA division, if he were "making up data" I think someone would notice.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you suggesting that all "activists" "make up data?" You must be accusing every scientists who concurs with Hansen of doing the same then (thousands of scientists worldwide)? Activists (like me) get our data from scientists, we don't "make it up." Deniers like you get your "data" from internet junk-science websites and Faux News.
What does getting paid for your job have to do with the validity of your passion and findings? Does space not exist simply because those scientists studying it are "paid" to do so? Ridiculous.
Since when is Hansen "in charge?"
Sigh. Objectivity is out the window in this discussion... Certainly this man isn't open to new evidence even though his climate astrology, err, "models" have been wrong and have not correctly predicted the climate patterns of the last two decades. Regardless, from the mainstream "scientific press" the validity of these models will be assumed, because that is the bandwagon where the money is. Really rather pathetic when you take a closer look.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey ALL know what's going on, and the're in on it too. It's all about money and jobs. If they don't have this to work on, they lose. What, are they going to predict the weather? Ha! As if that EVER worked. They have no way o f knowing what is planned for us. Hansen started the whole thing and fed it to Gore, who could keep him employed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEver think that the canola industry is in on it too, UELinMexico? Changing agricultural practices is a sign of people making money.
I am happier getting my informatino from the patriots who care about by backyard than from liberal hippies who want to walk around in a purple haze talking about the sky falling. They have my best interests in mind.
Pandonodrim, space exists because we can touch it. We can't even feel global warming. A few glaciers are growing, too. AGW fails because not everything is warming. That's why they have to fake the data.
If you look at the data, you can see the sun's effects. The sun has been getting hotter all century. What 11 year cycle? That's a hoax made up to purport that the sun is meaningless. There is no 11 year cycle in the temperature record. It's on some other cycle.
agenthucky, I just follow Shoshin because he says stuff that I believe already. I didn't join a religion. I already have a religion, one that by the way, says that God will not let us perish.
candide, I don't know about senator, but can I count on your support for city council? They need my point of view.
popsciskeptic:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's right, they were only in the margin of error. That's not good enough! The "physics" and "chemistry" and "radiation" in these models are just a bunch of numbers with no real meaning. Sometimes they get lucky.
And you're right about the mainstream press, too. That's another industry that's profiting. The models aren't right because of the faulty science behind them, it just looks like that because the media says so.
I'm open to the new evidence. Lay it on me! Let's uproot the conspiracy.
sonOFShoshin wrote,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"They ALL know what's going on, and the're in on it too. It's all about money and jobs. If they don't have this to work on, they lose."
LOL, apparently you don't know anything about science, or how scientists get their money. Fortunately for the science community, they all largely have their heads screwed on straight. And fortunately for the rest of the world, scientists are not paid very much or the power/money hungry situation you think is going on may actually become possible. If you're going to gripe about data and or theories...fine. Do so from a scientific standpoint with sources to back up your theories/statements. Your silly conspiracy theory makes you look like nothing more than the village idiot shouting any nonsense that pops into your head. Show some sense of understanding the fundamentals of climate science, and some may take you seriously.
You also wrote,
"The "physics" and "chemistry" and "radiation" in these models are just a bunch of numbers with no real meaning. Sometimes they get lucky."
You're right, all numbers have no real meaning...You show that you have absolutely no idea how models parameters are chosen and improved. Even for Shoshin, I'm not sure he'd be thrilled to have you as his follower.
You wrote,
"I'm open to the new evidence. Lay it on me! Let's uproot the conspiracy."
You already have a preconceived notion that there's a conspiracy which isn't founded in any form of scientific fact. So to convince you otherwise will be pretty hard being that you already believe there's a conspiracy despite the vast majority of scientific publications that confirm the theory of AGW.
But why is there no 11 year cycle in the temperature record?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI love you guys. I must be making an impression for you to view me a such a massive threat to your religion, seeing as now your Pope is in the slammer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe larger question is why does SCIAM even bother covering this political melodrama?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd yes, my son.... he has been known to cook his data.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy is Mr. Hansen’s political activity being reported under the heading of “60 Second Science”?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou have no idea what you are talking about.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou have no idea what you're talking about. Get an education -- from scientific data instead of only from questionable internet sites.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLets say for sake of argument that Hansen model was/is an honest attempt to evaluate the situation (climate modeling) and explore the possible outcomes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHe could be mostly right or mostly wrong (in deference to shades of grey or various other anomalies).
If he is mostly right, then we really need to move away from fossil fuels and if we followed this path - goodness, or if not disaster (near term - unless you don't care about our children).
Whereas if he is mostly wrong and we don't follow this path (to use of renewal resources), - goodness for a while and then disaster (due to limited supplies of fossil fuels - be it 10's of 100's of years), or if he is wrong and we do follow this path, a short term economic adjustment (One generation), a reduction in foreign energy purchases and a slew of new business (aka technologies and jobs) related to renewal resources (taking potential current and future negatives out of the equation).
Best option: Eliminate the negatives (700 B for oil (aka eventual bankruptcy for USA), global warming, sea rise, political instability) and have some faith in our ability to rebound quickly.
Dr. Hansen could spend his time more constructively by camping out on Capitol Hill and protesting the proposed "Cap and Trade" legislation which he has stated is a "fraud" designed only to create more millionaires on Wall Street. Albert
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHilarious, I can't get over this insane argument about "scientists are orchestrating the greatest global scam in history just to make some more money."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYet all the talking points people like you come up with are straight from junk science and Faux News anchors. Both of which are backed by people who are actually motivated by profit and greed (unlike the scientists): big industrial energy corporations.
Pathetic.
The "sun is to blame" myth has long been debunked. The graph that deniers use only goes up to the seventies, showing the supposed "correlation" between sun activity and global temperature change. Since the seventies sun activity has scaled back (we should be seeing cooling if the sun is driving it) but instead global temperatures have continued to rise. 2005 was the hottest year on record. 5 of the hottest years ever recorded have been in the last 10 years. That's the science. That's the truth.
Go peddle your propaganda elsewhere (youtube perhaps?). People here actually know a thing or two.
I am smelling Denier sock puppetry.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is that supposed to mean? I am no one's puppet. I just like the way he thinks. Or at least I thought I did before I got all of these responses. Now, I don't know what to think.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou guys are being seriously trolled. I just want you to know that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, I can't stop laughing on the inside.
ha
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with galaxy_man... don't bite... it'll just feed
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thispandonodrim:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour arguments considering the sun's activity are dated and false. The issue is not total solar irradiance, and True Believers who keep bringing up that argument are Deniers themselves. The issue is not the total energy from the sun, it is the composition of the energy, which has changed.
The issue is that the lack of sunspots lessen the shielding effect of the earth from cosmic rays. The increase in cosmic rays spawn more clouds, which results in cooler temperatures (it is self-evident that cloudy days are cooler than clear days, unless the True Believers want to Deny that as well). I'm not sure where you live, but it's the last several years have been cooler and cloudier in my part of the world.
Unfortunately, it's that simple. Fewer sunspots, colder weather, more sunspots, warmer weather. And the historical data back that up.
Maybe Hansen should be indicted as a co-conspirator in Carbongate:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/25/online-global-warming-study-censored-by-epa/
By the way, love how GISS is now cooking the historic temperature data to create a recent warming event. Very nice. Madoff got 150 years for cooking his books, but all he stole was $50 billion. What will these guys get for a $ trillion in taxpayer money going sideways? A pension.
schmurry-mooseness
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFeeding is over, the bloated AGW carcass is now festering and stinking.
Pandonodrim:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo you think deriding people who disagrees makes you seem right?
You said:
2005 was the hottest year on record. 5 of the hottest years ever recorded have been in the last 10 years
Temperatures have only been accurately recorded for the last 50 years. Where do you get your data previous to that period?
I consider myself a skeptic, but also a person who is open minded enough to listen to scientific arguments on both sides. I once read an article regarding the maximum temp rise that CO2 could cause, and it wasnt very much. I have not been able to find anything that counters the argument presented; so here it is, please let me know what you think...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. CO2 warms the Earth by absorbing heat radiated from the planet
2. the "heat" that it can absorb represents a very small wavelength section of the EM spectrum
3. even with an infinite amount of CO2, and therefore absorbing 100% of the available energy found in those wavelengths, there would only be a temp change of a few degs (I cant remember the exact numbers but I believe it was 2-3 deg F)