Saturday, April 14, 2012

Global warming is about slavery

Dr. Hansen, with much to smile about

Climate alarmist James Hansen compares the AGW issue to slavery:

Averting the worst consequences of human-induced climate change is a "great moral issue" on a par with slavery, according to the leading Nasa climate scientist Prof Jim Hansen. 
He argues that storing up expensive and destructive consequences for society in future is an "injustice of one generation to others". 
Hansen, who will next Tuesday be awarded the prestigious Edinburgh Medal for his contribution to science, will also in his acceptance speech call for a worldwide tax on all carbon emissions.
Hansen, a NASA big-wig and winner of countless awards for his courage and scientific acumen, has been soaking up the cash (1.6 million in fees and awards as of November 2011) and not reporting it as he is required to do so by law.

He has been harshly critical of the motives of unpaid skeptics who ask questions about global warming science.

Hansen's scientific skills fall somewhat short of his award-winning skills. In 1986 he predicted:

“Within 15 years,” said Goddard Space Flight Honcho James Hansen, “global temperatures will rise to a level which hasn’t existed on earth for 100,000 years”.

The AGW controversy is about slavery. It is about whether humanity will be subject to a "worldwide tax" on the gas we exhale, and whether we will be subject to the rule of junk-scientists and politicians and green investors who assure us that granting them trillions of dollars and unprecedented power over every aspect of our lives is the only way to save the planet.

The proper response of free people to this unprecedented attempt at enslavement is quite venerable


  1. He look$ like a guy who will go with the flow! Some have no shame...

    1. "He look$ like a guy who will go with the flow! Some have no shame..."

      Pepe, judging a book by its cover? Very un-christian

  2. Correction: $ome have no $hame...

  3. and not reporting it as he is required to do so by law.

    Another Egnor lie? Who knows? It's hard to keep up with the volume of lies.

  4. Michael,

    This is the last time I'll be commenting (or even looking at your blog).

    I've been reading your blog with fascination, wondering how an intelligent person can look at (sort of) the same data I'm looking at, and come to a bizarre diametrically opposite conclusion to that I reach.

    After reading the book you so strongly recommended last week Chris Mooney's 'the Republican Brain', I have come to realize the reason, so I won't need to waste further time reading your blog.

    On the 5-dimension personality traits OCEAN (openness, conscienceness, extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism), liberals score highly in openness to new ideas and ability to nuance and low in conscienceness, whereas conservatives are the reverse.

    Conservatives like to see the world in black and white, don't like to nuance, once they make up their minds, they don't like to change it when confronted with conflicting data.

    Describes you perfectly.

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    2. Bach,

      "This is the last time I'll be commenting (or even looking at your blog)."
      I guess this is goodbye then. The regular philosophical trouncing was too much? Perhaps the scientific 'heresy'?
      No mind.
      I wish you only well.

      A final note, then:
      Interesting you should make reference to 5 dimensions, when you seem to see these heartfelt beliefs of yours in 2. You accuse Dr Egnor of seeing all in black and white then go on to use some bunk psychological model/voodoo to differentiate people into columns of 'liberal' and 'conservative' and list their merits. How black and white is that?
      One thing you have made clear to me in our conversations, Bach: Progressive Atheists like yourself adhere to a dogma much more like a fanatic sect of a rigid religion than the vaunted and semi-divine 'empiricism' and 'science' they claim to the be disciples of.
      May God be kinder to you than you have been to Him.

    3. Anon,
      If you were to leave - and not Bach - it would be 'good riddance', not goodbye.

      I may disagree with Bach and think his philosophy limiting - but I do think he is capable of reason. On occasion we have even found common ground.
      I do not see him as a sophomoric, slavish devotee to that which you do not understand - like I see you.

      As for my uncles, they are all hold/held degrees in important fields.
      Maybe the truth is your the smart assed brat who doesn't understand the first thing about what their tipsy uncle is talking about at gatherings and doesn't have the sense or experience to admit that then educate himself?
      Maybe your not.
      Maybe your uncle is a really congenital idiot and you are capable of out reasoning him.
      Who knows?
      WHO CARES!?

    4. Pépé,
      I mean 'progressive' as in the political term: anti-traditionalist.
      You're quite correct in noting the fundamentalist bent of modern atheism.