Global Warming Consensus Alert LogoNASA Scientist and chief global warming “consensus” cheerleader James Hansen testified before Congress yesterday that the chief executives of oil companies should be put on trial for high crimes against humanity for spreading doubt about global warming.

Pardon me while I consult Wikipedia for a moment:

In international law, a crime against humanity is an act of persecution or any large scale atrocities against a body of people, and is the highest level of criminal offense.

The Rome Statute Explanatory Memorandum states that crimes against humanity “are particularly odious offences in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority. However, murder, extermination, torture, rape, political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice. Isolated inhumane acts of this nature may constitute grave infringements of human rights, or depending on the circumstances, war crimes, but may fall short of falling into the category of crimes under discussion.”

Once again, here’s the opening sentence of this post: NASA Scientist and chief global warming “consensus” cheerleader James Hansen testified before Congress yesterday that the chief executives of oil companies should be put on trial for high crimes against humanity for spreading doubt about global warming.

I hereby propose that James Hansen be prosecuted for high crimes against reasonableness, perspective, and good sense for making such a ridiculous statement.

Of course, this isn’t the first time that a prominent global warming alarmist has proposed strengthening the global warming “consensus” by throwing those who would dare to question it in prison. The last time I noted such a proposal here on the PowerBlog, it was from Canadian scientist David Suzuki, and was immediately walked back by a spokesman who said that the statement was not meant to be taken literally. I’d guess that the same is true of Hansen in this case, although it should be noted Hansen isn’t known for being overly charitable to his critics, even when it turns out that they’re correct. Nor does he seem very interested in allowing people to check his results. Click here and scroll to get a sense of how difficult it is to figure out exactly how Hansen’s formulas for determining historical temperatures actually work.

One final note – “Satellite measured global temperature trend from the University of Alabama, Huntsville shows that it is cooler now than when he made his testimony in 1988.”

Update: Here’s a worthwhile read that asks some good questions about the accuracy of NASA’s thermometer:

…whatever motivations NASA had for picking the 1951-1980 baseline undoubtedly have some valid scientific basis. Yet, when the data is calibrated in lockstep with a very high-profile and public political philosophy, we should at least be willing to ask some hard questions. Dr. James Hansen at GISS is the person in charge of the NASA temperature data. He is also the world’s leading advocate of the idea of catastrophic global warming, and is Al Gore’s primary climate advisor. The discrepancies between NASA and other data sources can’t help but make us consider Einstein’s advice:

“If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts.”

What’s more fun than a web poll? Answer: Lots of stuff. But that doesn’t mean web polls aren’t fun. So head over to NewsBusters and vote in theirs

Thanks to Web-Genius and Photoshop King Jonathan Spalink for the snazzy new GWCA logo!

  • Daddio

    Now we know why NASA is the way it is. . .

  • Furshlugginer One

    James Hanson is guilty of the persecution of a body of people, i.e. chief executives of oil companies.
    Therefore, James Hanson should be brought before the International Court on charges of Crimes Against Humanity.
    He has forgotten, one ought not attempt to eat where he – - – - .

  • Tom

    The most frightening thing about what Hanson said was that people should should be put on trial for what the believe. I wonder when he thinks christians should be put on trial.

  • http://dirckthenoorman.com Dirck the Noorman

    Strange no one has bothered to actually go back and look at the predictions Hansen made in his 1988 testimony?

    The last page of his prepared remarks had a historical time-series of global mean temperature through 1987, plus predictions for various scenarios through 2019.

    Well, we have 20 more years of data now – how do his predictions look so far? Wildly wrong.

    Check it out – all the data here:

    http://tinyurl.com/6cms9f

  • brad gillespie

    I think Hansen was predicting we’d all be dead by now, back in the ’80s — dead from global warming. He’s a physics and science major, not a climatologist; although his credentials surely are more impressive than the hi-priest of eco-religion, Albert Gore, Hansen demonstrates how trully unscientific he is with this latest nonsense. Someday when half the globe is freezing to death and we are all too poor to afford to do anything about it, because we’ve wasted all our money fighting the ghost of global warming — will anyone laugh at these mouthpieces for alarmism? Will anyone sue them for their scare tacticsd? If there is any crime to sue for, it would be this extreme overreaction to what is something that is absolute political propoganda. Unfortunately, its always been the easiest thing in the world to be an environmentalist, and and activist against mankind for its wastefulness. But living produces waste — and the effort by extremists to eliminate waste, makes you wonder: those who run this movement — do they want to eliminate people? Or do they just want to control them? This whole ordeal, the global warming and the gushing environmental worshippers: its a socialist religion — how could it ever be ugly or bad for mankind? Well with gas over $4 a gallon — I think we may be finding out….and that’s just a start\!

  • Lynn Vincentnathan

    Hansen is a great hero. But he perhaps should have said, “high crimes against humanity and nature.”

    I’m teaching a course on Environmental Crime and Justice, and one problem is that for various reasons (partly powerful industries blocking environmental laws and regulations, partly bec it is not feasible), not all environmental harms to people and nature are illegal or in violation of regulations. So some definitions of eco-crime include harms that are not necesarily in violation of laws or regulations.

    Climate change amounts to corporate violence and state crime (e.g., the way the Bush admin tried to silence Hansen and other climate scientists). And it is also crime (and most certainly sin) by the general populace, as well.

    It is “high crime” in that what our generation is doing knowingly and wantonly will go on killing many millions, perhaps billions, of people for many thousands of years. It sort of makes Hitler look like Mr. Nice Guy, by comparison — and like us, he thought he was doing the right thing, making the world better.

    The scope of global warming is global, the time frame is extremely long (our actions now will perhaps cause extreme warming for more than 100,000 years)…so in these ways it’s different from conventional crimes, which are more local and relatively brief.

    Let’s come clean and worship the true God, and not our idols of oil and coal. The Lord will surely help us to live righteously and reduce our harm to His people and His creation, if we only pray sincerely for His help.

  • RAK

    Give it a break Lynn! At Realclimate, I have not seen a more prolific poster so ignored. The reason is the paranoid delusional nature of your posts. They cry religion and not science in any sense of the word.

  • Mr. Nice Guy

    Godwin’s law:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

    “there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically “lost” whatever debate was in progress.”

    Argumentum ad Nazium
    Reductio ad Hitlerum

    http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adnazium.html

    Lynn, please don’t teach my children. Keep your politically motivated hands – and rhetorically ignorant mind – off their as yet politically unpolluted minds.

    Or, in the words of your oil-hating, coal-condemning, cold-hearted global-warmth evangelism: “You are worse than Hitler.”

  • Pingback: Global Warming Consensus Alert: Climategate « Acton Institute PowerBlog