Hansen Walks Fine Political Line; Near Liberal Riot toward End o_O

James Hansen's climate change advocacy stems from the inarguable fact that he really does care about present and future generations, plain and simple. Whether or not they agree with him, and whatever ulterior motives they try to attribute to other advocates like Gore and Suzuki in order to change the subject and avoid addressing the real issue, our warming planet, I think deniers can at the very least admit that, when it comes to Hansen, there is no deception whatsoever — not even cards being played tight to the chest — perceived or otherwise. He holds nothing back, and talks straight from his impressive mind and his deep heart, switching between the two fairly effortlessly.

I agree with 99% of what he says in the video below, including this...

"The solution does need to come from the conservative side."

I'm even mostly in agreement with this part of the talk, where he once again touts the benefits of nuclear energy, while laying much of the blame for the off-and-on political moratorium in this country at the feet of liberals.

"Unfortunately, beginning with Jimmy Carter and then Bill Clinton, they terminated research and development on advanced generation nuclear power, which, uh, was a big mistake. And it's, it's hard for liberals to admit that...because we burned India and China's share of the, of the, uh, carbon budget, we should help them with [advanced nuclear] technology. Instead, we've kind of withheld the expertise that the US has in those technologies."

That's a fair point, and I get what he's trying to do here. He is trying to open a door through which conservative deniers, who, by virtue of their own obstinate dismissal of the legitimate science, have been frozen out of the conversation, can re-enter the public exchange, holding their heads up. I'm not so sure how keen they'll be to share nuke tech with China, or even India, but the "blame Carter and Clinton" aspect will have attraction for them, I'm sure. It's a compelling approach, one that regular readers of this blog (all 2 of them) will notice is not exactly praised and championed around these parts very often, but I will admit it does offer some hope of producing concerted political effort on this particular issue (not so much on the larger, root problem of science denial, though). However, it requires Hansen walk a fine line, and continually revitalize reasons why those who accept the scientific consensus still deserve more blame than those who deny it. Personally, I would fail utterly at this balancing act, so I will take a pass and instead continue to bludgeon deniers mercilessly with the truth. And I did notice that Hansen himself slips up a little, and allows a bit of irresolution to bubble to the surface every now and then (emphasis mine)...

"Well, no, the conservatives don't want the government to get bigger. That's what they're afraid of...The truth is the conservatives and the Republicans, the majority of them, do not deny the science...And it turns out what they're afraid of is that this will be used to increase taxes, and to increase regulations, and intrusion of government into people's lives. That's what they're afraid of. That's why they then deny the science."

Now, we can debate the validity of the particular assertions he makes here (i.e.: whether or not the Right really wants less government, or simply wants a bigger, more intrusive government that marches to its own ideological drumbeat) until we are blue in the face (or red...get it?). The point I'm concerned with here, the rather telling bit, is Hansen claims one minute that conservatives do not deny the science, and then in the next breath implies they do deny the science publicly, but their real "behind closed doors" concerns absolve them of any blame for policy inaction. He seems to have an internal inconsistency and conflict...a lingering doubt, if you will...in his own mind, and therefore in the argumentation he is trying to put forth as well, that he needs to work out.

Still, this is not some deceptive tactic on his part. I believe he truly feels this is a helpful stance which will bring about a result we all need and can support: reduced emissions via bipartisan agreement. It's just not always gonna be easy to adhere to and sell, which brings me to the last point I wanna make before finally posting the video...

Sheesh, does the man have patience in surplus, or what?. Watch the somewhat heated exchange his position elicits toward the end of the Q&A session, and how Hansen tries to handle it affably. He's a champ.



Also, check out the YouTube channel which uploaded this video for an...interesting digression into another topic (or many) altogether. :)

Oh, and what is the only bit Steven Goddard, Lord of Cherry-Picking, chose to take from an extensive, informative talk? The one little smidgeon of information that appears to agree with his harebrained denial of climate science, of course. And even then, he screws up Hansen's point royally. Nope, sorry, Little Squeakathon Stevie, Hansen does NOT say, "the methane global warming scam is nothing but BS." Your listening comprehension is nothing but BS.

By the way, it doesn't seem likely that Goddard'll let my comment post. It's still in moderation limbo. Though I suppose he's busy getting schooled by Gavin Schmidt, et al, because he's too dense to understand a warming world may cause the atmosphere to hold more moisture and therefore increase precipitation in some areas, including snow in winter, but cause it to melt sooner/faster in spring.

(Update: The comment was allowed to post. :) We'll see how it goes over. Somehow, in trying to get a screen capture of the comment for my own blog, and trying to submit it over at Goddard's, I managed to include a typo and omit the word "to" before "commenting." Grrrrrrrrrrr. No response to my point about the missing source, however.)