"There is no point to joust with court jesters."

Doesn't take much to figure what he's saying here.  "Call them fools and you won't have to deal with them."

How about this Hansen:  "Bigots will not be tolerated."

The first couple of paragraphs from this yokel could easily describe those on his side of the argument.  I don't see why the contrarian view is necessarily the null hypothesis.

Seems it should take some honest data to dissuade scientists from the much observed changes to climate throughout History.  Evidently not.

~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~

Great job rebutting Hansen's comments, Noel. Once again, you whipped him with half your brain tied behind your back (just to make it fair). Thanks to Rush for that line..... If AGW is so inevitable, you would think they would want all their data and methods open to scrutiny, so that we can make them better and fight off their apocalyptic vision of the future. Since they won't do that, we have no choice but to try to poke holes in their theory from a distance (or with better and more logical scientists). Science is about doing all you can to disprove a theory so that it can stand on it's own as the pure truth.  There are so many holes in their theories right now, there is no way they can be close to the truth.

"Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics." Michael Crichton

"...thus delaying effective action to mitigate climate change."

I'm curious what he would give as an answer if asked the question, "How do you fix climate change?" As a liberal, I'm sure he hasn't given that question much thought though. His answer would probably involve forming committees.

I can tell you exactly what it would take to solve Global Warming. All it would take would be for us to elect a democrat into the White House. I'm old enough to remember there was a big environmental movement before Bill Clinton was elected. Afterward, you didn't hear much from Greenpeace or the Sierra Club anymore.

James Hansen has so completely staked his reputation on the AGW hypothesis, that I have to wonder if he can have a future with NASA when it inevitably fails to pan out.

On another note, I wish that critics had approached the climate record corrections differently. It's essentially irrelevant which year was the hottest on record; what is relevant is that the methodology for measuring and recording temperatures was obviously flawed. If the raw data cannot be trusted, why then should we trust the conclusions reached by Hansen  et al.?

a case of dogged contrarians who present results in ways intended to deceive the public into believing

Yeah.  This from the guy who petulantly refused to release his temperature algorithm and, instead, keeps pleading for yet another ten years to be proven right.

James Hansen is a serious embarrassment to science.  Thank heavens other scientists have had more respect for the standards of their discipline.

Great post, Noel.

Noel knows. Excellent piece. Lets some looney loose with dictionary and then have them find a word rarely used and apply it to Global Warming!! You usufructed it to total usufruct.

Thanks Noel for putting a light on this bug. Now when I stamp out a pesky insect I say " usufruct you spider !!".

Can I get a decent paying job with a big oil company?

"When you're working to advance science, the appropriate response when
someone finds an error in your data or calculations is contrition"

Dude, that's not an error, that's a feature, lol.

For someone who has been "silenced" by the Bush administration, this guy sure does a lot of communicating his(flawed-bogus) point of view.

Hansen is a government employee whose agency just happens to have access to billions of our taxpayer dollars. The idea that he should not have to produce his methodology for the scrutiny of other scientists in this area is completely unnacceptable.

The article clearly shows that Hansen doesn't understand the meaning of usufruct; for he benefits from it. 

note: Hansen used climate change nine times, global warming seven; yet not once, did he use anthrpogenic or manmade. Is this a snag in his tights, or, is he covering for Chicken Little?

and turns then on their ear by applying them to the critics who are asking for actual scientific principles to be applied rather then the hysteria and bigoted closed mindedness of "the debate is over".

Hansen says that his data showed 2006 to be the "Hottest Year on record" yet someone who reverse engineers his algorithm shows a flaw and that 1934 is still the hottest year on record. Hansen calls him a liar and a fool yet still refuses to release the computer calculations that the original flawed proclamation were based on.

Hansen is typical of a liar trying to hide the data that will prove him to be so. He is hysterically belligerant toward normal scientific skepticism yet claims the skeptics are the unreasonable ones.

Hansen is either a charletan trying to perpetrate one of the biggest hoaxes on humanity, or he is mentaly unstable. Either way he should not be in the position of trust that he currently enjoys.

When I tune into the WC, I'm starting to see more nuggets of global warming alarmism appear between the eights. They've joined the water carrying global warming alarmists, but it could just be motivation to get ratings. It's all a profiteering venture for the left. Al Gore makes money on books, movies, lextures, Moore is with his pharmaceutical stocks and movies, ad nauseam.

Hansen's psychosis has achieved Brobdingnagian dimensions. This fellow was caught conspiring with a Stanford perfesser back in '87 conspiring to cook the books, so to speak, on Global Warming---specifically to implicate the human contribution by any way, shape or form his Nibelungs could forge.

My guess is that NASA has had enuf of this grandstanding mountebank sullying their reputation---already close to scientific ridicule for their optimistic refusal to admit Shuttle catastrophic failure rates [they said one in 100,000 while Richard Feynman predicted one in fifty---so far Feynman is not far off].

For those with frontal lobes, Feynman called the spurious stat-cooking Hansen & Co habitually employ as "Cargo Cult Science," and the jumped-up weathermen comprising the UN ICRC Commission are a bunch of Trobriand Islanders dancing in the surf.

His comments show he is responding as an Activist, not a Scientist.  He sounds more like a Journalist, than a Scientist, and based upon his credibility as a Scientist, he should now change Careers so he can push GW full time.......as a Journalist.

This is a case of......better Quit your Day Job.....!     

What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ?   David Foote  GoE

Noel, you might disagree with Hansen's interpretation of what Jefferson meant by "usufruct", and you might ignore that dictionary definitions also agree with Hansen, but how could you possibly overlook or ignore that the Constitutional Law Foundation, who you link to and quote to support your position, in fact refers to Jefferson, other Founding Founders and others to establish that these men had a pervasive concern for future generations? http://www.conlaw.org/Intergenerational-II.htm. The Constitutional Law Foundation, after all, is a group that “Seeks to advance environmental law issues, intergenerational ethics, and the concern for posterity stated in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution [and] provides articles and documents related to the U.S. Constitution and environmental protection.”  You have done a service to your careful readers by steering them to this group! 

A little research may show you that Jefferson was writing to Madison in the context of the French Revolution.  His principle point appears to argue that each generation has the right to sweep aside burdensome laws and practices inherited from past generations, and used the principle that “the earth belongs in usufruct to the living” as a starting point.  http://www.vqronline.org/articles/1976/summer/peterson-mrjeffersons-sovereignty/.

Since this principle literally means that the living are entitled to the “use and fruit” of property, while passing it on undamaged to the future, it can easily be interpreted more broadly to apply to the earth as both Hansen and The Constitutional Law Foundation, whom you cite with approval, do. 

In short, it appears that YOU do not know your Constitutional law, history or dictionary (much less how to use the Web to support you), and one suspects that maybe Hansen might also know the science better than you.

No doubt you are also aware that this quote by Jefferson has deep Biblical roots that speak to us even today on environmental matters.  See, for example, The National Religious Partnership for the Environment, which brings together American Catholics, Jews, Eastern Orthodox, mainline Protestants and Evangelicals. http://www.nrpe.org/statements/index.html. 

They cite to statements by relihious leaders, including Pope John Paul II, who said: “When the ecological crisis is set within the broader context of the search for peace within society, we can understand better the importance of giving attention to what the earth and its atmosphere are telling us: namely, that there is an order in the universe which must be respected, and that the human person, endowed with the capability of choosing freely, has a grave responsibility to preserve this order for the well-being of future generations.”  You might find Hansen’s moralizing to be unfounded or repugnant, but I would defy you to lightly mock the view that yes, we do have an obligation to our children.

Sincerely,

TT 

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool."
Richard Feynman

Noel and others, I received the following from John Edward Davidson of the Constitutional Law Foundation, whom Noel cited on his post for support that Jefferson did not mean "usufruct" in the sense adopted by Hansen.

Apparently John couldn`t figure out how to set up his own account, so he asked if I could pass this on, if anyone`s still interested.  

These are his own words, and my posting does not imply my agreement with them:

Greetings Noel,

As I was surfing the net today, I came across the conversation between yourself and Tokyo Tom regarding Jim Hansen and his references to Jefferson's "in usufruct to the living" letter. I wrote the Stewardship Doctrine article on the Constitutional Law Foundation website that you cited to in your initial response to Hansen. I also teach a variety of courses on Intergenerational Justice and Constitutional Law. In many of these courses, I have my students study Jefferson's usufruct letter and related writings. (You'll note that I use Jefferson's usufruct quote as part of my email signature line.) In light of the time I've spent studying this general issue, I thought I might be able to shed some light on the questions you've been debating. I tried to post directly to your blog, but, so far, it's been unwilling to accept my registration. If you'd like to post this email on a relevant thread, I'd appreciate it.

To begin: you seem to have concluded, understandably, that Jefferson's Sept 6, 1789 letter to Madison was concerned primarily with the settlement of decedents' estates in land. Jefferson does discuss that briefly at one point. But that's not his chief topic. He's addressing the application of general principles of generational sovereignty to political theory. In particular, he argues for the periodic expiration of constitutions and other laws; the illegitimacy of long term public debt; and the abolition of certain mechanisms of perpetual land ownership, including entailed estates. He ties all of these ideas together with the concept of "usufruct."

Usufruct is one of many legal principles that concern the obligations of earlier interest holders to respect the legitimate expectations of later interest holders. Jefferson could just as easily referred to a number of other legal and philosophical models: waste, riparian rights, etc.

Usufruct concerns specifically the right to use another's property for a time without damaging or diminishing it. (The opposite of usufruct is "waste.") A tenant has no right to damage an apartment, because the tenant has only a temporary interest in the premises. The premises are destined to return to the owner. Jefferson argues, as did Moses, Tom Paine, and many others, that this principle applies to every generation as a whole. We did not make the Earth; neither it nor any part of it can wholly belong to any of us individually, or to any generation of us collectively. We spend some time here, and then we pass on. We're therefore obliged to leave the premises in as good a condition as we received them in.

For a general discussion of the tendency of the framers to view the earth as an intergenerational commons, or joint tenancy, see http://www.conlaw.or....

For a discussion of the role of usufruct in Jefferson's intergenerational philosophy, see http://www.conlaw.or...

The use of usufruct and similar metaphors to understand intergenerational political obligations was common during the framers' time. English land ownership had long been dominated by various forms of the entailed estate. Under entail, every landowner was in effect a life tenant. His children had an underlying interest in the land that was sufficiently vested so as to limit how the landowner could use the land. Essentially he was required to use it sustainably; he could not "waste" his land or natural resources for short term benefit; the heir could sue to enjoin such conduct. Over the centuries, this arrangement of landholding created a pronounced ethic of intergenerational stewardship. See http://www.conlaw.or....

You find the same ethic in John Locke, by whom Jefferson was heavily influenced: ""God gave the world to Adam and his posterity in common."f66 ""Every individual is acting as a trustee of his Creator's property, with the purpose of the trust being the preservation of mankind." f68 ""Nothing was made by God for man to spoil or destroy." f70. See generally http://www.conlaw.or....

Locke, in turn, derived much of this ethic from the Old Testament. The notion of the earth as an intergenerational tenancy in common is probably most pronounced in Leviticus 25, in which Moses and his people are instructed to sustainably steward the land and allow it to rest (lie fallow) every 7th year. They are also forbidden to alienate land ownership in perpetuity: every person has a birthright to an equal share of the natural inheritance. God is said to state: "The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants." f19

In short, the founders in general, and Jefferson in particular, had a strong sense of intergenerational obligation -- a strong sense that each generation must be careful not to illegitimately impinge on the legitimate interests of later generations. That political philosophy of stewardship and generational sovereignty not only included a concern for preservation of the human species and the earth, it was largely based upon and explained in terms of a widely shared land ethic.

I can't speak at all to the science of global warming and Dr. Hansen's assertions on that score. But I don't think he has unfairly represented the values of Jefferson or the other framers. The sad fact is, they appear to have cared intensely about posterity and posterity's legitimate rights and expectations.

I would take Hansen's argument a step further. The Fourteenth Amendment provides that government shall provide equal protection; it shall not invidiously discriminate against one faction of citizens to benefit another faction. There is no reason that future generations should not come within the protection of the 14th's equal protection clause. The posterity clause of the preamble makes clear that the Constitution is meant to protect their interests as much as anyone's. Because they can't vote, they're the quintessential vulnerable minority.

If our government allows the present generation to present generation to benefit unsustainably at the permanent expense of later generations and to cause irreparable damage to the environmental infrastructure, that conduct raises constitutional issues. See, generally, http://www.conlaw.or... and the attached article on judicial standing for posterity.

John Edward Davidson
Wulf Professor of Humanities
University of Oregon Department of Political Science
Office: (541) 346-4540; Home: (541) 344-1946
davidson@uoregon.edu, jdavidson@conlaw.org

"I set out on these grounds, which I suppose to be self-evident, that the Earth belongs in usufruct to the living generation . . ." Thomas Jefferson

'Usufruct' -- A right to use another's property for a time without damaging or diminishing it. Black's Law Dictionary (7th Ed.) 

NBers,

Now that my computer is thankfully back up after a Wednesday evening crash that I addressed in yesterday's open thread -- your prayers worked! -- it seems time for me to clear up some misinformation being spread by a member whose name I care not to even address. After all, his behavior in this thread in my view has been deplorable, and even when I responded courteously to his rather arrogant and condescending first post here, he chose to continue with the vitriol, even calling me his sock puppet. How delightful.

As I've looked back over this thread, it seems to me that this member has had nothing but venom for all present from the get-go. In fact, even the gentleman who this member contacted for support with his arguments was disparaged by this member when he wrote to RJ last evening, "There’s nothing to hide, despite Davidson’s silly and lame opening sentence." Makes you wonder if this member gets along with anybody.

That said, I did indeed receive an e-mail message Wednesday night at 11:10 from John Davidson of ConLaw. Unlike the rude member in question, he presented his positions to me quite graciously, thoughtfully, and thoroughly. Unfortunately, my computer mysteriously crashed at about 10:00 that evening before this message was sent, and wasn't repaired until about 1:00 Friday afternoon. At that point, I had hundreds of e-mail messages to pore through, and have since had a very rewarding, cordial dialogue with Mr. Davidson.

He apparently is trying to become a member here, but is having problems registering. I have put in a request with Matt Sheffield to expedite this process, and when Mr. Davidson gets back from the weekend, I hope he sends his user name to Matt so that this will be accomplished. Once this all occurs, I will be happy to share my correspondence with him pending his approval, although I don't imagine that will be a problem.

With that in mind, those who read my work know that I go out of my way to ensure that our liberal members are welcomed here, and that it takes a lot to draw my ire. However, when folks enter a thread immediately impugning my character, and continue to do so even after I've graciously held out an olive branch, I don't think it is incumbent upon me to continue to engage such a person. In my view, you folks would likely rather I spend my time finding interesting items to share with you rather than bickering with malcontents who don't have the courtesy to respond in kind to a gracious reply.

I hope this settles the matter, and will share my correspondence with Mr. Davidson when I get his approval.   ns

If you move away from the rhetoric and back to the science - James Hansen's argument is unfortunately quite sound and very scary.  It is based on recent paleoclimatology findings of rapid sea level rises with the sort of warming that the IPCC predicts this century and the recent findings of non-linear ice sheet instability that were not incorporated into the last IPCC report due to arriving after the data set time deadline.

You may dislike Hansen because he is on the other so called "side" politically.  But you freedom loving business as usual conservatives would be wise to sell your beach side condominiums sooner rather than later.

Just checking out the posting process . . .