Dear squeers, tell us what it said eh. While you are about it James
Hansen is coming to Australia in March, just before Pres.Obama. He will be giving a talk in Adelaide on 10th March only $22 Aud. SA
are planning geo thermal plants as they and Victoria have a few hot spots in their region. I am wary about geo-thermal there have been accidents.

Now he was known to talk about an impending ice age back in 1971. I must try to find his paper. Obviously changed his mind somewhere a long the track.

In my opinion Al Gore mentioned that AGW from CO2 emissions could trigger a new ice age.... that's hedging your bets. In the mean time
he is making millions and investing millions in clean energy.

Obama is pushing nuclear and he is visiting Indonesia as well as Australia. I know Indonesia were planning a nuclear power station.
Now I wonder who will get the contract to erect one? Iran has just
agreed that Japan can build them five new plants - werry interesting
eh.

What ever the outcomes electricity will cost more, nuclear comes with a price tag.

Bush Bunny

You said: "Now he was known to talk about an impending ice age back in 1971. I must try to find his paper. Obviously changed his mind somewhere a long the track."
It took me less than a minute with Google to find http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=11, which clearly explains Hansen's relationship to this allegation.

A paper was written by a colleague of Hansen's (Rasool)using Hansen's software. This paper apparently indicated that if aerosol levels increased 6-8 fold then it could trigger an ice age. Hansen never made such predictions. Guilt by association? Were you involved in spreading myxomatosis and the calicivirus just because of your pseudonym?

So, if I can find it in a minute, why can't you take a little bit more time to check out your allegations, rather than maligning him just because you thought that you read something somewhere?

And Obama's visit to Indonesia is proof that he is conspiring with them to proliferate nuclear power?

BB- why don't you apply the same standards of proof to your own allegations that you insist Climatologists have to live up to.

It's easy to throw around these kinds of claims, and once you have frightened honest people, it's a dickens of a job to undo your damage.

What game are you guys up to?

Jedimaster: I did look up what I could, and there is a lot of articles on Jim's association with the prediction on ice age cometh. He has denied it completely, but as chief adviser to Al Gore who also mentions CO2 emissions could trigger another ice age, seem to tie in.
Yeah guilty by association you may be right. But finding the original article is hard - did you find it?

As far as Obama is concerned google and you will see he is pushing the
nuclear energy projects and clean energy as he stipulated in his State of the Union address. Maybe when he visits Indonesia and Australia he will not push the nuclear venture. I was amazed when I heard his State of the Union address where he clearly wants to invest in clean energy that includes nuclear, drilling off shore for gas and oil, and this will bring the USA to the forefront of clean energy manufacturing. To compete with China and Europe? He was very clear on that point. Just google his State of the Union address. And see what you think?

Dear BB

I actually watched BO's State of the Union address- I was alarmed by the simple-mindedness of his statements about various clean energy forms. Alarmed because I have been banging on for years about the need to come to grips with net energy analysis issues. Nuclear, solar and every other energy generator are not "pollution free" or "zero-emission'. I keep coming back to the need to do life-cycle and value-chain energy input analyses to trace the carbon energy through to a clear and definitive number. The research hasn't been done, and all sorts of people from Presidents to Bush Bunnies keep on repeating the (to me) obviously naive statement that if there isn't any smoke going out of the chimney in front of them then there isn't any smoke going out of any chimney.

We simply don't know, but it's knowable. But there's a lot of people who don't seem to want to know and probably a lot who don't even comprehend the world in these terms. I've never met a lawyer or accountant who even starts to conceive that the basic issue is that sustainability means that the energy sources that drive everything must be either infinite or renewable- ie produce more energy than it takes to make them. I keep referring to my OLO essay of Oct 08 www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=5695 where I spell out one possible way of looking at the problem

....continued...
But no one seems to care about the fundamentals. Maybe it's just me. I trained as a physicist- I'm conditioned to look at the bedrock fundamental issues, not the flimflam of political point scoring. I think that there are plenty of issues that ultimately boil down to value judgements. But this is not one of them. We need to seek bedrock truths. This does not come about by throwing loose statements around. It comes from the hard, often lonely grind of measurement- this is done by the people that you and others so easily malign as corrupt lackeys of the IPCC

Just try doing some modern scientific research and see how much nicer it is to have a big office in a high rise along with a $200-$500+K salary doing law or accounting. These guys get paid peanuts. They're heroes. They're trying to save the planet.

And what has this blustering offshoot of Imperial patronage done to improve matters? Just slandered people trying to do their job, then taken the money and run. He's taking you all for suckers. Or Bunnies.

Hi again Jedimaster, I think the IPCC have told a naughty fib, based on corrupted data. Cutting CO2 emissions won't do anything either. And to suggest they weren't paid money is a bit deceptive, billions have gone into climate change research. The Finns have a good video
too about the UEA hacked emails.

But as far as Obama is concerned, I agree nothing is pollution free.
Just some are more dirty than others. Nuclear doesn't come cheap, but 1 billion dollars more that 4,000 wind mills would cost to give equal
outage. But the CCTs are driving this or were. No cap & trade no one will want them. Trillions will be lost.

I agree with sustainability but that's another science, I personally think the whole saga is a b.....y mess quite honestly.