There’s a new article at Earth System Dynamics entitled “Young people’s burden: requirement of negative CO2 emissions” by Hansen, Marcott et al. (“al” being a number of unfamiliar names from Britain, the USA, France and China.)
As the title hints, it’s more about how to control the world’s energy policy for the next hundred years or so (a thousand year Reich was always an unrealistic goal) than about the science of climate, but what article on climate science isn’t?
I leave it to others to explore the arcane details of the “science,” and I simply note the article’s open control freakery. The abstract begins with an opinion on the ideal sea level, and the article goes on to praise a judge for supporting an action against the USA by a dishy young defender of the planet from Oregon by the name of Kelsey Cascadia Rose Juliana. I’m all for citizens taking action against the powers that be, but what’s this to do with Earth System Dynamics?
There’s an article by James Dyke, an editor of Earth System Dynamics, who admits in his Disclosure Statement to having handled the Hansen article (and washing his hands afterwards) at the Conversation.
Comments have already taken an interesting turn, thanks to my good friend Ming Fangjian and a certain Robin Guenier, who comments widely on everything pertaining to the Paris Agreement.
I bring this to the attention of Cliscep readers because this seems to me to be one of those occasions where sceptics can make a difference. I’m thinking of the time, for instance, when Adam Corner of the Guardian reblogged his link to Lewandowsky’s Moon Hoax paper at his obscure blog, and Barry Woods, Foxgoose and others piled in and provoked Lew into shooting himself in the bottom, provoking hilarity throughout the sceptical world.
Dr Dyke, ex lecturer in Complex Systems, now lecturer in Sustainability Science, and Handler of Hansen for Earth Systems Dynamics, is an old hand at Climate Onanism. To his credit, he has shown on previous Conversation threads that he is capable of participating in two handed discussions, and even of providing mutual satisfaction. He is not cut from the Lewandowsky / Cook cloth.
Do read his article, and the Hansen paper, and think thereon. And I hope our many intelligent, thoughtful and fair-minded readers will add their thoughts to his article. A comment here at Cliscep is always welcome, but in the grand order of things it is a comment wasted, since we’re just a bunch of unsupported unimportant layabouts. But Dyke at the Con is supported by forty British Universities and a half a dozen government agencies. Go there and do your bit for science.