[BartSimpson]

James Hansen - the darling of the Global Warming fanatics - has openly endorsed eco-terror in his testimony in a British court.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MT ... ZlNDFmMDA=

Quote:

Crossing the Line
Top NASA climatologist James Hansen endorses eco-vandalism.

By Henry Payne

Prominent NASA climatologist James Hansen, a close ally of global-warming activist Al Gore and one of the world’s leading scientific voices warning of a global climate crisis, has endorsed eco-vandalism.

Hansen’s controversial turn stems from testimony he gave this month in a London criminal trial against Greenpeace supporters who were accused of defacing — at a cost of $60,000 in property damage — Kingsnorth, an English coal plant. Hansen testified in support of the defense’s assertion that the Greenpeace members had a “lawful excuse” because they were acting to protect property around the world “in immediate need of protection” from the impacts of global warming — caused in part, they allege, by coal burning.

By crossing the line to the side of destructive violence, Hansen — often hailed as the “the world’s leading climate scientist” by green organizations and praised by Time magazine as one of the world’s “100 Most Influential People” — has seriously damaged the credibility of a movement that has struggled to separate its apocalyptic rhetoric from more extreme environmentalists who demand violent action to match that rhetoric.

It is as if Dr. C. Everett Koop, a prominent anti-abortion physician, had testified in favor of vandalizing abortion clinics.

The Sierra Club — one of the world’s leading green organizations and which just last year teamed with Hansen and the American Solar Energy Society on a new report laying out a plan for dramatically reducing the nation’s greehouse-gas emissions — would not comment on Hansen but distanced itself from eco-vandalism. Said a Sierra Club spokesperson: “We don’t advocate destruction of property.”

According to The Independent newspaper in London, Hansen “asserted that emissions of carbon dioxide from Kingsnorth (power station) would damage property through the effects of the climate change they would help to cause.” But, although “there’s just barely still time,” said Hansen, mankind needs an immediate moratorium on the construction of all new coal fired power plants. Somebody, he concluded to the jury, needs “to stand up.”

The jury ruled in favor of the defendants, the so-called Kingsnorth Six. The Independent reported the news under the headline: “Jury decides that threat of global warming justifies breaking the law.”

The ruling shocked British industry, set a precedent for more eco-vandalism, and will likely complicate Hansen’s tenure at NASA.

Hansen’s endorsement is likely to embolden radicals in the United Kingdom and possibly in the U.S., where members of the Earth Liberation Front have torched suburban homes, SUVs, logging trucks, ranger stations, and a ski resort in Vail, Colo., causing many millions of dollars in damage.

“The ramifications are huge,” writes Iain Murray, an environmental-science expert with the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “Operators of coal-fired power stations in the U. K. have just been stripped of legal protection from the criminal actions of the environmental lobby.”

Hansen’s fierce criticism of the Bush administration’s climate policy as a government scientist and as a professor at Columbia University has earned prominent media attention, which helps explain his Time-endorsed celebrity status. Hansen has also received criticism for his close ties to Al Gore — appearing, for example, with the former vice president on stage at Live Earth! — and for taking money from Democratic donor George Soros.

In the wake of Hansen’s Greenpeace testimony, meteorologist Anthony Watts called for his resignation, writing that “a NASA scientist siding with vandalism is an inappropriate abuse of the position. It was a question of law, not of science. . . . Dr. Hansen has violated the code of (NASA) ethics.”

Get ready for a new round of eco-terror in the US and Canada.

[roger-roger]

A trial like this should have never been left up to the jury.

[BartSimpson]

Eisensapper wrote:

A trial like this should have never been left up to the jury.

Juries refelct the will of the people and in this case the people of Britain are choosing to divest themselves of industrial civilization.

[commanderkai]

I truly hope he's fired and arrested for inciting terrorism

[sandorski]

"Defacing"? What is that and how does it equal "Terrorism"?

[commanderkai]

sandorski wrote:

"Defacing"? What is that and how does it equal "Terrorism"?

Hmm, you're right, I retract my last statement. However he should still be fired. Supporting any crime is a bad idea

[BartSimpson]

$60,000 worth of damage from 'defacing' over an environmental issue fits the definition of eco-terror.

I will quote Wiki for this as it leans liberal and should be acceptable to those on the left.

Quote:

Eco-terrorism is defined by the FBI as "the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally-oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature." [1] This characterization of property destruction as "violence against property" rather than as vandalism is highly contentious. Within this article, however, acts labeled eco-terrorism by law enforcement are considered, whether or not they involve violence against persons or living things.

[sandorski]

"Violence against Property"? WTF

[saturn_656]

Publicly advocating criminal behavior? tsk, tsk, tsk.....

[llama66]

there are other ways to get you point out, Greenpeace and groups like them are and always will be terrorists. and Mr. Hansen should think before speaking. I'm sure the Feds will be having a chat with him once he gets stateside.

[C.M. Burns]

You people slay me!

Hansen testified in support of the defense’s assertion that the Greenpeace members had a “lawful excuse” because they were acting to protect property around the world “in immediate need of protection” from the impacts of global warming

Now change a couple of words:

Bush testified in support of the assertion that he had a “lawful excuse” to illegally invade Iraq because they were acting to protect Americans in “in immediate need of protection” from the impacts of terrorism.

What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

[Christo999]

James Hansen in his own words [Nature Sep 05 2008]:
This week, James Hansen was in London, UK, to testify on behalf of activists who defaced a coal-fired power station in Kent. Geoff Brumfiel caught up with Hansen at a London hotel to find out what has got him all hot and bothered.

Why did you come to testify?
Nothing could be more central to the problem we face with global climate change. If you look at the size of the oil, gas and coal reservoirs you'll see that the oil and gas have enough CO2 to bring us up to a dangerous level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
There's a potential to solve that problem if we phase out coal. If we were to have a moratorium on coal-fired power plants within the next few years, and then phase out the existing ones between 2010 and 2030, then CO2 would peak at something between 400 and 425 parts per million. That leaves a difficult problem, but one that you can solve.

Do you think that leaders like UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown have lived up to their promises on climate change?
It depends on whether they will have a moratorium on coal-fired power. I think that the greenest leaders, like German chancellor Angela Merkel and Prime Minister Brown, are saying the right words. But if you look at their actions, emissions are continuing to increase. All of these countries and the United States are planning to build more coal-fired power plants. And if you build more coal-fired power plants, then it is not possible to achieve the goals that they say they are committed to. It's a really simple argument and yet they won't face up to it.

So do you think that these activists were justified in doing what they did?
The activists drawing attention to the issue seems to me as justified. You should try to do things through the democratic process, but we really are getting to an emergency situation. We can't continue to build more coal-fired power plants that do not capture CO2 if we hope to solve the problem.

We need to get energy from somewhere. So if we're not getting it from coal, then where?
The first thing we should do is focus on energy efficiency. The fact that utilities make more money by selling more energy is a big problem. We have to change those rules. Then there is renewable energy — in order to be able to fully exploit renewable energy, we need better electric grids. So those should be the first things, but I think that we also need to look at next-generation nuclear power.

Some have said you are hypocritical for flying all the way from the US to the UK just to testify. How do you respond?
I like to travel as little as possible, not only because it uses less CO2 but because I prefer to do science. But sometimes there are things which are sufficiently important that I think it makes sense.

What do you think the roll of the scientist should be in the broader societal debate on climate change?
I think it would be irresponsible not to speak out. There is a clear gap between what is understood by the relevant scientific community and what is known by the public, and we have to try and close that gap. If we don't do something in the very near future, we're going to create a situation for our children and grandchildren that is out of control.