My view is that Jim Hansen's important 'appeal' will fail, due to significant self-contradiction.
Seems to me he needs to review this as a matter of some urgency as the hearing is very soon.

As it is really a matter of the greatest importance, I hope Jim H doesn't fail. I don't want him to fail, I want him to succeed.
However, with things as they are, I don't see how he can and if he fails, an important opportunity will have been lost.

If he disputes column 2 in the image below, I hope he will see the need to: -

1. spell out what the integral [carbon-budget weight] of,"global emissions peak 2020 & decline at 2%/yr thereafter"
   that he specified to in China in February actually is, if it isn't the 678 Gt C spelled out here;
   
   
2. explain why the Chinese should now believe in and accept the 171 Gt C global budget he has now [April]
   again insisted is what he has argued throughout;
   
   
3. justify to all the countries who will have to share it, how the US & CHINA alone can consume more than than that global budget
   of 171 Gt C between them, requireing the Rest of the World [RoW] to go into negative emissions if it is to be observed.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

JAMES HANSEN & the "Young People's Day in Court"

James Hansen is going to US Court of Appeals in May 2014 to appeal a judgement given against him last year.

He wants the court overturn that judgement & also rule in favour of his 6%/year emissions reduction demand to the US GOVERNMENT.

However, the court seems likely to be confused and therefore unlikely to support the appeal,
as it unclear what Hansen is really asking for in the light of what he has said on this matter this year - as follows: -

1. before CHINA - the stresses that appeal to the court case is based on the PLOS paper
   calling for -6%/year emissions control globally [giving a 171 Gt C Budget]:
   
   
2. in CHINA [February 2014] - he told the CHINESE GOVERNMENT emissions must peak in 2020
   and then reduce at -2%/year [see his slides slide 32 - giving a 678 Gt C Budget]:
   
   
3. after CHINA - he insisted to asenior US Acadmic that he said no such thing in CHINA,
   and he insisted that the PLOS paper was his absolute and unchanged demand for a 171 Gt C Budget:
   
   
4. and the implication that for the US & CHINA to consume more than the PLOS global budget between them,
   the Rest of the World [ROW] would need to go negative to keep to a 171 Gt Carbon Budget [Row 2 Column 3 in the graphic].

NOTE - In a 'draft op-ed' after CHINA Hansen recorded this view: -

1. "We scientists should have made clearer that there is a limited “carbon budget” for the world,
   i.e. a limit on the amount of fossil fuels that could be burned without assuring disastrous future consequences.
   
   
2. We should have made clear that diffuse renewables cannot satisfy energy needs of countries such as China and India.
   
   
3. It seems we failed to make that clear enough. The United States, as the leader in nuclear R&D,
   had an opportunity not only to help find a carbon-free path for itself, but also to aid countries such as China and India.
   
   
4. Indeed, such aid was an obligation. The United States had already used its share of the “carbon budget”
   and was beginning to eat into China’s."

As Hansen's statements collectively further obscure, rather that clarify this issue, clarification would require the court to decide these crucial issues: -

1. what weight of global carbon budget is being considered
   
   
2. what method for internationally sharing this is being considered
   
   
3. thus providing a basis upon which to determine, 'who is eating into who's budget'

It would be very helpful if they would do that.

Unresolved for the last 20 years, this fundametally important issue - of shringking and sharing the global carbon budget - has remained hotly contested throughout.

It is of the greatest importance to now resolve this. As things stand the case put before the court by James Hansen summarise like this