Naomi Oreskes: James Hansen is a Denier

Susquehanna steam electric nuclear power station

Susquehanna steam electric nuclear power station

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Naomi Oreskes has accused climate scientists like James Hansen, who support the expansion of nuclear power, of practicing a “strange new form of denial”.

According to The Guardian;

After the signing of a historic climate pact in Paris, we might now hope that the merchants of doubt – who for two decades have denied the science and dismissed the threat – are officially irrelevant.

But not so fast. There is also a new, strange form of denial that has appeared on the landscape of late, one that says that renewable sources can’t meet our energy needs.

Oddly, some of these voices include climate scientists, who insist that we must now turn to wholesale expansion of nuclear power. Just this past week, as negotiators were closing in on the Paris agreement, four climate scientists held an off-site session insisting that the only way we can solve the coupled climate/energy problem is with a massive and immediate expansion of nuclear power. More than that, they are blaming environmentalists, suggesting that the opposition to nuclear power stands between all of us and a two-degree world.

Read more:

This article was written in response to a demand by James Hansen, Kerry Emanuel, Ken Caldeira and Tom Wigley to consider the nuclear option.

Nuclear power paves the only viable path forward on climate change

To solve the climate problem, policy must be based on facts and not prejudice. Alongside renewables, Nuclear will make the difference between the world missing crucial climate targets or achieving them

All four of us have dedicated our scientific careers to understand the processes and impacts of climate change, variously studying ocean systems, tropical cyclones, ice sheets and ecosystems as well as impacts on human societies. We have used both climate models and geological records of past climates to better understand lessons from warmer periods in the Earth’s history and investigate future scenarios.

Read more:

I can’t help feeling Oreskes has well and truly jumped the shark with the ridiculous claim that scientists like Hansen, Wigley et al are “deniers”, because they don’t believe in renewables. As WUWT reported a while ago, even Google couldn’t find a way to make renewables viable – so it seems unlikely anybody else will succeed where Google failed.

As for Oreskes objections to nuclear power, her argument that nuclear power is too risky is just plain silly. Even if the nuclear route to decarbonisation resulted in several meltdowns every year, how could this possibly be worse than the complete destruction of the biosphere through global warming, which according to the likes of Oreskes and Hansen is the price of continued reliance on fossil fuels?


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Oreskes has demonstrated once again that CAGW is a religion, and nay who do not hew strictly to the articles of faith laid down by the High Priests, such as Oreskes herself, are blasphemers, and are thus apostate and no longer of The Faith.
I know there must be a joke here somewhere, but I am getting so sick of these people that I seem to have lost my sense of humor.
I sure hope it is temporary, because the hell of no humor is the worst hell of all.

Jim Francisco

Thanks Michael. I needed that.

george e. smith

Does this person have any sort of credentials that qualify her to even comment on any aspect of climate science, or is she just wanting to re arrange the furniture to suit her pet ideas.
She sounds like a total gad fly to me.

Bryan A

Glad fly? I would have said Bot Fly


Couldn’t agree more. I have added this little sketch that I posted over at Bishop Hill where her antics have amused the readers.

Shocked Citizen

Canada has some vast, wide-open, and relatively uninhabited places. I suggest we carve out, say, 10,000 km2 of the Northwest Territories and create the new province of Oreskesia. Those of her religion can move there to show the rest of us how to live the “right” way. Oreskesia’s Rule 1 is that no CO2 emissions are allowed, and Rule 2 is that any product that involves the use of fossil fuels at any stage of production is forbidden. The one exception I propose to Rule 2, which would support Rule 1, is that residents would be permitted to wear front and rear carbon capture and storage devices. After they spend a few weeks (or maybe hours?) there in January, we will be able to figure out who truly shares The Faith–at least among those who are still alive.

I would argue that he has shown more than that. That it is anti-human. That anything that is beneficial to humanity will not be acceptable as an energy resource.
Malthusians want to depopulate the Earth down to some small number, Frequently in the millions rather than the billions we have now.


Then let the Malthusians lead the way!

Come now, everyone is a denier of Naomi’s divine wisdom.
Classic Cult behaviour, none are as holy as I, none but I am the most righteous worshiper of my God.
Naomi leaves no doubt as to her delusion, why does she get any notice, beyond derisive laughter?
Actually I snicker every time she rants, I keep reminding myself, I could not have invented raving do-gooders this idiotic, as an act of fiction.
Before encountering members of the Cult of Calamitous Carbon/Climate, I would have dismissed such characters as implausible.


Naomi fails to realize that when everyone is a denier, nobody will be.

The mantra is that “deniers” are denying science but what but in reality it is any dissent from orthodoxy and has become analogous to the term infidel.

Patrick Hrushowy

What does this say about the Guardian for allowing this woman space?


Guardian of the gullible perhaps?


The only thing worse than an unbeliever to the faithful is a heretic who doesn’t believe part of the dogma. In this case the green religion.This is how the Terror started in France. Citizen Hansen will be sent to the guillotine with the rest of those who are enemies of the state.


This didn’t go well for Robespierre at the end.

michael hart

And led, ironically, to the Thermidorian Reaction!

Nigel S

Run by The Committee of Public Safety of course!

My thoughts exactly. This seems just so French Revolution. The only thing missing is the guillotine. Maybe this will make Hansen re-evaluate his thinking, seeing how he is so easily thrown under the bus.

DD More

Seems I was a little early on making this comment, but the ending still stands for those in the dogma.
seem to overlook his heretical remarks about nuclear and don’t vilify him.
They may have stopped the overlook.
The Guardian –
There is a new form of climate denialism to look out for – so don’t celebrate yet – by Naomi Oreskes
But not so fast. There is also a new, strange form of denial that has appeared on the landscape of late, one that says that renewable sources can’t meet our energy needs.
Oddly, some of these voices include climate scientists,[link to below] who insist that we must now turn to wholesale expansion of nuclear power. Just this past week, as negotiators were closing in on the Paris agreement, four climate scientists held an off-site session insisting that the only way we can solve the coupled climate/energy problem is with a massive and immediate expansion of nuclear power. More than that, they are blaming environmentalists, suggesting that the opposition to nuclear power stands between all of us and a two-degree world.
Dr. James Hansen, Dr. Tom Wigley, Dr. Ken Caldeira and Dr. Kerry Emanuel will present research showing the increasing urgency of fully decarbonizing the world economy. However, they will also show that renewables alone cannot realistically meet the goal of limiting global warming to 2 degrees C, and that a major expansion of nuclear power is essential to avoid dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system this century.
Now this is by Oreskes, who goes by – “Not only do the slaves have to “stay on the plantation”, they have to “stay in the same field on the plantation” .


The goal of global warming / climate change movement is not decarbonization, it’s to reduce the human population. Period.


..Agenda 21 ?

Alan the Brit

Precisely! The rich egotistical “elites” will inherit the Earth, not the “meek”, somebody just misheard & wrotye it down wrong, that’s all!

Tom O

Let’s be realistic. With all the poor people occupying the only space that will be habitable at low cost in the coming ice age, of course the rich need to start the depopulation before it is too late to establish their fiefdoms. Most of the areas that are being taken out of use are either resource rich with easy extraction, or ideal large scale estates. It doesn’t really take a rocket scientist to see the way the world is being shaped for the future – those that choose themselves to be the owners of the planet and those that will boot lick so as to control what little masses that will be left to maintain the flow of the required resources so as to maintain the standard of living for the planet “owners” and their boot lickers.


Someone still has to make the boots and the mouthwash.

Lawrie Ayres

Quite correct. We have six billion surplus souls on the planet according to the deep greens. Now when all the greens and fanatical enviros start leaping from tall buildings I will take them seriously. Nuclear is a great solution and for places like Australia an easy step and also much cheaper than more inefficient wind turbines. It would also free up our coal for conversion to liquid fuels making us self reliant. At the moment we are susceptible to being starved of fuel by disruptions to our sea lanes, an ever growing danger.

Alan Robertson

That would leave a population of 1 Billion, or so and that’s too much for some of the more strident voices who claim that too many humans exist, such as Ted Turner, who’s said that he thinks there should only be 250- 500 million of us.


l first of all say that I am not American.So this is in the realms of sarcasm or irony :-

James Bull

Well if they want to reduce the population here’s a song to go with it.

James Bull


comment image
All you need do is click your heels together and sprinkle a little sea water on her.


Hey, it’s my mother in law !!!

James Bull

Mine has been known as the Dragon from before we were married. At one family gathering one of my brothers in law was teaching her grandchildren to sing “Grandma’s a dragon Grandma’s a dragon”
She has an impressive display of toy and model dragons in the hallway of her house.
James Bull

” …. not so fast … ”
Wow … Oreskes even quotes the Wicked Witch of the West. I think the line might be “Not so fast – these things have to be done delicately.” ?? (It’s 62 years since I saw the movie … )

Mickey Reno

Oh Noes! Naomi Oreskes has loosed her flying monkeys.


Wow, she gives a whole new meaning to the phrase ” Left Wing Nut ” !!!


She shows that the CAGW movement is not really serious. If one really believes that warming is going to destroy the Earth, then how can you reject a solution that is much less threatening?

Lawrie Ayres

She is a leftist. Leftists are not logical being.


Notice that the nuclear power issue has nothing whatsoever to do with the so-called science of CAGW.
And yet to come out in favor of it is seen as being another way to deny CAGW.
Oreskes has proven, by this denunciation of Hansen (and anyone else who questions the ability of wind and solar to power our technological society), that the real issue is not global warming at all, but blind obeisance to the official party line.
She has proven this issue is political, and not scientific.
It is obvious that Hansen does not deny CAGW… in fact he believes it so whole-heartedly that he is backing the only way to really reduce CO2 emissions any time soon.
So what it is he is denying?
When you answer that question, you will know the real objective of her faction of the Warmistas.

Jim Francisco

I think that some of the scientist have been on the CAGW or DAGW bandwagon because they want to slow or stop the opposition to nuclear power. I would bet that those who did jump on the bandwagon wish they hadn’t because it isn’t working and now there is no easy way to get off.

Alan the Brit

Margaret Thatcher made a severe political mistake by taking a gamble on demonising coal & the lefty lead miners, to use Global Warming as an excuse to expand nuclear power, it simply backfired on her & the left siezed upon AGW as an ideal anti-capitalist tool to bash everyone with!

Jim Francisco

Damn Alan. Now I remember where I got that notion. Is PM Thatcher the reason Lord Monckton got involved with GW?


When the Hansen et al new conference occurred Andy Revkin at the NYTimes “Dot Earth” blog published an astonishing commentary on the “recarbomization” of first the German and then now the French energy grid.
The Green Malthusians would far more prefer to build more coal fired plants in both countries than to tolerate advanced nuclear energy. Though, in the end, what they really want is scarce, exorbitantly priced Green energy, even if that means freezing in the dark for stretches at a time. Just as long as it leads to a return to a feudal age economy, but with a 21st century population we’re talking mega-death. Which is precisely the point.

Leonard Lane

Sara. “Just as long as it leads to a return to a feudal age economy, but with a 21st century population we’re talking mega-death. Which is precisely the point.”
It is hard to think of a greater evil than this. It is extremely evil to condemn billions to deaths by starvation, freezing to death, riots, war, and so on. We should never underestimate the evil of the radical Marxists. And yet, the evidence that the CAGW movement really does want this sort of mass murder is hard to ignore.
Thanks for your comment.


I didnt get his name..but ABC aus radio national had a chap telling us that we need to go back to 1950 living in aus
its was a decent standard he thought.
polio due to outside dunnys n no running water
a fridge was ONLY for the well off
in 1969 I was 10
we were still using kero lanterns, blocks of ice in a cooler and boiling a copper to wash clothes n heat bathwater
and that was IN a major city of Adelaide sth aus.
I had never ending colds and chilblains because we couldnt afford a heater let alone pay the bill to run one
we did have the luxury of a cold tap of running water in the kitchen, and in the laundry.
love to see todays spoilt darlings cope with that..I really would.


What more natural source of mother natures power could there be? Radioactive decay keeps the Earth warm, to an extant, and from cooling too fast… And it doesn’t create CO2, the ‘magical, evil gas of mass destruction’. Put 1/100th the money spent on GW into providing safe, efficient reactors for electrical generation and everyone will be happy…
/ !/2 Sarc


Why has nature not given us a way of engineering a perpetual motion machine?


Looking further, one can see that nuclear fission is just another form of solar energy, albeit from the stars that exploded to forge and disburse the fissionable elements all those billions of years ago.

Pat Frank

Pace Jim Hansen, but the best way to “solve the climate problem is for everyone to realize that there is no problem, and that consensus AGW climatology is a crock.
Naomi Oreskes is going have to to bite a very serious bullet when climate alarm frenzy ends with a whimper.


When the fratricide begins, the end can’t be far off for the “warmists”……

Yep. When thieves fall out, honest men come by their own.
(……. honest men keep what belongs to them)
16th Century Proverb

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Bishkek

Scott, I agree. There has never been a successful revolution that was not preceded by a split in the military. Or in this case, a split among the militants.

Hansen draws a straight line in the sand which has nuclear on his side, everything else on the other side.
Orestes draws a line in the sand that circles Hansen’s line and tries to bully Hansen not to step out of his box or he will be denied out of the tribe. Hansen looks at her like she is a specimen in a dubious clinical study.
Or something like that.


“Orestes draws a line in the sand that circles Hansen’s line”
Will Lew draw a triangle?

simple-touriste on December 17, 2015 at 7:40 pm
– – – – – – –
It is possible I guess that Lew, who is a self-acclaimed stereotyping authority, may dream of drawing pentagonal shapes around his antagonists.

chris y

It seems Hansen has been an Oreskesian ‘denier’ since at least 2011-
Hansen’s support of renewables-
“But suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.”
“”If you drink the kool-aid represented in the right part of Fig. 7 [large-scale deployment of renewables and conservation], you are a big part of the problem. The problem is that, by drinking the kool-aid, you are also pouring it down the throats of my dear grandchildren and yours. The tragedy in doing so is much greater than that of Jim Jones’ gullible followers, who forced their children to drink his kool-aid. All life will bear the consequences.”
James Hansen, newsletter article, 8/2011


Great! They are now starting to eat each other. All we have to do is wait for a little while, and then we can give Anthony and Jo our thanks, shut down all the climate sites, and use the internet for its original purpose. (Cat videos and porn.)

Can anyone-and I mean anyone-take her seriously now? I feel that her opinions should, from now on, be taken with something more than just a grain of salt. I mean, Tom Wigley, James Hansen, deniers? For that matter, should anyone even take the Guardian seriously either, if they are willing to publish this?


Could anyone take her seriously after reading
– neutral pH is 6
– beryllium is heavy
– the various radiation limits (for people, for workers) are based on the concept that low levels of radiation are safe (cause a worker has stronger natural radiation-immunity, m’kay?)
– correlation is not causation unless p<.05
First three: her critically acclaimed book
Last: NYTimes interview
I couldn't believe it and I had to check myself on the Web (I spent nothing on that crap, hopefully).

No, but I don’t see those in the article.


Low levels of radiation are safe. (Of course the meaning of low has to be properly defined.) People living in Denver have about 3 times the radiation exposure compared to people living in Miami. Altitude and lots of granite increase the exposure for those living in Denver.

Someone took her seriously? Seriously? I can’t wait for the next Attack of La Nina.

I never honestly took her very seriously, but I suppose even that small part was in an attempt to find her logical fallacies-which are many.

And, neither can I, just wait till those temps drop!

David L. Hagen

The “Empress” has no clothes!
This reveals that Oreskes has no legitimate data nor logical argument from which to make her case – she can only try an Ad Hominem attack to divert attention from the utter weakness of her position.
“If you point a finger at someone, you have four pointing back at you!”


@David L. Hagen,
“The “Empress” has no clothes!” The mental image that conjures is just plain disturbing!!

Leonard Lane

More than disturbing. How about nauseating or frightening.

You have to admit the woman is ugly as a truck. The seeing her clothed is difficult enough.


Hey, stop insulting trucks!

David L. Hagen

Thus the problem with trying to use gender “appropriate” language!


Barely unimaginable!!

Peter Yates

@ David L. Hagen .. Actually that’s 3 fingers pointing back at you. The thumb isn’t included it the pointing. It’s at an angle. …
Anyway, I remember the line from the Dire Straits song: Solid Rock
“When you point your finger ‘cuz your plan fell through,
You got three more fingers pointing back at you,”

M Seward

Who needs drugs or alcohol when you have the equisite self satire of Comrade Oreskes?


A lesson from the French Revolution. When the revolutionaries thought they had won, they started eating their own.


That’s probably just as true for the communist revolution in Russia also. Be careful who your friends are.

Mike the Morlock

Here it is in a nut shell. If it was agreed that nuclear power was a major component in the plans for replacing fossil fuels then the issue would fad away. With nuclear on the table human civilization would not be endangered and developing nations would have a good chance for a prosperous future.
And Naomi Oreskes? She would be out of a job. No longer the heroine, leading the crusade.
Anyway none of the CAGW crowd will go for it. Wrecks their meal ticket. It would be nice to see them have a uncivil war. Gives me a “warmy” feeling.


But beryllium is still a heavy metal, right? It’s a toxic metal, so it’s heavy, right?
Are you a heavy metal denier?

The density of beryllium is 1840 kg/m3 making it about 2/3 as dense as aluminum at 2712 kg/m3 and way less than iron at 7850 kg/m3.

I thought beryllium was a heavy metal for a long time too because it’s a neutron reflector, but it’s not. Just goes to show ya…

Bartleby on December 18, 2015 at 1:59 am
I thought beryllium was a heavy metal for a long time too because it’s a neutron reflector, but it’s not. Just goes to show ya…

Relative to the metallic element lithium, the metallic element beryllium is a heavy (as in heavier) metal.


The more in-fighting there is the sooner the house of cards will topple.


The point about nuclear, even with melt downs from time to time, being an easily preferable trade-off to total destruction of life on earth as we know it, I think this reveals something important. If people like Oreskes actually BELIEVED their own hype, they would see this very clearly. That they don’t tells me they do not actually believe their own hype. I have no doubt they THINK they believe it. But in truth, they really don’t.

Nigel S

Read a fantastic scare story (elsewhere of course!) yesterday that three cores from Fukushima could not be found and where melting their way to the centre of the earth (could explain the millions of degrees down there of course!).

chris moffatt

safest place for them to go. They won’t make it past the upper mantle.

James Harlock

When I was a teen, we had a trendy-Lefty teaher that was all a-flustered warning us about the dangers of Nuclear Energy, so she told us the scare-story of the China Syndrome. She did not like it when I asked her how the “molten, nuclear core” would pass through the high temperature of the Earth’s core intact enough to defy gravity and bore ~3900 miles up to China.


Hard to think of a better disposal plan for nuclear waste than to let it sink itself into the core of the Earth.
I think the real fear is/was that once it reaches the water table, a steam explosion will occur and spread the stuff who knows where.

Lewis P Buckingham

Other Left governments think the same as Dr Hansen.
Take the South Australian Government Royal Commission into nuclear fuel use
Now in this advocates for ‘decarbonisation’ are very vocal in wanting nuclear power
‘Australia can be low energy cost leader: Garnaut
Professor Garnaut said Australia could achieve huge competitive advantages from low-emission energy resources.
“Australia is much richer in high-grade uranium oxide, the basis of nuclear energy, relative to other developed countries’
The Greens in Australia are so dysfunctional that they even oppose the return of Australian generated radioactive medical waste used in treating cancer.
SBS has highlighted this on their news programs.
This is an issue which divides the green left to the detriment of sense.
If they think carbon dioxide is so dangerous, why not embrace something that isn’t, that will
give base load power?
The Guardian is running the wrong narrative.
But then, its good at some narration
‘The Guardian goes all lad’s mag, gets red faced. headline Tuesday:
My girlfriend’s enlarged breasts turn me on, but I am not sure what to do with them.’
The Australian CUT@PASTE Dec 16th 2015 Pg 15.
No doubt they will be sending in an investigative journalist to find out.


COP21, the Paris Circus, was a vast right wing conspiracy restart the nuclear programs for electrical power production.
Can we stop the conspiracy now and get on with construction?


I’m with Oreskes on nuclear, so I guess that I am no longer a denier while Jim Hansen is.
Dec 17, 2015 at 10:05 AM | Unregistered CommenterRichard Tol


Chernobyl was due to the Soviets building the cheapest possible, graphite moderator reactors, designed such that they actively burn if they melt down. Three Mile Island was a win-win and no one was hurt and the problem contained. Fukushima was just plain stupid—who in their right mind would put the back-up generators in an unhardened structure on the ocean side of the nuclear plant, where a tsunami could wipe them away? That’s just a stupid plan and one very easily corrected.
Liquid fluoride thorium reactors (aka LiFTR) are already liquid and cannot meltdown, they are even self-scrambling and self-leveling, we are up to our ears in thorium, It’s cheap and easy to manage. The proof of concept was done back in the 1960s. It can even be automated and not subject to human error. We could have a completely decentralized energy supply and entirely eliminate the grid and any threat of blackouts or brownouts. Industry would be independent and safe. Imagine the incredible tons of copper and iron that could be recovered from the dismantled power lines.
Oh, and nuclear has the smallest ecological foot print, is one of the cheapest energies, and “green.” Wind and solar have the largest footprint on the planet, cost many times more than other forms of energy, use rare materials that are not only unsustainable but also most for the materials are non-recyclable. Yeah, wind and solar suck big time. The Sun sets, the wind dies, and we do not have a cheap, reliable means of storing energy between times.

Barry Sheridan

Glad to see someone else mentioning the potential of the LFTR.

Nigel S

Chernobyl was initiated by a “safety check” of course.

Man Bearpig

How many people died as a result of Chernobyl ?
Here it is from the UN (The Organisation that gave us the UNIPCC) ..
” WASHINGTON, D.C., 5 September (IAEA/WHO/UNDP) — A total of up to 4,000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (NPP) accident nearly 20 years ago, an international team of more than 100 scientists has concluded.
As of mid-2005, however, fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster, almost all being highly exposed rescue workers, many who died within months of the accident but others who died as late as 2004.
The new numbers are presented in a landmark digest report, “ Chernobyl’s Legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts”, just released by the Chernobyl Forum. The digest, based on a three-volume, 600-page report and incorporating the work of hundreds of scientists, economists and health experts, assesses the 20-year impact of the largest nuclear accident in history. The Forum is made up of eight UN specialized agencies, including the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, and the World Bank, as well as the Governments of Belarus, Russian Federation and Ukraine.”
So, yes it was a disaster and many lessons have been learnt, there has not been anything like this since.
How many workers have been killed with other Energy production methods? compared to deaths in the Nuclear industry.
April 26, 1942: A coal-dust explosion at Benxihu Colliery in Japanese occupied China killed 1,549
May 5, 1988: Norco, Louisiana, Shell Oil refinery explosion after hydrocarbon gas escaped from a corroded pipe in a catalytic cracker and was ignited. Louisiana state police evacuated 2,800 residents from nearby neighborhoods. Seven workers were killed and 42 injured.
July 6, 1988: Piper Alpha disaster. An explosion and resulting fire on a North Sea oil production platform kills 167 men.
Someone is bound to Mention Fukishima…
March 2011: Fukushima I nuclear accidents in Japan. Regarded as the second largest nuclear disaster in history, after the Chernobyl disaster, there have been no direct deaths attributed to radiation at or around the Fukushima power station but a few of the plant’s workers were injured or killed by the disaster conditions resulting from the earthquake and tsunami that struck the power plant which precipitated the accident.
Go for Nuclear, it is clean and safe, well mostly clean.


“Liquid fluoride thorium reactors (aka LiFTR) are already liquid and cannot meltdown, they are even self-scrambling and self-leveling, we are up to our ears in thorium, It’s cheap and easy to manage. The proof of concept was done back in the 1960s.”
ABSOLUTELY FALSE!!! Where did you get this junk?


The assumption among some so-called experts is that there is no safe level of radiation, and thus even tiny amounts cause a number of deaths proportionate to the dose.
In other words, it is supposed by these people that the dose/fatality graph is linear for radiation exposure.
It is know to be true that low levels of radiation have the opposite effect…they protect against genetic damage by activating cellular repair mechanisms and other protective responses on a cellular level, and perhaps at the level or organ systems and entire organisms.
Several very well documented instances of this phenomenon are know, and this protective effect is known as hormesis. In the case of radiation, it is called radiation hormesis, but such responses have been documented regarding exposure to other toxic substances and some sorts of injuries.
Getting lots of sun makes a person tan, and this protects against further damage from solar UV.
Broken bones heal to be stronger at the location of the fracture. Working with ones hands and getting numerous abrasions leads to calloused skin, which is highly resistant to almost any sort of damage. Doing strenuous work which tears down muscle tissue leads to the development of very strong muscles, which are able to do far more work than muscles which are not stressed on a regular basis.
These are all well known effects, which no one would dispute. Less well known, but true nonetheless is that within our bodies are other processes that performs tasks such as repairing oxidative damage to cells and tissues including, most significantly for long term low doses of ionizing radiation, repairing damaged DNA. These repair mechanisms respond to stress and extra damage by stepping up their response and effectiveness.
In this way, people who live in places with naturally high levels of background radiation have been shown to suffer less cancers than others who do not experience elevated exposure. Many places, like the monzonite sands of India, have this natural condition, and epidemiological studies have confirmed this (perhaps) surprising and counterintuitive result.
Even cases of sudden elevated exposure, endured over log periods of time by large numbers of people, have been documented.
Perhaps the best known is a building in Taiwan which was constructed as a housing block, and which inadvertently was built with highly radioactive rebars in the concrete. The radiation was not discovered for a very long time, so lots of people lived for a long time under radiation loads which had been supposed would cause greatly elevated cancer risks. But these people did not have elevated rates of cancer…in fact they had rates that were significantly below those of other people with the same demographics but without the radiation exposure.
What does not kill you makes you stronger, is an aphorism which is true in ways undreamed of by whoever coined the phrase.
It is easy to look up this effect. If you never heard of this, you will likely be pleasantly surprised.
A link to the story and subsequent research, but a search will turn up many other references:

FJ Shepherd

This is more than a hint on the religious nature of climate alarmism. The first major schism has occurred and the heretics have been identified and called out. What will come next?


Post COP nuptials, a great time for muckrakers and tallow harvesters. Confusion and dissention in the air. One lentil short of mulligatawny over at the orange tirade offers pot stirring ideation, punch and Judy (bets are off). Disturbances in the farce all around. Green energy sabres at the ready, left-left entertainment follows.


Oreskes came to Australia and was protected by the greenABC from being asked awkward questions, such as why has the temperature not risen outside natural variation as predicted by the models?
The otorious anti nuclear protestor Jane??? was here at the same time spreading gossip about Fukushima. When challenged with real data, she answered by catching the first plane out of the country.
These people are prime hypocrites.


These people will , however, be given prime jobs in Hillary’s first cabinet .
I can see Oreskes as head of the US State Dept.
Would she be any different from, or less effective than, Kerry?

Christopher Hanley

The quasi-marxist-leninist-trotskyist-antinuclear-green-occupy-‘whatever it is I’m against it’ crowd always end up fighting amongst themselves à la the People’s Front of Judea vs the Judean People’s Front.


Orestes and her ilk do not believe that having reliable, cheap energy is a good thing. They want us to have to tailor our activities to wind and solar and get used to having intermittent and unreliable energy; i.e., no real industry to speak of, as such activities require reliable, cheap energy.


Children are being taught this rubbish in schools

Unlike Naomi Oreskes, James Hansen is not a complete imbecile. He understands that unless you wish to kill a good percentage of the world’s population, that renewables will never replace the reliable source of energy that nuclear provides.
Perhaps Ms. Oreskes wishes to substantially deplete the world’s population so that the energy demand is shrunk to the energy supply that she will allow those who are selected to live to have.


isthatright – yes, we must give the devil his dues. Hansen is spot on : only a crash-program building nuclear power stations stands a chance of halting atmospheric CO2 increase. At least he shows that he is realistic, given his belief in the theory of CAGW. It is Oreskes who has her head in the clouds.


“James Hansen is not a complete imbecile. ”
Which bits are missing ???

“He’s right your Honor. This man has no dick.” — Dr. Peter Venkman. Ghostbusters.

Well, he does bring up his grand kids at every opportunity … as if he had something to prove.


James “Boiling Oceans” Hansen?
Are we talking about the same guy?
The number of times this guy has been completely wrong in his over confident predictions could fill an encyclopedia, and yet he has never admitted he may have it all wrong.
To me, this sort of behavior is no hallmark of superior intellect.

Greg Cavanagh

Menicholas: it demonstrates that Hanson fully believes Catastrophic AGW, but his answer is at least a realistic one.


Yes, it may be the only thing he has ever said in public that turned out to be correct.
Even a stopped watch…


As a millennial with a brain, I’m one of the few who thinks that Nuclear Plants should be our future and not just that fusion future (which will eventually come…I think) but that fission is both safe, reliable, and can provide the baseload, nearly CO2-free power that Environmentalists say they want, but that’s not actually what they want as I think nearly everyone here knows.
If government regulation got out of the way, especially with Gen-4 reactors, we would not have any meltdowns and the cost and time required to build the reactors would be minimal. As well, pushing development and regular distribution of molten salt reactors would mean that we no longer have to worry about nuclear waste storage as the waste would just be transported and stored briefly before it was consumed by this reactor further eliminating the anti-nuclear worries of long-term storage and possible leakage of the radioactive material.

#1 They’ve always told us there’s a consensus, that’s why skeptics are banned from all aspects of climate/policy..
#2 Alarmists never call each other out, no matter how wacky the claims; which shows they care more about PR than the truth. Now we have one occasion where they do, it’s surprisingly the super loony alarmists calling out other alarmists for something they are actually being logical about.

Tom Donelson

Ah the revolution is now eating their own


once you end the war on coal, & continue with oil and gas & hydro, there’s no need for heavy investment in and reliance on either option the CAGW factions are now fighting over.

Ed Zuiderwijk

Naomi should take some time off. She looks tired.


Hansen and co. quote ” We have used both climate models and geological records of past climates to better understand lessons from warmer periods in the Earth’s history to investigate future scenarios ” How about that then? Admission that the Earth had been warmer.


When the Berlin wall came down there was two sets of people , those that weep tears of joy at its falls and the freedom the people of eastern Europe gained , and those that weep tears of sadness because it fell and the people of eastern Europe gained freedom , guess which one Naomi was.

William Astley

Naomi Oreskes is a green, socialistic fascist, a fanatic that has a cause based on insanity, were rule one is never criticize or question the ‘science’, the logical basis, basic engineering issues, basic economic issues associated with the insanity. The time for ‘discussion’ or debate is over. Wait there never was any discussion or debate.
The entire scientific basis of CAGW is incorrect. The majority of the CO2 atmospheric rise is due to natural sources and the majority of the warming in the last 150 years is due to solar cycle changes. If that assertion is correct global warming and the rise in atmospheric CO2 is reversible.
Cult of CAGW Rules (Similar to the Rules of Fight Club)
Cult of CAGW Rule 1: Those who question any of the cult’s science are evil, deniers. Sub rule 1A. The time for ‘debate’ concerning ‘climate change’ is over so it is impossible to stop the madness. Sub rule 1B, talking about the end of deficit spending is to be avoided at all costs. Liberalism, socialism is based on never ending spending to ‘solve’ problems. If time of deficit spending is over, then spending more money on project A will require spending less money on project/entitlement B.
Cult of CAGW Rule 2: Fabrication of science is necessary to convince the public that unlimited deficit spending/allocation of limited GDP is necessary to fight ‘climate change’. Due to rule 1 and rule 2, all calculations associated with the greens scams, the general circulation predicted warming in the models, the Bern atmospheric model that provides the cult’s assertion for the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere, CO2 sources and sinks, and the economic costs of warming and benefits for green scams has been fabricated to push the cult of CAGW’s paradigm.
Cult of CAGW Rule 3: All promises to make ridiculous expenditures (there is no money to spend and there are comical, pathetic future unfunded liabilities) on green scams which will result in no appreciable change in climate or in atmospheric CO2 levels are praised (reality should be ignored) as they are a move in the right direction.
There are layers and layers of lies associated with the Cult of CAGW.
Green Scam Layer. Developed Countries are Running Deficits and hence have run out of Money to spending on everything layer.
Oreskes does not understand that the green scams are scams, a colossal waste of limited public funds. The green scams do not work. People do not understand that developed countries have run out of money to spending on everything.
Spending is limited by GDP. Higher energy costs will result in lower GDP and will result in a lower standard of life for all people. Spending more money on green scams that do not work will require spending less money on health care, roads, defense, schools, teacher’s salaries, public pensions, aid to foreign countries, aid for refuges, and so on.
Oreskes does not understand the developed countries have increased their debt to GDP ratio by 50% since 2007. That was a significant mistake. There will be consequences when the next economic crisis appears. The public will not support green scam mandates that will triple of the cost of electricity and result in the loss of more jobs to Asia during an economic crisis.
Economist June 13, 2015

Watch out: The world is not ready for the next recession
…If any of these worries causes a downturn the world will be in a rotten position to do much about it. Rarely have so many large economies been so ill equipped to manage a recession, whatever its provenance, as our wiggle room ranking makes clear (see page 72). Rich countries debt to GDP ratio has risen by about 50% since 2007. In Britain and Spain debt has more than doubled.

It is pathetic that the cult of CAGW and the many green leaches are pushing green scams that do not work for basic engineering and economic reasons.

beyond astronomical

Recently Bill Gates explained in an interview with the Financial Times why current renewables are dead-end technologies. They are unreliable. Battery storage is inadequate. Wind and solar output depends on the weather. The cost of decarbonization using today’s technology (William: Solar and wind power rather than nuclear) is “beyond astronomical,” Mr. Gates concluded.

The key problem appears to be that the cost of manufacturing the components of the renewable power facilities is far too close to the total recoverable energy – the facilities never, or just barely, produce enough energy to balance the budget of what was consumed in their construction. This leads to a runaway cycle of constructing more and more renewable plants simply to produce the energy required to manufacture and maintain renewable energy plants – an obvious practical absurdity.
A research effort by Google corporation to make renewable energy viable has been a complete failure, according to the scientists who led the programme. After 4 years of effort, their conclusion is that renewable energy “simply won’t work”.

Germany Energiewend Leading To Suicide By Cannibalism. Huge Oversupply Risks Destabilization
The coming age of power cannibalism…Germany on the verge of committing energy suicide
Capacity without control The problem with the “renewable” power sources of wind and solar is their intrinsic volatility coupled with their poor capacity utilization rates of only 17.4% for wind and 8.3% for solar (average values for Germany). – See more at:
Yet Germany has a unique peculiarity: its leaders sometimes exhibit a stunning inability to recognize when the time has come to abandon a lost cause. So far €500 billion (William: €500 billion is $550 billion US) has already been invested in the “Energiewende”, which is clearly emerging as a failure. Yet all political parties continue to throw their full weight behind the policy rather than admitting it is a failure (which would be tantamount to political suicide). Instead, the current government coalition has even decided to shift into an even higher gear on the path to achieving its objective of generating 80% of German electric power from “renewable” sources by 2050. If the situation is practically unmanageable now with 25% renewable energy (William: Note that the Germans are receiving 25% of their electrical power from green scams, the actual carbon reduction is only 15% to 25% due to requirement to turn on/off/on/off single cycle natural gas power plants rather than to run combine cycle more efficient power plants that take 10 hours to start and that are hence left on for weeks), it’ll be an uncontrollable disaster when (if) it reaches 80%.


I just found this comment from earlier in the year on Judith Curry’s blog:
“I’d like to see a list of candidates for Pope of the Church of CAGW.
James Hansen,
Michael Mann
Al Gore
John Holdren
Naomi Oreskes”.
I guess that Oreskes must have read that comment and decided to work her way down the list, discrediting all but herself.
The night of the long knives.

Ed Zuiderwijk

But once she is Pope of the Church of CAGW there is a need for fresh saints, so she can’t be too harsh on them either.


The general thrust of the skeptic case is that the increased CO2 atmospheric fraction has little to do with atmospheric temperatures.
To needlessly replace fossil fuels then makes no sense.
The history of nuclear power stations gives very little support to the proposition that they are safe.
A major incident like Chernobyl or Fukushima destroys land values within 20 mile radius of the plant never mind the health risks.
France which is Europe biggest nuclear power user has recently grown wary and plans no future stations.
The decommissioning of retired nuclear power stations is proving to be horrendously expensive.


France is worried? That’s new to me.
Despite decades of extreme antinuclear propaganda in the media, the French people are resisting well.
The idea of decrease “dependency” on nuclear is a political talking point.


But France is scheduling the decommissioning of those plants soon, in response to greenie pressure.


No. Nuclear capacity is now capped by law (yes this is obviously illegal, free trade and everything) at 63 GW.
The capacity cap will be raised when the EPR comes online. (It’s like the deficit ceiling in the US!)
There is the just upgraded Fessenheim plant with a not-really-core catcher (the real core catcher would be larger I guess) in both reactors, so they won’t be closed now.
There was bargain with the green party: close Fessenheim plant and get our votes. The greens not in the government anymore.
There is a vague plan to decrease nuclear energy in relative terms from 75% to 50% … in 2025. François Hollande failed pretty much everything except gay mariage and a 75% tax for >one million euros salaries.
François Hollande can’t decide anything significant now, the traditional left party (Parti Socialiste) is traditionally pronuclear, the communists are, the “extreme right” (Front National) is too, only the greens and the neo-communists (Front de Gauche) are against.

Leo Smith

Bryan: the cost and danger of nuclear power is not a function of the technology, but of the perceptions and the legislation.
If you start with the proposition that nuclear power is so dangerous that one extra micro Sievert of radiation (in a world that contains billions) is so dangerous that every reactor mist have 17 concrete and steel walls built round it and safety system in quintuplicate, all assessed twenty times a day by an army of trained bureaucrats, well yes, then nuclear power will be impossibly expensive.
It’s a self fulfilling prophecy.
The evidence of course is slowly building that radiation is far far less dangerous than the regulatory environment has assumed. There is no shame in that, because the regulatory environment was introduced at a time when the knowledge and the data simply wasn’t there, and so worst case assumptions were made.
What is shameful is the reluctance of the anti-nuclear brigade to relinquish their shibboleths, and accept that the true lessons of Chernobyl, Fukushima and Three mile Island, is that actually radiation is far far less dangerous than has been assumed by the regulatory structures, and that all the predictions made in terms of megadeath resulting from radiation release have been utterly and completely wrong, to the point where the whole basis of the model of human harm from low level radiation has to be called into question.
But the left loves its shibboleths. Anti-nuclear sentiment as well as anti-capitalist sentiment, and that includes Green issues as well, is the bedrock of the cold war AgitProp that was used to destabilise the West. And now lives on in modified form in the environmental movement.
What we see here is the schism between the real environmentalists – the likes of Patrick Moore, and even the idiotic Monbiot, and Mark Lynas, who actually believe in AGW,. and are honest in their appraisal of the solutions, and those to whom AGW, nuclear power and the like are simply tools in a worldwide, generation spanning, hearts-and-minds black propaganda war, whose aim is the destruction of national cultures, economies and identities and the imposition of a world government, which they either fondly believe will solve the worlds problems – or firmly believe they will be a part of, and therefore safe from being a neo-feudal serf. Which is the condition they feel befits the rest of us.
It is this massive and monumental egotism of the Green/Left/anti-nuclear brigade that gives the lie to their pretensions. They are legends in their own minds, warriors whose methods cannot be questioned, because their cause is right, or so the puppet masters assure them.
I cannot stress this enough. I have spent a long time analysing the Green/Left/CND mind, and they all share a common characteristic. They think they are more intelligent and deserving of note than they actually are. They bitterly resent being ignored, laughed at or dismissed as idiots.. Their whole emotional stance is of bitter resentment against those whom they perceive have passed them by and been successful, where they have not. The more their ideology crumbles around them, the more bitter and full of hatred they feel, because it reinforces their status as victims, and even though it is their own ideology they are victims of, they will always manage to project that hatred onto others, seeing class enemies, environmental enemies and the like where none actually exist.
You and I might profess to being a bit sceptical about green issues. They dont profess to being concerned, they are Environmentalists. They define themselves by their political beliefs, and therein lies the danger: If those beliefs fail, they are in the end empty shells of people with no substance left at all.
And herein lies the crux of the whole matter. Naomi simply cannot even entertain the possibility that she is wrong. TO do so would be to court complete disintegration of her persona. Naturally she defends her position with all the scorn venom and irrationality of which the human female is capable, (and which is now being copied by today’s metro-sexual males).
Just please dont be drawn into the same position vis à vis nuclear power, of being tied to the old shibboleths, when new information shows them to be misplaced.
Nuclear/fossil/renewable should be a simple question of cost benefit and risk analysis based on best data available. Not an issue of bigotry and ideology that the Green Left want to make it.


Pr Pierre Pellerin (MD, “agrégé” of biophysics, researcher at INSERM (Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale = national institute of health and medical research) and CEA (Commissariat à l’énergie atomique), professor of biophysics and nuclear medicine, French expert for radioprotection, creator and director of “Service central de protection contre les rayonnements ionisants”):

– A mon avis, la conception d’absence de seuil appartient à la catégorie des problèmes imaginaires qui, bien à propos, sont utiles aux personnes atteintes d’égoïsme professionnel. Au sujet de la linéarité (de la relation effet/dose, c’est-à-dire l’absence de seuil, Note du traducteur) pendant les 30 ans d’existence du marché commun, on a dépensé à peu près 1 milliard de francs et jusqu’à présent il n’y a eu aucun résultat. Lorsque nous posons la question pour arrêter le financement de telles recherches, on essaie de nous faire changer d’avis parce que depuis de nombreuses années existent des laboratoires, que des services entiers ont été créés, que beaucoup de scientifiques prennent part à ces recherches et qu’interrompre tous ces travaux serait peu raisonnable.
Entre parenthèses, la conception d’absence de seuil est apparue non pas comme un problème exigeant une solution mais seulement comme une hypothèse qu’il convient d’utiliser par humanité afin d’élaborer des normes de protection. La Commission Internationale de Protection Radiologique créée en premier lieu justement pour examiner ces hypothèses pessimistes, a bien compris que c’était une manière pseudo-scientifique de traiter la question, toutefois elle n’a pas hésité à les formuler en partant précisément de ce désir d’améliorer la protection contre les radiations. Et un nombre énorme de personnes y compris des scientifiques, ont commencé à considérer cette hypothèse pessimiste comme un fait indiscutable.

extract from:
Entretien réalisé par Alexandre Sidorenko,
Kiev-Soir, 19 juin 1989,
publié par Sovietskaya Bieloroussia, dimanche 1er juillet 1989
Source: (yes, an antinuclear site)
Google Translate output edited by me:
In my opinion, the concept of absence of threshold belongs to the category of imaginary problems which are useful for people with professional selfishness. About the linearity (the dose / effect relationship, that is to say the absence of a threshold, translator’s note) during the 30 years of the common market [= Europe integrated market], we spent about 1 billion francs and so far there has been no result. When we ask to stop the funding of such research, people try to make us change our minds because for many years there has been laboratories, that entire departments were created, that many scientists are involved in this research and that interrupting all this work would be unreasonable.
     By the way, the no threshold concept has emerged not as a problem requiring a solution but only as a hypothesis to be used by humanity to develop protection standards. The International Commission on Radiological Protection created in the first place precisely to review these pessimistic assumptions, and understood that this was a pseudo-scientific way to address the issue, but it did not hesitate to edict these from the desire to improve protection against radiation. And a huge number of people including scientists, have begun to consider the worst case as an indisputable fact.

Extract from:
Interview Alexandre Sidorenko,
Kiev-Evening, June the 19th , 1989,
published by Sovietskaya Bieloroussia, Sunday, July the 1st, 1989


Dans les Annales des Mines de janvier 1974 (une revue très respectée !) le professeur Pellerin et son adjoint Moroni (qu’on retrouvera en 1986 au moment de Tchernobyl) donnaient leur vision de la sûreté nucléaire.
L’article commençait par déterminer la cause de « l’inquiétude du public, la confusion entre énergie nucléaire et explosifs nucléaires et la crainte des effets génétiques d’autre part».
Pour mettre un terme « à ce danger social pour le développement de l’énergie nucléaire » ces “responsables” se réfèrent à un vieux rapport de l’Organisation mondiale de la santé, (OMS, n°151, 1958) intitulé « Questions de santé mentale que pose l’utilisation de l’énergie atomique à des fins pacifiques ».
Ces “responsables” mentionnaient trois points importants de ce rapport de l’OMS et insistaient sur leur « opportunité » :
« – de ne pas développer de façon excessive les mesures de sécurité dans les installations nucléaires afin qu’elles ne provoquent pas une anxiété injustifiée.
– de convaincre les autorités qu’il n’entre pas dans le rôle des savants de prononcer des jugements de caractère psychologique ou moral sur des problèmes scientifiques.
– d’inciter les savants à mieux saisir la portée exacte et les conséquences de leurs déclarations. »


In January 1974 in Annals of “Les mines” (a highly respected journal!) professor Pellerin and his assistant Moroni () gave their vision of nuclear safety.
The article began with determining the cause of “public concern, confusion between nuclear energy and explosives and also the fear of genetic effects“.
To put an end “to this social danger for the development of nuclear energy” those “responsible” refer to an old report from the World Health Organization (WHO, No. 151, 1958) entitled “mental health issues created by the use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes.”
These “leaders” mentioned three important points of the WHO report and insisted on their “opportunity”:
– Not to develop excessive security measures in nuclear facilities so that they do not cause undue anxiety.
– To convince the authorities that it is not in the role of scholars to impose psychological character or moral judgments on scientific issues.
– Encourage scientists to better understand the exact scope and consequences of their statements.

This is one of the most coherent pieces regarding AGW I have ever seen.


“France which is Europe biggest nuclear power user has recently grown wary and plans no future stations.”
Do you know that France currently has 58 power reactors online in 19 different plants, and is building a 1600 MW “EPR” (formerly European Pressurized Reactor, now Evolutionary Pressurized Reactor)?
Do you know that the total capacity is 63 GW?
Do you know that the lifetime of these reactors will be extended for 20 years?
Do you have any idea what France electrical needs are?
Why would you think France should make plans to build “future stations”?


Today the last deep coal mine in the UK closes.
Thatcher kicked off the anti-coal bandwagon because of class hatred against British miners.
She later said that the use of the ‘greenhouse effect ‘ argument was just tactics and anyone that was worried by CO2 was just deluded.
Here on a climate skeptic site some advocates seem to accept that there is a CO2 problem .
Their solution is a massive switch to Nuclear Power Plants despite the safety and cost involved.
The cheapest, most reliable energy source is fossil fuels (coal gas and oil ).
Why fix a non existent problem with a dangerous and costly solution?


It wasn’t class hatred, it was a reaction to the militant left wing antics of the labor unions.


“France which is Europe biggest nuclear power user has recently grown wary and plans no future stations.”
The word “station” is interesting. Why “station” instead of “reactor”? Do you even know the difference?
Also, number of civilian power reactors in the world: 438.
Number in France: 58
It means 13% of the civilian nuclear power reactors of the world are in France! (for about 1 % of the world population)
Another comparison:
Nuclear power capacity
France 62 GW
And of course France plans no future “stations” because adding reactors to existing stations is cheaper.


I said
“France which is Europe biggest nuclear power user has recently grown wary and plans no future stations.”
You said
“The word “station” is interesting. Why “station” instead of “reactor”? Do you even know the difference?”
If you google
Nuclear Power Station
Or Nuclear Power Plant
You will get thousands of hits.
Is English not your first language?
Or are you just a language fascist?


“Is English not your first language?”
No, it isn’t.
What is your point?
Did you mean “station”?
Why would France build nuclear stations?

William Astley

There are layers and layers of madness associated with the Cult of CAGW.

..This is the most childish form of magical thinking. It’s like asking kids to clap their hands so that Tinker Bell won’t die. For activists, climate change is a simplistic and self-centred morality tale that pits our greed and wickedness against the Utopia of a kinder, gentler, fairer, better world. In fact, climate change is a complex and fiendishly hard problem, (William: A problem that does not exist) with huge uncertainties about what lies ahead and even greater uncertainties about effective policies to address it. The activists should do themselves a favour, and grow up.

The following is an interesting review of Naomi Klein’s new book ‘This Changes Everything’ which is an anti-industrial development book. Klein believes in a fairy tale world, where green energy is not a scam. Climate ‘change’ is the wedge to create her socialistic vision. Silly reality, more than 10 observation and analysis results that support the assertion that roughly 90% of the warming in the last 50 years was due to solar magnetic cycle changes rather than atmospheric CO2 and that the planet has now started to cool are not even considered, irrelevant to her fantasy.

She told Vogue (William: Fashion magazine) that her new book, This Changes Everything, is “a book about climate change for people who don’t read books about climate change.”
(William: P.S. I read Klein’s book. There is no scientific discussion. There is no scientific content. There is a smug, angry woman who talks on, and on, and on about her fascist fantasy.)
….The thesis of This Changes Everything is that global warming is a war of capitalism against the planet, and that we need a people’s uprising to reclaim true democracy from the venal and corrupt politicians who have been co-opted by Big Oil. If this sounds like the Occupy movement all over again, you’re right. “We need an ideological battle,” Ms. Klein told the Guardian.
But wait. What about the rest of the world? Do they need an ideological battle, too? How do we get them to sign on? Every effort at global collective action has so far been a colossal flop, and there is not a hope in hell that that is going to change.
China alone now accounts for a whopping 28 per cent of the world’s C02 emissions – twice as much as the U.S. Over the past five years, China’s emissions increased more than the rest of the world combined; on a per-capita basis, it now out-pollutes the EU. India produces less than 7 per cent of the world’s total emissions, but most of its people still live in a state of energy starvation. India’s most pressing health problem isn’t climate change. It’s indoor pollution from dung fires.
The developing world is now responsible for nearly 60 per cent of global emissions. Even if the developed nations make substantial cuts to CO2, over the coming decades emissions growth in the developing world will dwarf their efforts. Yet in every interview, excerpt and review I’ve read about her book, Ms. Klein has nothing to say on this subject. Talk about denial! No book on climate that ignores elementary facts like these can be counted as a serious work. ….
..This is the most childish form of magical thinking. It’s like asking kids to clap their hands so that Tinker Bell won’t die. For activists, climate change is a simplistic and self-centred morality tale that pits our greed and wickedness against the Utopia of a kinder, gentler, fairer, better world. In fact, climate change is a complex and fiendishly hard problem, with huge uncertainties about what lies ahead and even greater uncertainties about effective policies to address it. The activists should do themselves a favour, and grow up.

The cult of CAGW is part of cult of Liberalism which is based on spending more and money which the government does not have to solve problems. The end of the road is economic collapse.

When the Money Runs Out: The End of Western Affluence. By Stephen King. Yale University Press
The terrifying title of Stephen King’s latest book will tempt some people to dismiss it as an exercise in scaremongering to be filed alongside the efforts of his horror-writing namesake. But Mr King, the chief economist of HSBC, is not the kind of run-of-the-mill Jeremiah who calls for citizens to buy gold and shotguns and retreat to a mountain hideout; his book is well-written, thoughtful and highly convincing.
That is a problem because people in the rich world have grown accustomed to rising standards of living and governments have promised them benefits that may not be affordable. Some countries are struggling to pay those benefits as well as service the debts they owe to foreign bondholders. (William: The problem is the foreign bondholder is our own countries and the entire world banking system. This is a massive shell game.) “Governments are strongly incentivised to defraud their international creditors if the alternative is to damage the interests of voters,” he writes.

Scientific Layer. Hide the fact that there are cycles of warming both hemispheres in the paleo record. The past warming correlates with solar cycle changes.
Scientific Fraud layer. Manipulate data. Fire editors that dare to publish papers that show CAGW is a scam.

Does the Current Global Warming Signal Reflect a Recurrent Natural Cycle?
In the middle of the editorial review by Nature Climate Change, the senior editor in charge of our paper abruptly and inexplicably ceased working for the journal. We were notified of this change by an automated “no longer working here” response to a routine e-mail from us. We were advised later that responsibility for our paper had been transferred to the Chief Editor of Nature Climate Change, who issued the final rejection. A few weeks later, the climate journalist Christopher Booker wrote an opinion piece in the Sunday Times of London to the effect that Nature magazine continues to reject scientific findings if they contradict the prevailing anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. We have no way of knowing whether or how the departure of the Nature Climate Change editor or the Sunday Times article was related to the rejection of our paper.
Public media in the U.S., including National Public Radio (NPR), were quick to recognize the significance of this discovery. The past natural warming events reported by Mulvaney et al. are similar in amplitude and duration to the present global warming signal, and yet the past warmings occurred before the industrial revolution and therefore were not caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases. The present global warming cycle lies within the range of these past natural warming cycles, suggesting that the present global warming cycle may be of natural origin and not caused by human activity–as climate skeptics have been arguing for some time.
A couple of years ago we performed a similar but more extensive analysis of the historical temperature record from the ice core data obtained from the Vostok site in the Antarctic, not far from the ice core evaluated in the recent Mulvaney et al. Nature paper. ….
We found 342 natural warming events (NWEs) corresponding to this definition, distributed over the past 250,000 years at apparently irregular intervals (though we have not analyzed for subtle regularities, which may exist). The 342 NWEs we identified by this method are reminiscent of the two more recent NWEs reported in the Mulvaney et al. paper.
The 342 NWEs contained in the Vostok ice core record are divided into low-rate warming events (LRWEs; < 0.74oC/century) and high rate warming events (HRWEs; ≥ 0.74oC /century) (Figure). Warming rates of NWEs were calculated as the peak amplitude (oC) divided by the duration (centuries). The threshold for HRWEs of 0.74oC /century is useful because this is the estimated rate of the current global warming event according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Of the 342 NWEs in the Vostok record, 46 are high-rate warming cycles (HRWEs). The mean warming rate of these recurrent HRWEs is approximately 1.2oC per century, the mean amplitude is 1.62oC, and the mean duration of the warming phase is 143.8 years.
For comparison, the current warming rate estimated by the IPCC is about 0.74oC/century, the current amplitude so far is about 1oC, and the current duration to date is 197 years. The current global warming signal is therefore the slowest and among the smallest in comparison with all HRWEs in the Vostok record, although the current warming signal could in the coming decades yet reach the level of past HRWEs for some parameters. The figure shows the most recent 16 HRWEs in the Vostok ice core data during the Holocene, interspersed with a number of LRWEs. Note the highest rate of warming beginning at 8,226 YBP, near the beginning of the agricultural revolution (taking into account the north-to-south hemispheric phase lag or climate see-saw).


Just out of interest here are some figures for the various technologies that fall under the title “renewable”:
“92% of renewable energy was hydroelectric followed by wind at 6% and geothermal at 1.8%. Solar photovoltaic was 0.06%, and solar thermal was 0.004%. Data are from OECD 2011-12 Factbook (2009 data)”
So, were a person to rule out nuclear and promote renewable technology, then obviously a rational actor would channel funding towards the most proven and most successful technology currently available.
We get <16% of global electricity from Hydro Power – and yet Oreskes and her friends always seem to want us to hurl money at the most expensive item on the menu.
I suspect that if wind power became commercially competitive and reliable, then they would first lose interest and then heartily resist it.
Just as the eco-left has done with hydropower.


Apologies, hydro is MORE than 16% of total global electricity production. And PV has grown by approximately a factor of 6 since 2009.


Hydro and PV solar is an excellent combination. We’re lucky enough to have that in our Australian State of Tasmania which is almost entirely powered by Hydro electricity. The more PV solar we get, the less pressure there is on draining our dams and we can export more profitable peak loading power across to the Australian mainland via our undersea cable.
Hydro power is one of the best energy sources as it can be varied instantly to match the required load. Its a great peak energy provider…


Absolutely. And many countries have over 50% hydro. Brazil for example has this facility to expand solar and wind due to its massive hydro capacity.
Chinese panels are now so cheap that the EU has slapped a 70% tax on them to try to keep the price high??!!!
Which to me, as a potential customer (off the grid) seems like the dumbest thing that I have ever heard.


70% tax on Chinese PV panels?
Now there is a scandal all in itself, even if not for the obvious incongruence of this to what is being foisted off on us at COP21.


Of course, the real reason Oreskes is dead against nuclear power is…
” It requires technical expertise”
Something she and her fellow travellers will never acquire. if she can’t have it…. neither can you.

Leo Smith

if she can’t have it…. neither can you.
Its called social justice, or egalitarianism, or ‘fairness’.
Its a complete rejection of any hierarchy whatsoever, except strangely it allows seems to end up in a hierarchy even more rigid than the one it purports to replace..


The buzzword is ‘equality’
And as we all know, some pigs are more equal than others.

No, she’s against it because it works. True warmists only believe in and promote methods that don’t economically work–that way they can achieve their goal of keeping the masses from having cheap abundant energy. After all, we’d only get into mischief.
About 15 years ago, when natural gas was considered a premium, almost boutique fuel, and very high-priced, all the enviros were saying it was the perfect alternative to nasty old cheap coal power. But since horizontal drilling w/fracking and the resulting overproduction of gas has dropped its price to the very affordable range, now enviros can’t stand natural gas. It’s too cheap and available. We’ll just get into mischief.

I think we have the birth a new piece of terminology, ‘Oreskesian Deniability’. Celebrations at seedy local dive bars would be the appropriate venue to celebrate at.
: )


One problem with renewables that is constantly overlooked by the faithful is that they consume lots of resources. They need construction materials and land – lots of it.
If you compare Ivanpah’s 392 MW (during the day only – and it needs a gas supply to achieve that) with Susquehanna’s 2,700 MW on a 24/7 basis you can see that renewables will swallow up huge swathes of land.
That may work in large countries but places like the UK and Japan would struggle with such solutions.comment image

Fatty Matty

Hmm…2700 MW vs 392 MW. One might draw the conclusion that the energy output from renewables is woefully insufficient in meeting our energy requirements. Data that I have never seen is a comparison of energy transfer capacity of various types of renewables (probably because I haven’t looked for it). I have read reports from AGW cultists that there is enough wind power area available in North Dakota and South Dakota alone to supply the entire country with its electricity requirements. Intuitively that’s hard to believe and there is no mention of how many turbines would be required and the cost that would be required to acquire the land, build the turbines, much less the cost of getting that energy throughout the country.
Of course, the above illustration indicates how ineffective soar power would be in replacing other more efficient sources of power and there is no indication of the relative costs of each. So, as a curious observer, is there enough theoretical energy out there in renewables to make a significant impact on our total energy requirements. That begs the question though of the entire AGW cult with their supposition that reducing our energy consumption will return the world to the Utopia that it was 1000 years ago (ignore history please).
Inquiring minds want to know..and so do I


From Ontario, Canada’s public energy system from two days ago:
I chose 1PM to be fair to solar (which is more than warmunists are to us):
Effeciency (i.e., output divided by capability)
GAS 14.6%
HYDRO 70.3%
WIND 35.9%
SOLAR 30.4%
% of total energy supplied:
GAS 6.5%
HYDRO 29.0%
WIND 6.3%
SOLAR 0.2%
Absent a computer chip-like advance in technology, I’m scared to find out how much land we’ll have to cover to get that solar number from 0.2% to even 2.0%…
Last week, our Auditor-General found out that our “green” energy plan is already $9 billion overbudget…


The problem with such calculations are many fold.
First, they take wind speed and multiply the number of square miles that see those speeds in the existing undisturbed environment. The problem is that as soon as you start putting in windmills, the windspeed downwind starts to drop. Even in small fields, this is a measurable problem. As a result, even if they were to fill up North and South Dakota with windmills, it would only produce a fraction of the power advertised.
Secondly, no windmill made generates it’s rated power more than a small fraction of the time. When winds are too high or too low, the windmills are shut down. As a result much of that so called wind power is unrecoverable, even under the best of circumstances. PS, in low wind conditions the cannibalization affect mentioned in the first point means that even fewer of the windmills will actually be turning.
Thirdly, very few people live in North and South Dakota. States nearby are also not densely populated. As a result most of the energy generated will have to be transported hundreds to thousands of miles to get to the people who need, with much, perhaps even most of the power lost along the way.
As a result most of the new windmills will have to be built in places where the conditions are less favorable.
Reminds me of the idiots who go on and on about how covering New Mexico and Arizona with solar panels would be able to power the entire US.


The US East Coast megapolis will never be able to be powered by renewables alone. Too much cloudy weather, too many short days and windless summers, and no where near enough topography or floodable land to increase hydto substantially.
These people that think wind and solar can replace fossil fuels and nuclear in such population dense locations are just uninformed or delusional.
It may be theoretically possible to convert a large portion of a western desert state to a solar farm, but without a superconducting transcontinental grid, it can not be delivered to where it is needed.
And then there is the whole thing with night time…

Bruce Cobb

Hydro seems to be in a category of its own, in a sort of energy limbo. Enviro loons tend not to like it, and often it isn’t counted as a renewable. Large-scale hydro can make sense economically, unlike solar and wind, which Greenies love (go figure). Anyway, we currently have a huge project in the works called Northern Pass, which will bring down over 1,000 MW of hydro from Quebec, feeding it into the New England power grid. Many of the concerns about it, mostly aesthetic ones (since the towers are in some cases twice the height of regular ones) have been, at least in part, addressed, by re-routing, and even burying parts of it. I see this as a win for common sense. At the same time, now there is an attempt to bring NG into southern New Hampshire, which would be great. Naturally, the Greenies are foaming at the mouth on this. Bernie Sanders, of course, has jumped on the anti-pipeline bandwagon.


Building dams for hydro has numerous benefits, besides the power itself. impounding large amounts of water is a boon to farming, plus it decreases risk of flooding and makes a region more able to withstand drought as well.
The main objection seems to be the inability for migratory fish to return readily to their spawning areas.
And some land is lost of course.
We cannot have everything…I say build dams and keep working on better fish ladders and other methods to allow fish to get upstream.
I had not been aware of so much untapped hydro power potential in Eastern Canada. Burying transmission lines has some problems, but overall it seems to be a good idea…ice storms and hurricanes can knock out power to large numbers of people for extended periods. Never lived in ice storm country, but my time without power after a couple of hurricanes was intensely miserable. I am willing to pay for a back up generator that will almost surely rarely be used…possibly never…to avoid the chance of weeks without power again.

Man Bearpig

I would like to take this opportunity to welcome Dr Hanson to the ever growing world of denieralistism or whatever we are called these days. You are most welcome sir. I look forward to reading your posts.


Oreskes hasn’t come up with the idea that renewables are cost-effective all on her own. She’s following a large number of greenie writers (e.g., Amory Lovins, who published a book with this claim a couple of years ago, etc.), and the Big Green NGOs, in believing that they are, or will be soon. And they are just as vociferous about it as she is. IOW, those who disagree with them are d*niers, etc. Our side is mostly unaware of this faction.