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: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/16/new-form-climate-denialism-dont-celebrate-yet-cop-21
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: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/03/nuclear-power-paves-the-only-viable-path-forward-on-climate-change
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?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So the revolution commences consuming itself.
A retrospective on the climate subject, over the past ~30 years or so, does provide ‘lessons to be learned’ on: correcting science research work product/method; refining science’s research correction mechanisms; establishing QA codes; and eliminating the blocking of research by gatekeeping due to orthodoxy.
John
Hilarious. Popcorn time.
I would say it is more accurate to describe Oreskes as practicing a strange new form of warmunism.
She is conflating totally unrelated topics.
As such, she makes the point plainly that her objections to Hansen are based on the politics of this new religion…the Church of CAGW
I’m tired of popcorn. Fiddle Faddle looks tempting though.
Bottom line; we essentially have a 3-legged stool supplying our electricity – coal, NG, and nuclear. The carbonophobes have been stupidly kicking out the coal leg and are trying to replace it with expensive, unreliable “renewables” or “green energy”. That is wrong, stupid, and potentially disasterous. We still need the coal leg of our 3-legged energy stool. The nuclear one having received short shrift in previous decades could certainly use some beefing up though.
(Comment deleted. Labeling others ‘deniers’, ‘denialists’, or similar pejoratives violates written site policy. You may re-post without the insults. -mod.)
Naomi, you showed such promise. Alas, you decided to spend your life as propagandist.
Why can’t people who can digest WUWT’s science and data worry much more about:
http://enenews.com/
Fukushima’s underground tunnels are over 4000 times as radioactive today as they were Dec 2014 and people just refuse to look at reality. Why is that?
Looks pretty alarmist. Scare tactics just don’t go over very well here. Go figure.
You either know dose rates (so mention dose rates!), or you don’t have anything.
What a dingbat blatherer.
Naomi Oreskes, it’s time to retire.
Shall we name it the Great schism of the Church of Climatism? 😉
Oreskes is one of the worst human beings on the face of the earth.
Great site for current info on all things nuclear ..
http://www.world-nuclear.org/Information-Library/
http://www.cnet.com/pictures/best-science-stories-of-2015-pictures/5/
Animals thrive in Chernobyl
It’s been nearly 30 years since the nuclear power plant disaster in Chernobyl Ukraine. A long-term study has found that animal populations are thriving in the human-free exclusion zone, with numbers increasing consistently since 1987, and animals adapting to radiation exposure.