Quote of the Week: Hansen, father of ‘global warming’, calls renewables a ‘grotesque idea’

Dr. James Hansen, writing about his 1988 senate testimony 30 years ago in an op-ed in the Boston Globe, said some very strong things when it comes to the pie-in-the-sky renewables schemes.

He starts off with:

THIRTY YEARS AGO, while the Midwest withered in massive drought and East Coast temperatures exceeded 100 degrees Fahrenheit, I testified to the Senate as a senior NASA scientist about climate change. I said that ongoing global warming was outside the range of natural variability and it could be attributed, with high confidence, to human activity — mainly from the spewing of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere. “It’s time to stop waffling so much and say that the evidence is pretty strong that the greenhouse effect is here,” I said.

This clear and strong message about the dangers of carbon emissions was heard. The next day, it led the front pages of newspapers across the country. Climate theory led to political action with remarkable speed. Within four years, almost all nations, including the United States, signed a Framework Convention in Rio de Janeiro, agreeing that the world must avoid dangerous human-made interference with climate.

Sadly, the principal follow-ups to Rio were the precatory Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement — wishful thinking, hoping that countries will make plans to reduce emissions and carry them out. In reality, most countries follow their self-interest, and global carbon emissions continue to climb (see graph at bottom).

But his finish is quite something, and is sure to raise some eyebrows in the green sector:

The notion that renewable energies and batteries alone will provide all needed energy is fantastical. It is also a grotesque idea, because of the staggering environmental pollution from mining and material disposal, if all energy was derived from renewables and batteries. Worse, tricking the public to accept the fantasy of 100 percent renewables means that, in reality, fossil fuels reign and climate change grows.


Source: https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2018/06/26/thirty-years-later-what-needs-change-our-approach-climate-change/dUhizA5ubUSzJLJVZqv6GP/story.html

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 28, 2018 3:02 am


He believes in one fantasy, but not another!

Reply to  Leo Smith
June 28, 2018 4:38 am

Science has absolutely no explanation for the evolution of animal sentience and absolute determinism excludes free will. I consider the denial of free will to be the greatest folly possible. –AGF

spalding craft
Reply to  yarpos
June 28, 2018 5:19 am

You don’t believe in God? Congratulations, you must be some sort of intellectual.

Reply to  spalding craft
June 28, 2018 5:59 am

God doesn’t believe in me too.

Reply to  agfosterjr
June 28, 2018 8:36 am

agfosterjr :
Do you NOT THINK that to make a statement like that :
“God doesn’t believe in me too.”

David Smith
Reply to  spalding craft
June 28, 2018 6:02 am

IF you believe in science, you couldn’t possibly believe in a god.

Reply to  David Smith
June 28, 2018 6:04 am

Please define the term “God” ?

Reply to  Marcus
June 29, 2018 5:37 am

God is the ininite, omnipotent, omniscient, eternal foundation of the universe. Or in more common terms, unlimited, all-powerful, all-knowing, always existing, foundation of the universe.

David Lentz
Reply to  David Smith
June 28, 2018 6:41 am

Science is explanation based on observation. There are limits to what Science has the the ability to observe. It is certainly reasonable to attribute what is beyond the power of Science to observe to God.

Mickey Reno
Reply to  David Lentz
June 28, 2018 8:44 am

But of course, don’t forget the other makers of dairy products when your religious metaphor is a morality tale involving a cheese maker.

Margaret Smith
Reply to  Mickey Reno
June 28, 2018 2:31 pm

“Mickey Reno

But of course, don’t forget the other makers of dairy products when your religious metaphor is a morality tale involving a cheese maker.”

Nice one!

David L. Hagen
Reply to  David Lentz
June 28, 2018 9:30 am

Objective eye witness accounts document Jesus birth, death, and resurrection, and Moses’ leading Israel out of Egypt etc. Such eye witness accounts evidence God’s interaction with men.

Louis Hunt
Reply to  David L. Hagen
June 28, 2018 11:35 am

Good point. Those who say there is no evidence for the existence of God, ignore documented eye-witness testimony. Courts of law have always allowed the testimony of witnesses as evidence. So, while such accounts may not be ‘proof’ of God’s existence, they are ‘evidence’. Having an open mind is one thing, but nothing requires greater blind faith than the firm belief that God does not exist. It is a supposition that is impossible to prove. So it is based entirely on one’s personal experience and prejudices, not on objective evidence.

Reply to  David L. Hagen
June 29, 2018 11:40 am

There are zero “eye witness accounts” that speak to the existence of Jesus let alone the Moses story. The accounts of the Apostles don’t count, they were written many years after the fact. The only acceptable and reliable historian of the time, Josephus, never mentioned a King of the Jews or a Jesus of Nazareth in his accounts, which were exhaustive records of the Roman occupation and what happened at Masada.

Even Pope Leo X is quoted as saying, “This myth of Jesus has served us well.”

Believe or not, it matters not to me. I won’t try to talk you out of your beliefs as long as you don’t attempt to force them down my throat. Just as the Constitution guarantees you the right of freedom of religion, it also gives me and others the right of freedom from religion.

Bob boder
Reply to  David Smith
June 28, 2018 6:48 am

I believe in nature and the science that helps understand it, I also am not a believer in religion and it’s superstitions, but I have no clue one way or the other whether there is or isn’t a god and neither does anyone else

honest liberty
Reply to  Bob boder
June 28, 2018 6:58 am

finally, an intelligent answer. Both assertions require faith. faith in accidental or meaningless chance (i.e. big bang) or all powerful creator. neither are provable, neither answer the beginning because it is a paradox, this existence.

the outcome though, of having faith in something more powerful than man creating the Universe (which is obviously true as man didn’t create the universe) is typically aligned with some type of moral framework because these people don’t attempt to become god. The other side, typical atheism, results in moral relativity (SJW, 17+genders, “hate-crimes” language,) and the desire to control others through suffocating centralized government and transhumanism (hence, these insane people trying to merge with robotics and hoping for singularity) because they don’t have faith in something greater than themselves.

It is actually quite sad that atheists assume their logic is superior, yet they clearly promote destruction through the policies they promote and vote for, as well as the foul garbage they desire like singularity. Not all, of course, but most. The only sane one I like is Stephan Molyneux.

Dave C
Reply to  honest liberty
June 28, 2018 9:34 am

Why do you lump all “typical atheism” as SJW,hate crimes and the dersire to control others ?Religion also has a desire to control others and are also guilty of hate crimes.Nor are Atheists all SJW,Myself and a lot of others lean just as much to the right as you do.

I would also like to add that religion did not create morals,in fact I know quite a few so called religious people that are very immoral.To imply that Atheists have no morals shows you certainly do not believe in honest liberty.

honest liberty
Reply to  Dave C
June 28, 2018 11:22 am

Dave, Please note my generalization:
Not all, of course, but most.
“typically… results in”
It is a reflection of the two opposing worldviews (atheism vs. deism) and the typical adherence to ideals that follow. As well, it most certainly is binary between nothing and something. Those are the options for all time. full stop.

Moral Relativism vs. Moral Absolutism, both following accordingly (of course, with some exceptions.) I was very specific to make those distinctions because generally speaking, they hold true.

Please illustrate where I mentioned religion. I did not. I said faith, as in faith in a higher power. I agree, many if not most Xians are “In Name Only” or CINO’s. Hypocrites. I am opposed to all religions because the true etymology is to “bind back, bind again.” It is Re-ligare, not Re-legare (which is associated with learning/books).
A critical difference.

Religion is desirable to one possessing an unthinking mind, as well as too weak to challenge personal paradigms. Faith is something else entirely, and both Atheists and deists of all swaths, at their core, have only faith to assert which is true.
Either:Something more powerful doesn’t exist and its pure chance/unintelligent/without purpose.
Something much more powerful exists and willed it. I lean to the opposite since reality tells me no human can manifest a Universe such as we exist. But even that doesn’t explain the source of that power, so it is an eternal paradox that is unsolvable.
That doesn’t make it irrefutable, it makes it faith because both are unprovable.

Also, where did I state morals are necessarily a product of only faith? If you are familiar with Stephan Molyneux’s work, you would then understand why I noted that he is about the only sane atheist I like. If you aren’t aware of him, then take some time to listen to his work. If I string together implicit statements that require context, and you can’t piece together the though process, that is not my concern.

Reply to  honest liberty
June 29, 2018 5:49 am

honest liberty- “But even that doesn’t explain the source of that power, so it is an eternal paradox that is unsolvable.”

The conundrum(incomprehensible condition) “eternal” means something that has no beginning and has no end. Existing beyond time. It truly is unsolvable, and hence “God”.

I suppose the opposite, believing there is no God, simply makes the universe God. i.e. there is only one universe which is eternal.

We await the quantum mechanics explanation of time.

Matt Schilling
Reply to  Bob boder
June 28, 2018 7:30 am

How about that 19th century creation myth, abiogenesis/macro-evolution, do you believe in that?

Reply to  Bob boder
June 28, 2018 8:34 am

Bob: I agree to a certain extent. But science is not an absolute. Doubt me? Find a scientist who says he/she knows what goes on in a massive black hole.

Reply to  jimB
June 28, 2018 9:04 am

Any black hole, not just the massive ones.
Of course all black holes can be considered massive, depending on your point of reference.

Reply to  David Smith
June 28, 2018 6:51 am

Science has absolutely no explanation for the evolution of animal sentience and absolute determinism excludes free will. I consider the denial of free will to be the greatest folly possible. –AGF

Sam C Cogar
Reply to  agfosterjr
June 28, 2018 10:19 am

Whatever it is that “jerks your chain” is OK with me, as long as you don’t attempt to convert me to your beliefs.

Robert W Turner
Reply to  David Smith
June 28, 2018 7:28 am

It might come as a surprise, to those stuck in arrested development, that the major discoveries in physics for the past 100 years have supported creationism.

Matt Schilling
Reply to  David Smith
June 28, 2018 7:28 am

Everything came from nothing for no reason whatsoever…because science!

Reply to  David Smith
June 28, 2018 7:38 am

That’s silly. The two have little to do with each other. Science is about how, religion is about why.

While there are some (few) religious principles that conflict with support for science, there is nothing in science that undermines religion.

Reply to  David Smith
June 28, 2018 8:54 am

David Smith
and Marcus :
it requires no BELIEF ( apart from self-belief probably ).
RELIGION is a man-made-belief-system and is entirely SUBJECTIVE ,
it is entirely A BELIEF SYSTEM and ascribes values to GOD.
That a person CAN BELIEVE in both science and religion is NOT
unusual or particularly weird UNLESS you TRY TO PROVE THE
EXISTENCE of GOD , then it gets about as weird as the
subatomic particles and string-theory ( I have been told !! )
David Lentz : ( apt name that LENTz )
What you describe is “a God of the gaps” which is probably
why people like Darwin went looking for HIM in nature ,
to either prove or disprove HIM .
Didn’t really reach a conclusion in the end !
Darwin died….GOD lives on ..
..it seems ..as a CONCEPT if nothing else.

David L. Hagen
Reply to  Trevor
June 28, 2018 9:33 am

Trevor Try studying eye witness evidence for Jesus’ resurrection. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=evidence+resurrection&t=h_&ia=web

Reply to  David Smith
June 28, 2018 9:05 am

In my experience, your average atheist is more evangelical than your average evangelical.

McComber Boy
Reply to  David Smith
June 28, 2018 9:32 am

Wow! Talk about a rewrite of history. Isaac Newton and so many others are spinning at about 78RPM as I write.

Reply to  David Smith
June 28, 2018 9:43 am

Separation of logical domains. The scientific logical domain is established on observation, reproduction, and deduction. Its accuracy is inversely proportional to the product of time and space offsets from the observer’s frame of reference.

Reply to  David Smith
June 28, 2018 10:33 am

the Atheist entity that is me says sorry no – science and faith are mutually exclusive and serve different purposes. Science, it’s philosophy of falsification is a surgical tool with very precise capabilities within a relatively fine set of parameters.

People are and should remain free to have faith in religion as they see fit. One serves to explain the physical realm about us, the other serves to explain the non physical or metaphysical realm and deals with an entirely different philosophy.

The “scientist” who screams ‘there’s no proof of god’ is to my mind no scientist at all.

Mihaly Malzenicky
Reply to  Karlos51
June 29, 2018 7:06 am

God also created our brain and did not forbid us to use it. And that’s the science itself.

Reply to  yarpos
June 28, 2018 8:22 am

Here’s what the science says about animal sentience
(- The Conversation
Nov 24, 2017 -)
But where science is concerned, animal sentience is in no doubt.
The definition of sentient is simply “able to perceive or feel things”.
And….. IF YOU LIVE LONG ENOUGH ……..perhaps you develop “free will ”
whatever you MEAN by that term.

Reply to  Trevor
June 28, 2018 10:22 am

A plant is a complex machine with the ability to respond to stimuli in ways that increase its chances of survival. Likewise the animal organism is a machine of chemicals and neuron logic that can in principle be duplicated in a test tube and on a circuit board. We presume that plants have no feelings, but that at least complex animals do. At some point animals evolved consciousness, with the ability to feel pleasure and pain. This perceptiveness, though dependent on the machine, is entirely outside the realm of machinery. You can kid yourself that your Venus fly trap feels hungry or your robot can cry genuine tears but they never will. –AGF

honest liberty
Reply to  Trevor
June 28, 2018 11:11 am

ease off the caps bud. It communicates that you are
1.) very young
2.) emotionally immature
3.) both

Reply to  honest liberty
June 28, 2018 12:16 pm

isn’t both a period ‘.’ and an close parenthesis ‘)’ redundant?

John Dilks
Reply to  MarkW
June 28, 2018 9:15 pm

It may be, but it looks better that way.

Sam C Cogar
Reply to  yarpos
June 28, 2018 10:08 am

Yarpos – June 28, 2018 4:38 am

I consider the denial of free will to be the greatest folly possible

Given that a literal fact of science is, ….. “You are what your environment nurtured you to be”, ……. then it is blatantly obvious that “free will” is neither an inherited or a nurtured attribute associated with the conscious mind, ……. simply because the conscious mind is only capable of making choices, that is if or when the subconscious minds presents 2 or more entities to choose from.

David Guy-Johnson
June 28, 2018 3:04 am

A shame he wasn’t more vocal about the futility of renewables when he kicked this whole thing off

Reply to  David Guy-Johnson
June 28, 2018 7:50 am

I believe he is still in favor of nuclear and has said so for years.

But, he is an alarmist about temperature rise and especially about sea level rise.

Reply to  Bill_W_1984
June 28, 2018 11:01 am

Yes, when is NY’s West Side Highway supposed to under water? It’s 20 feet, isn’t it?

Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
June 28, 2018 1:43 pm

There’s a bit of confusion over that. The person who wrote it thought the prediction was for 20 years after 1988, but found his notes say it was really 40 years. It’s covered in my comments in the other 30 year anniversary threads.

And yes, the off-the-cuff prediction is off track..

Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
July 9, 2018 1:09 pm

Slow and steady. No race to win. Lower lying areas are already experiencing more damage from storm surge. Current rise is 2-3 mm per year.

June 28, 2018 3:06 am

At least he isn’t completely wrong then, even if he does believe the surface temperature of Venus is due to CO2 and not atmospheric pressure.

Phil Rae
June 28, 2018 3:10 am

Wow! That is gonna make a whole lotta green heads EXPLODE! And, I have to say that, on this occasion, I absolutely agree with Dr Hansen’s assessment of renewables and their inability to replace hydrocarbons (coal/oil/gas) any time in the near future. Regardless of Merkel, Macron and May’s ridiculous statements about eliminating gasoline/diesel vehicles in the next couple of decades, that simply can’t happen. I never thought I’d say I agree with the man who started the charade in the first place.

Reply to  Phil Rae
June 28, 2018 5:54 am

Phil, Few green heads will explode. First the story will get buried by the news media. Second those that do read it, or if it does escape into the wild, the greens will actually use it, spin it, to demand just an end to fossil fuels by changing how we all live. Third, Hansen may write another op-ed claiming the Boston Globe didn’t print what he wrote.

You are probably correct about gas/diesel not disappearing. It is more likely Merkel, Macron and May are going to disappear first.

Reply to  Phil Rae
July 9, 2018 1:14 pm

Hansen made a pretty accurate prediction in 1981. The rising sea, increasing temps and other effects of CO2 heat-trapping have been measured (and confirmed) in the subsequent 37 years. Pretty precient guy.

He’s right about nuclear, and it needs to be used in a mix with solar and wind simply due to the huge cost associated with new nuclear plants. $$$ always matter.

June 28, 2018 3:17 am

Unfortunately, as correct as he is, his quote will be buried by the MSM simply not reporting it.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  HotScot
June 28, 2018 3:31 am

“will be buried by the MSM simply not reporting it”
It is an op-ed in the Boston Globe.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 28, 2018 4:03 am

Nick Stokes

the Boston Globe…….that well known, international publication.

Reply to  HotScot
June 28, 2018 11:03 am

It may not be a really international paper, but it is definitely the MSM. And they not only didn’t bury it, they published it on the Op-Ed pages. Maybe, just maybe, their editors didn’t read it first, or, maybe, just maybe, there is a small glimmer of hope for some of the MSM?

Reply to  HotScot
June 28, 2018 1:47 pm

Ellen Goodman coined the phrase “climate denier” there. It is a well known, influential newspaper and read by people at a well known, influential universities and businesses.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 28, 2018 5:04 am

And that means it won’t be seen in the Aussie BS media! Will we see you promote this in Australia? I bet not! Thank YOU Nick!

honest liberty
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 28, 2018 7:01 am

hey Nick,
Is it printed in the NYT, HuffPo, CNN, MSNBC, Guardian, Vox, WashPo, Bloomberg, etc.. or any other of those socialists rags masquerading around as press?

honest liberty
Reply to  honest liberty
June 28, 2018 7:02 am

surprisingly it does have coverage in Guardian.

John Meget
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 28, 2018 7:21 am

I’m waiting to see NBC, ABC, CBS, BBC, LA Times, NYT, Newsweek, Time et. al. cover it.

honest liberty
Reply to  John Meget
June 28, 2018 7:46 am

furthermore, what is the context in which they present the article, aka, what form of mind control are they using against the uncritical reader?

Reply to  John Meget
June 28, 2018 11:04 am

To paraphrase Einstein, it just takes one.

Reply to  Paul Schnurr
June 28, 2018 6:52 am

No. He is a scientist who understands the absolute nature of energy physics. It’s not climate science, it’s proven and absolute. and all there is to design from when you have to power a 24/7 grid to meet the demand of developed economies, and belief in a woefully inadequate and expensive energy source for easy subsidy reward, that isn’t there when needed, cannot deliver. As the physics always said it couldn’t.

David L. Hagen
Reply to  Brian RL Catt
June 28, 2018 9:36 am

Brian Distinguish historical renewable from the sustainable energy that could be developed.

Reply to  David L. Hagen
June 29, 2018 6:06 am

Historical renewable energy is burning wood. We’ve found that doesn’t work very well. Or coal, which is fossil wood(whether that works depends on your time frame). The only other renewable energy source would be some kind of replacement for our inconstant Sun that can be controlled. Some kind of breeder reactor that also produces as much power as it creates would work.

Robert W Turner
Reply to  Paul Schnurr
June 28, 2018 7:31 am

Probably funded by Lex Luthor and Dr. Evil as well.

Jimmy Haigh
June 28, 2018 3:50 am

Has the penny finally dropped?

Reply to  Jimmy Haigh
June 28, 2018 9:10 am

Yes Jimmy…I’d enjoy a Haigh too !
YES , the PENNY has dropped, but too late , in the meantime we’ve DECIMALISED !!
Regrettably , the GREEN DELUSION has morphed into something far more
sinister than simply “saving the Planet”.
NOW “we” have to set about SAVING WESTERN CULTURE
……….and “we” are running out of time and opportunity !
That WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY will only exist as long as TRUMP is POTUS !
“We” now have to CLEAN OUT ACADEMIA of all the “GREEN TRASH”
and THEIR ANTI-WESTERN Socialist Ideas and then re-install
while there are still enough DECENT EDUCATED PEOPLE WILLING
AND ABLE to do so !

Reply to  Trevor
July 9, 2018 1:17 pm

Trevor: your straight jacket jammed the CAPS LOCK key on your keyboard.

June 28, 2018 3:54 am

Sir David MacKay FRS, a physicist and Chief Scientist to the UK DECC 2008-2014 , world renowned author on Energy/BIll Gates top ten reads, etc, called powering the UK with renewables “an appalling delusion” in his last talk on the subject (check GOogle for his book and TED talk on physical realities. This is that last words, from someone who understood all the angles, and put numbers to them. “Do the arithematic”.


The problem is the crooked politicians behind the energy subsidy fraud have done that, and counted the massive amounts of money and well paid jobs they can cream off an unnecessary solution to a non problem. I can see Mel Brookes as California Governor in Blazing Saddles, “we gotta do something to save our phoney Baloney jobs!”… very much the current incumbent’s style and MO. Also Fracoise Lagarde as Lilli von Shtupp “…is it twoo what they say about you renewable subsidies….oh it’s twoo, its TWOO, its TWOOO!”

In reality this is much worse than a delusion, because it is a knowing fraud on the public by politicians and pressure groups. This is state organised crime/malfeasance, and has almost noting to do with climate change in science fact, if CO2 is significant in that or not, renewble subsidies are just an excuse they do little to reduce versus better unsubsidised alternatives, that work in science fact

This is the biggest legalised protection racket ever, outside of war, globally controlled by the political elite to enrich their friends and themselves in the payback from the massive subsidy flows, that are essential for the weak and intermittent energy sources of feudal economies to make money against much more capable fossil and nuclear generation that developed our industrial society with plentiful cheap energy our economies depend upon using to stay that way.

This studied fraud on the people by their elites isa lso keeping the the 3rd World in avoidable poverty, denying them what works to develop their econmies, imposing renewable solutions when they need capable enrgy supplies, pretending to solve a problem their snake oil energy science denying solution never can on the physics facts.

Meanwhile expensively jeopardising the fossil powered grids they are parasitic upon for their subsidies in the developed world, relying on the majority supply and 100% backup of their fossil hosts to keep the grid up when they cannot, which they will be pointless without.

The politicians are NOT delusional. They know renewable energy as a cure for whatever small part of the small actual 0.5 deg per century climate climate change there is that human CO2 actually causes is a blatant science denying scam on the people. They are ducated and have been told the science fact many times. They prefer to support the easy money fraud, with their votes.

THIS is actual science denial. Senator Lamar Alexander and Newt Gingrich understand this VERY well. It’s not climate science, hypothetical science that doesn’t match reality but we should prefer to what actually happens to justify huge subsidies that do nothing for a fast insider buck and “save the planet”. Pure bullshit from end to end, on the costed physics and engineering

Energy science is fact based deterministic science, it w either works or it doesn’t. Renewables do not and cannot work as advertised, because of source energy density and intermittency. Fixing what is ultimately inadequate by adding storage only makes them worse, still not enough energy and more than ten times the cost per KWh, so from crooked FUBAR to disaster.

“one of the real tragedies that totally distorted the debate over climate change was that it got tied into the solution in a way that if you accepted the first you had to accept the second (Ed. the fraudulent prescriptive cure). And I think that was profoundly wrong.” – Newt Gingrich

Reply to  Brian RL Catt
June 28, 2018 4:07 am

Brian RL Catt

David MacKay’s TED talk link here:


It’s also worth reading a short article by Matt Ridley:



Bruce Ploetz
Reply to  HotScot
June 28, 2018 5:14 am

A similar conclusion was reached by the Google engineers,

Trying to combat climate change exclusively with today’s renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach,” wrote Google’s Ross Koningstein and David Fork in a piece published yesterday in IEEE’s Spectrum.


June 28, 2018 3:57 am

What?!???? Is he emerging from the Twilight Zone?
He’s right. The Renewables Biz is a scam and will price its target users right out of the modern age into the 18th century. Let him support nukes loudly.

Scott Bennett
June 28, 2018 3:59 am

I totally agree with James Hansen!?

Well, I agree with this part at least:

“The notion that renewable energies and batteries alone will provide all needed energy is fantastical. It is also a grotesque idea, because of the staggering environmental pollution from mining and material disposal, if all energy was derived from renewables and batteries.”

I have to admit, I may have misjudged him! 😉

Reply to  Scott Bennett
June 28, 2018 9:25 am

Sara and Scott :
This REMINDS ME OF A QUIZ SHOW on TV many years ago !
It was called ” THE PRICE IS RIGHT ” !
Perhaps HE has changed SPONSORS ?????

Reply to  Scott Bennett
July 9, 2018 1:21 pm

He’s a very smart guy. Predicted the earth was going to warm due to CO2 back in 1981. Check out what’s happened in the subsequent 37 years. Keep an open mind. He’s been right a whole lot more than he’s been wrong.

David Dibbell
June 28, 2018 4:00 am

How about an alternate headline for this James Hansen news? “Blind Squirrel Finds Nut – Writes Op-Ed!”

June 28, 2018 4:17 am

Can somebody point me to what alternative energy he does support?

Reply to  HenryP
June 28, 2018 4:32 am

Based on what he doesn’t support, the only major option left would seem to be nuclear.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  DaveS
June 28, 2018 6:40 am

He may be working on small scale hydro based on draining his bath tub.

Reply to  John Harmsworth
June 28, 2018 1:54 pm

I’m relieved to see that there are several people here that know Hansen has long been a supporter of nuclear energy. It makes up for some of the clueless people who post anyway.

Sorry, I seem to be in an intolerant of stupid posts mood today, especially when the correct answer is well known.

David L. Hagen
Reply to  DaveS
June 28, 2018 9:39 am
Reply to  HenryP
June 28, 2018 4:50 am
spalding craft
Reply to  Sobaken
June 28, 2018 5:30 am

Yes, he’s supported nukes for years.

Hansen is a smart man without a political agenda. I think he’s wrong about the severity of climate change – but time may prove me wrong and Hansen right. I hope not.

Reply to  spalding craft
June 28, 2018 5:42 am

thx for the responses!
I don’t like nuclear because of the waste and I agree with him that the waste from used batteries is also an environmental problem.

That leaves us with gas. It is the cheapest energy option.

Reply to  henryp
July 9, 2018 1:24 pm

Large batteries are routinely recycled in most countries. Waste is not a problem, unless you consider cellphones and other devices that use small batteries.

R Hall
Reply to  HenryP
June 28, 2018 7:20 am

Hansen has always been an advocate of nuclear power.

David Hart
June 28, 2018 4:21 am

Buried in the BG article is this gem:
“Young people are puzzled that, 25 years ago, President Clinton terminated R&D on next-generation safe nuclear power, the principal alternative to fossil fuel electricity. It is not too late. My advice to young people is to cast off the old politics and fight for their future on technological, political, and legal fronts.”

Mark Pawelek
Reply to  David Hart
June 28, 2018 10:16 pm

If you look at the actual votes cast (in 1992, which I did) you’ll see it was Democrats and Republicans who voted against nuclear power research.

June 28, 2018 5:31 am

Dear Mr Watts

“Hansen, father inventor of ‘global warming’, calls renewables a ‘grotesque idea’”

There, fixed it for them.


Reply to  DP.
June 28, 2018 9:19 am

Good point
There is no green house effect/
at least I could not find it.

Hansen could have known by checking the temperature in his own backyard, just like I did.

Mumbles McGuirck
June 28, 2018 5:31 am

This clear and strong message about the dangers of carbon emissions was heard. The next day, it led the front pages of newspapers across the country.

Mission accomplished! From the very beginning Dr. Hansen has been in this for the headlines. Since his retirement from GISS he has felt left out of the limelight and so continues to stir up controversy in order to keep himself front and center of the TV cameras, etc. I have the feeling that others (Mann, Trenberth, etc) are similarly motivated. If “climate change” wasn’t a trigger phrase they’d be in some other field of study.

Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
June 28, 2018 7:50 am

The notoriety and celebrity they have gathered with this fraud will eventually be exposed and then will become a millstone around their necks which drags them into ignominy.

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  rocketscientist
June 28, 2018 8:36 am

What a lovely sentiment. Sorta like the ending of “Don Giovanni”. Unfortunately, real life is never so neat as opera. The fraudsters will wiggle out of their just rewards and claim that they “were ne’er a Tory”. They will still be on the media’s Rollodeck to be called when ever a sound bite is needed.

June 28, 2018 5:37 am

Hansen has affirmed my contention that the real purpose of the push for unreliable energy is to kill the only real cure to CO2 emissions by elimination of nuclear power.

Coach Springer
June 28, 2018 5:48 am

A ComEd employee (helping people save energy) I know accepts that renewables are not going to provide all needed energy. He is all in on renewables, simply because “need” can be redefined to include “stop living that way” and “do without.”

Reply to  Coach Springer
June 28, 2018 7:24 am

What an arrogant sociopath that person is on the facts of the matter. Condemmimg the 3rd World to eternal poverty, destroying the developments in communications, health care and quality of life to suit his own ignorant beliefs. Returning to the primitive 3rd world subsistence existence of short lives of manual labour without night time activity, that renewables can support when they are working, is not an option when we can advance standards of living for a stable 11 Billion to developed, globally, with zero CO2 nuclear,

The claims about waste here are both profoundly ignorant and wrong on the facts. Much of what extremists call waste is unprocess spent fuel, 95% is still recyclable as fuel, so can power other reactors, after processing. Encapsulating the small amount of remaining actual fission waste as radio isotopes in rocks (vitrification) is basically putting them back where they came from.

Electromagnetic radiation is not a major medical toxicity problem for people (ingestion/inhalation can be). People around the world live epidemiologically similar lives to us at 300mSv pa, 15 times the far too low evacuation level used at Fukushima, 150 times the 2mSv pa most major city dwellers receive.In Ramsar Iran and Guapari beach, Brazil, for example. Even SW FrRance is 70+ mSv pa. The quantities of true waste in spent fuel is tiny compared to coal per KWh. whose waste is also radioactive Uranium and Thorium, BTW.

The cost of managing the waste, through transmtuation and storage of the small high level residue for a few hunded years after transmutation, if we so decide, is lost in the total costs and income of the energy. Words to the contrary lack facts, because there aren’t any that support them.

June 28, 2018 5:51 am

Mr. Hansen, for the last time, that is NOT how a “Green House” works !! D’oh !!

Reply to  Marcus
June 28, 2018 9:32 am

It’s too late to agree……..he’s changed his mind……………. about sustainables
or was it renewables or……..NAH ! Gotta be Nuclear…Fusion or Fission…….?
so Marcus , maybe there is an analogy there…….The Earth is definitely GREENING !

Reply to  Trevor
June 28, 2018 1:29 pm

My apologies.
I skip your submissions.
The interspersed capitals do my aging head in.



Reply to  Auto
June 28, 2018 2:03 pm

Ditto. Besides, there are plenty of posts where the commenter isn’t shouting. Now, if we can discourage the bad comments from being posted in the first place we could spend less time here and learn more.

Oh – the last line (most of the comment has scrolled off), says “The Earth is definitely greening.” Maybe it’s not a bad comment, I still won’t bother to read the rest!

June 28, 2018 6:03 am

In the article also says
“Fossil fuel use will decline only if the price is made to include costs of pollution and climate change to society. The simplest and most effective way to do this is by collecting a rising carbon fee from fossil fuel companies at domestic mines and ports of entry.”

Reply to  Jeff
June 28, 2018 7:05 am

That’s like saying food consumption will decline if the cost of cookstoves is increased to reflect the cost of agriculture.

James Francisco
June 28, 2018 6:05 am

I believe this story is a good example of one of the reasons that smart people who probably know that CAGW is not true but are using it to achieve other goals. It appears Hanson’s goal was to stop opposition to nuclear power. The trouble with these tactics is you can’t control the direction others will take to fix the non problem you create. The damage he has done to the reputation of all scientist will be a problem far worse than a small amount of global warming because when a real problem occurs that requires world wide attention, action, sacrifice that scientists have discovered they will be ignored.

michael hart
June 28, 2018 6:26 am

Hansen has said similar things before, and been largely ignored, though Whats-her-face McNasty at Harvard, one of Michael Mann’s whacko accomplices, took the trouble to call him some names as a result.

Hansen got into bed with the anti-science anti-industry hard enviro crazies because it served his short term political interests. Like a few other arrogant scientists, having lain down with the devil, he naïvely thought he could control what he spawned.

Reply to  michael hart
June 28, 2018 8:09 am

I believe the saying is” “When you lie down with dogs, expect to get fleas.”

Scratch away Mr. Hansen…

John Harmsworth
June 28, 2018 6:38 am

I’ll have to rethink my opposition to renewables now. That clown has never been right about anything in his life!

June 28, 2018 6:59 am

All he is saying is, essentially, CAGW is true, but that renewables won’t solve it.

What’s left, then, to do? I leave that to your imagination!

Walter Sobchak
June 28, 2018 7:01 am

Give him some credit. He isn’t wrong about everything.

I would go along with decarbonization if it meant replacing fossil fuels with nuclear power.

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
June 28, 2018 2:07 pm

At some point, we will have to move on from fossil fuels. Nuclear appears to be a better solution than wind and solar in most areas.

June 28, 2018 7:13 am

Perhaps Alexandria Ocasio- Cortez and Dr. Hansen should get together over a cup of coffee.

June 28, 2018 7:28 am

Would love to see the calculation for the number of Solar panels, Wind turbines, Hydro dams and Batteries to supply the portion of the energy not created by the tiny sliver of renewables shown in the chart above for “Global Energy Consumption.” And after that how much environmental damage that proposed disaster will cause.

June 28, 2018 7:45 am

Worse, tricking the public to accept the fantasy of 100 percent renewables means that, in reality, fossil fuels reign and climate change grows.

Left unsaid is who did the tricking. The list of those culpable is essentially the same as those pushing CAGW. I hold the mainstream media in special contempt.

June 28, 2018 7:49 am

And he follows with:

“Young people are puzzled that, 25 years ago, President Clinton terminated R&D on next-generation safe nuclear power, the principal alternative to fossil fuel electricity. It is not too late. My advice to young people is to cast off the old politics and fight for their future on technological, political, and legal fronts.”

Most of the money going into nuclear research these days is Chinese. In the US, we have token projects like the DOE support of Nuscale, ARPA-e support for a Molten Chloride Fast Reactor, and a handful of privately funded fusion and fission reactors.

David L. Hagen
Reply to  vboring
June 28, 2018 9:42 am

Bill Gates is having to work with China to get funding and testing of his novel nuclear project. https://www.smh.com.au/business/bill-gates-and-china-partner-on-worldfirst-nuclear-technology-20171106-gzfrf0.html

Reply to  vboring
June 28, 2018 1:36 pm

And there’s something in the London ‘Daily Telegraph’, yesterday or today, about UK Government money going to ‘mini-reactors’.
Welcome – but a bit delayed.

And I imagine the money’ll get cut back to help support an unreformed National Health Service as soon as the next inefficient-spending induced budget shortfall arises.
Yes, health is expensive – but the NHS does waste a lot of money [as well as spend shed-loads more well, with dedicated staff].
But why let the Doctors’ Trade Union dictate how many doctors are trained in the UK [as it has done for many years, or decades??], so wages are kept high.

Off thread, much of the above – so apologies.


June 28, 2018 8:00 am

Sounds like if Sagan were around it would be a great MMA wrestling match on how to save the World. Hanson is saying — “Build Nukes,.. many and now!”,… or he is echoing Ehrlich machinations of limiting humans in living, breathing, birthing and eating. Dictatorship of the Gaia?

Bruce Cobb
June 28, 2018 8:29 am

He’s still the same ol’ loony-tunes Coal-trains-of-death Hansen, spouting lies and nonsense. I don’t give a flying fig if he favors nuclear, because he wants to do it at the expense of fossil fuels, especially his true-hate, coal.

June 28, 2018 8:31 am

Yawn. Who cares what this loser has to say.

June 28, 2018 8:49 am

Amazing what slips out before the royal dictate becomes policy

kent beuchert
June 28, 2018 9:29 am

In the past Hansen pushed for nuclear power as the only solution. I assume that hasn’t changed

Gary Pearse
June 28, 2018 9:30 am

Hansen fostered a left turn into climate psychosis that has cost 10s of trillions. The iдео1оgцеs were waiting just for such a perfect gift with a prominent scientist to deliver it to promote their gлобаl gov. Yet, he is more honest than virtually all academics, gov researchers…that promote and emote CC (itself an egregiously dishonest appelation).

I have to say that his support for nuclear and hydro, which are the only non carbon forms of reliable energy we know about, should have been promoted, accepted and initiated vigorously in a way to replace coal fired plants in an orderly fashion without panic and hysteria if the concern of sensible, apolitical scientists was truly real. Natural gas would have been a transitional tech to smooth the transition. What WAS done was so nakedly, old European магху-sparxy that only those wanting destruction of Western Civilization and thoughtless useful tools were taken in. If we later were to discover that CO2 was relatively benign, the least harm would have been done.

Clearly, Hansen wasnt taken in and clearly he is embarrassed by the turn he has wrought. I dont think he wants his granchildren to be the new proletariat.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
June 28, 2018 2:33 pm

Given the watermelons’ target of a global population of 500-750 million, it is likely that his grandchildren – like mine – will not be allowed exist – certainly not subsist.
If they do, they will most likely be concubines or labourers for the true global elite, who will seek to maintain plutocratic lifestyles.

And this is what those duped by socialist/communist/global government/EU encroachment are voting for.

And they all hope that their offspring will be amongst the favoured few [probably less than five] million.
And yet Corbyn alone get 12,878,460 votes last year [per the ineffable Wiki, that I can edit] when the Great Mis-Communicator, May [with Hammond, in the Top Gear Bottom Outcome], dished her own majority.


June 28, 2018 9:52 am

It’s now the Rosanne-level climate commentary.

Alan Tomalty
June 28, 2018 9:54 am

The real question is that absent the presence of hydro power, can a society operate on 100% nuclear?

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 28, 2018 1:54 pm

France came close to it ~80%?

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 28, 2018 2:15 pm

Fuel for air travel and rocketry is a challenge, as chemical energy is denser than other forms, at least those we are willing to share in the air space. Nuclear power can be the source energy to store chemical energy, though I imagine society will tolerate very high prices for petroleum and natural gas sources for air travel.

June 28, 2018 10:12 am

Solar power would work, but we need to get off this rock.
I think Hansen believes only answer is nuclear power, and nuclear has worked and would work in terms lowering CO2 and other pollution. But the long term answer would be harvesting solar energy from the space environment [not on a planet surface with a thick atmosphere and clouds].
And if you believe the fantasy that Earth will have more extreme weather, using solar and wind power makes even less sense.
Getting off this rock will not be easy, but much cheaper than the money already spent on solar and wind energy. What is needed is exploration.
And important direction of exploration, should be exploring the Moon to determine if and where there is minable water at the lunar poles.
The lunar poles are small area, much smaller than Earth’s poles. Moon is smaller and has axis tilt of 1 1/2 degrees, unlike Earth’s 23.5 degrees.
So fairly small area, and only interested in water at or near the surface.
If minable lunar water is found, then perhaps investment dollar will be spent to mine the water. It does not really matter who spend the money, because if minable, that means it is assumed to be profitable to mine.
Or who might make money, doesn’t matter much, the point is that any money is made attempting to do this. But you don’t want NASA mining the water. As NASA job is to explore, not mine.

So NASA can explore the Moon, and focus on the lunar region and seeing if can find minable lunar water, and should be able to do this in less than 10 years. Or it didn’t take 10 years for NASA to start Apollo and go to the Moon decades ago, and launch cost are cheaper, now. And adjusted for inflation, even cheaper.
And private sector is building big rockets, and you don’t even need large Saturn V type rockets to explore the Moon, with rockets we have [which very cheap] we can explore the moon, and can start with robotic exploration, and finish with few crew landing which bring back lunar samples to Earth.
After this, NASA should explore Mars.
And NASA should explore Mars to determine if and where human settlements on Mars could viable or the most viable. Mars has large area to explore, it’s land area is 144.8 million square km.
Earth surface area is 510 million square km, but it’s land area is about 148 million square km. And with Mars all surface area is land area.
And in terms of human settlement on Mars one looking for thousands of square km of where to have a settlement or settlements.
And again, NASA job is not settlement, but exploration. So NASA job is finding better area for settlement, and investment dollars might then be spent to create towns on Mars.
Now, there is no shortage of stuff to explore in space, the issue is what to explore first, which should be first Moon, and then Mars, and with Mars that will take decades.

If there is minable lunar water, then more things can done on the Moon.
The moon is a great place to harvest solar energy. And if you want nuclear power, the Moon is also a good place to use nuclear energy. It is also a good place to store nuclear waste which is made on Earth- pick any spot on Moon and it better place than any possible spot on Earth.
If lunar water is minable, one needs electrical energy to use the water to make rocket fuel. So one will start and electrical market of electrical power on the Moon. And the beginning of any electrical market, anywhere is space, is the beginning of having an electrical market in space, which can evenually transfer that energy to Earth surface. And earth is a trillion dollar electrical market, and once one begins economically to supply the Earth electrical market with electrical power, you started on pathway of getting basically unlimited electricity for Earth.
All that could require 50 to 100 years. It might take 10 to 20 years to get an electrical market on the Moon, and this would support any Mars settlement, and so get electrical market on Mars and might get hundreds of people going to and living on Mars, which is ever growing electrical market in space. And 40 year after lunar growth in it’s electrical market, one might really to tap into the Earth electrical market.

Or electrical power on the Moon would start at about $75 per Kw watt, and Earth is about 1 cent per Kw watt. So time is required to lower cost of electrical cost in space. Or $75 per Kw hour is cheap for purposes of making rocket fuel on the Moon, but with competition, the price will lower over time. Or there will be demand for more and cheaper electrical power on the Moon, assuming there is enough demand for lunar rocket fuel- and mars settlements would be part of this demand.

chris y
June 28, 2018 10:37 am

Hansen today-
“The notion that renewable energies and batteries alone will provide all needed energy is fantastical.”

Hansen in 2013-

“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.”

I will be interested to read Stanford Professor Mark Jacobson’s response to Hansen’s statements.

June 28, 2018 11:09 am

Let’s just get rid of all the humans then! (Cue “Far Side” meme of fat ladies in cat glasses running off cliff), GAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!

June 28, 2018 11:33 am

Jim Hansen wrote:
“The notion that renewable energies and batteries alone will provide all needed energy is fantastical. It is also a grotesque idea, because of the staggering environmental pollution from mining and material disposal, if all energy was derived from renewables and batteries.”

Mercy – is the World coming to an End? Hansen and I agree on something!

Perhaps we agree for different reasons:

I contend that green energy schemes are fatally flawed due to intermittency and the lack of practical, cost-effective grid-scale storage of electricity. Green schemes such as grid-connected wind and solar power require almost 100% conventional spinning reserve (back-up) generation.

It would be much less costly, much more reliable and much more environmentally friendly to not build the wind and solar power schemes and just operate the reserve units full-time.

June 28, 2018 2:22 pm

One advantage of solar power from space is it is a system of global distribution and would be used to balance a grid, rather than imbalance a grid.

June 28, 2018 12:06 pm

He, Hansen, was so wrong 30 years ago. He completely ignored what was happening with the Sun right there and then, he completely ignored the range of natural weather and climate variability, neither of which have been exceeded then or since.

If the great nations of the world, China, India, Russia, Brazil, others… ignore Hansen’s preaching, it’s because they have their own scientists, mostly better than Hansen, which frankly is no big deal, who told their governments in clear terms that Hansen’s pronouncements were superstitious baloney.

The rest is just political posturing and superpower competition.

June 28, 2018 1:27 pm

Renewable stuff is inherently FREE, UNLIMITED, INUSABLE.

Like solar rays in summer in a sunny place. (For the limited number of people who can live in that place, actually.)

Anything you have to pay for, you pay because there is need to access limited resources, actually deplete a mine somewhere (but if it isn’t “carbon”, some people don’t care), pay for food made using tractors, insecticide, herbicides, pay for “organic food” made using even more fuel to run tractors more often to destroy weed without herbicides, pay for “local food” made with organic pesticides made from plants produced in another continent using herbicides, pay for the food of the people who make tractors, pay for the tractors for the production of the food of the production of the tractors…

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights