Climate Leader James Hansen: “It’s time for Bernie Sanders to retire”

Inset: James Hansen being arrested. Main Picture: Democrat candidate Bernie Sanders

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

h/t Dr. Willie Soon; Ex NASA GISS Director James Hansen, who kicked off the global warming scare with testimony before Congress in 1988, has attacked Democrat Presidential Wannabe Bernie Sanders for promoting a climate policy which will kill people.

Top Climate Scientist to Bernie: You’re Killing People in India

At Thursday night’s MSNBC climate forum, Sanders will lead the way in denouncing nuclear power. But the man who put the issue on the map thinks that’s irresponsible.
Eleanor Clift

Updated 09.20.19 5:00AM ET / 
Published 09.19.19 4:50AM ET 

It’s time for Bernie Sanders to retire,” Hansen responded in an email. “He truly doesn’t get it. India and China have no prayer of phasing out coal without the help of nuclear power. We burned much of their share of the global carbon budget, and yet we refused to help them with modern nuclear power. Thousands of people PER DAY are dying in India from the pollution…. Not only is he killing people in India, he is screwing my grandchildren,” Hansen wrote.  

Josh Orton, from the Sanders campaign, responded: “While Bernie’s plan would not renew licenses for existing nuclear plants in the U.S., it’s crucial to note that the plan doesn’t shut down domestic nuclear immediately, nor does it regulate or prohibit nuclear power abroad. In the United States, we know from scientists and other experts that fuels like nuclear are not only unnecessary for the U.S. to achieve our own climate goals, but carry significant waste problems and scale issues.” 

Read more: https://www.thedailybeast.com/top-climate-scientist-to-bernie-sanders-youre-killing-people-in-india

In a previous decade an attack from a leading climate scientist might have had a significant impact on Bernie’s shot at the Democrat Presidential nomination.

But times have changed. In my opinion it is a long time since the likes of Bernie Sanders and his followers paid serious attention to what scientists have to say.

For example, consider Bernie’s support for the Green New Deal. One of the architects of AOC’s Green New Deal recently admitted that the GND is not based on climate science and was never originally about climate change, the climate tie in was added later.

Advertisements

179 thoughts on “Climate Leader James Hansen: “It’s time for Bernie Sanders to retire”

    • Don’t toy with me, you guys!!! While the campaign clown car is rolling along, the more gaffes Ol’ Bernie makes, along with Joe “Mr. Hands On’ Biden’s plonks, the better. This news is a welcome sign of dissidence by the dissidents. The more the better, especially if an “ally” like Hansen says he should step down.

      Pop some popcorn, take notes on everything, and somehow (without rancor) get it across to an ecohippies you run into that the climate changes on a recurring basis from cold to warm and back to cold, and the warm periods are ALWAYS shorter than the cold periods. ALWAYS.

  1. Current nuclear technology does have waste issues. Immense waste issues. That’s one big reason why it should be deprecated, and replaced with gen 4 technologies that consume that waste. That will pull the rug out from under Climate Jonestown on the waste issue.

      • it is once you have reactors capable of burning it and that is nothing but a dream on paper. For the moment it is a huge waste problem which is growing all the time.

        There are a number of technologies which could exploit what is currently a waste problem but none are being developed to even prototype level.

        That would be a far better idea for the environment that wasting $115 million on an Arctic sea cruise for alarmist propagandists. For example.

        • “nothing but a dream on paper”…That has had less than 1% of the funding thrown at it compared to solar, wind, and fusion.

          Nuclear doesn’t have a waste problem to begin with, only the age old problem of ignorant charlatans preventing things from getting done.

          • A coal plant produces far more waste in the form of ash which is often equally toxic to nuclear waste and will remain so indefinitely, yet we know how to deal with this.

            The toxic waste generated from the manufacture of solar cells is equally toxic and persistent, moreover; the ultimate destiny of every solar cell ever produced is to become toxic waste at the end of its serviceable life. At the rate this is going, the current and future toxic waste production from this one form of ‘green’ energy far outpaces the amount of waste produced by the nuclear power industry, which would still be the case even if fission was providing all of the worlds electrical power needs.

          • “A coal plant produces far more waste in the form of ash which is often equally toxic to nuclear waste”

            Not even close. Go research “Children of Chernobyl” and “Fullajah babies”. Nuclear contamination, unlike coal, reaches across generational boundaries by damaging genes.

          • Gibberish and junk science on radioactive steroids.

            Also, and I really shouldn’t have to point this out, but the Tohoku earthquake and associated tsunami killed nearly 16,000 confirmed with over 2500 simply never found. How about the generational boundary being reached across because your entire family is dead?

            Or how about another little death toll that gets ignored? After Tohoku it was decided to evacuate the area around Fukushima, an act that lead directly to the deaths of 51 patients and elderly that were previously located in hospitals and nursing homes.

            I put it to you that fear and associated reaction has killed more people that any actual radiation health effects.

          • Fly ash from coal plants contains arsenic, cadmium, mercury and other heavy metals that remain toxic forever and this doesn’t even include mining waste. The US puts about 2 billions tons of fly ash in landfills per year and about an equal amount is mixed into concrete. Nuclear waste production from nuclear power generation in the US is about a million times less at about 2000 tons per year.

            Malnutrition, poverty and war reaches across generations as well, so what’s your point? Besides, Chernobyl is not waste from the ordinary safe operation of nuclear power plants, but waste from an accident resulting from mismanagement and poor design.

        • Something like 96% of the uranium that was in a fuel rod at the beginning of it’s life is still in the fuel rod when it’s pulled out and put in the cooling pool.

      • It is not only the fuel but lifetimes worth of consumables, waste and coolant water, buildings etc. that are all contaminated than need to be safely decommissioned when the plant is retired that need special disposal. Then the disposed waste material etc. needs to be in a secure facility for tens if not hundreds of years. There are very few sites in the world that are safe. The geologically best, in southwestern Africa, have transport and long term political-security issues. Also, the hurdle of sending the world’s waste to Africa would need resolution even though it could and should make the recipient country very wealthy.

        • Rob

          These are problems to be solved. Every energy type has a downside. In fact everything has a downside, including life itself.

          Had we not developed nuclear power we would have consumed even more fossil fuels and contributed even more CO2 to the atmosphere (not that that’s a problem) and even more particulate contaminants (which are a problem) to the atmosphere.

          So what does humanity do? We can’t burn sh*t which means we can’t make sh*t. If we can’t burn coal oil and gas we have nothing to build the wind turbines from, we cant even make the tools to build the turbines or the solar arrays from.

          Energy is not some sort of magic perpetual motion phenomenon. There isn’t enough wind to make the tools that make the steel, aluminium, concrete, plastics, fibreglass, paint etc. to build the turbines, nor the solar arrays. Imagining it’s possible is simply deluded.

          Where does all the energy come from to fuel the farm vehicles that plant, cultivate and harvest the crops around the world, 24/7? Batteries are one of the least efficient means of energy storage and distribution, because some wack jobs believe battery powered cars are a good idea doesn’t change that fact.

          You people live in a fantasy land. The most brilliant minds in the world are telling you this utopia you imagine is simply not possible.

          We either burn sh*t in one form or another or we perish as a species. Burning timber has proven to be a really bad idea because even primitive man could burn it faster than it grows. The best stuff to burn found by man so far are fossil fuels and nuclear energy.

          You have a simple choice here. Burn one or the other and deal with the consequences, or see the end of mankind.

          • I’m not anti-nuclear as an energy source. My concerns are waste disposal and safety of the disposal depositories. Fukushima cost $10 to build and damages are not in the hundreds of billions with a plume of radiation that extends diagonally across the Pacific around the stip of South America and into the Southern ocean.

            I spent many decades investigating safe disposal sites among many other projects. They are few and only on the relatively geologically stable continent of Africa. Us humans will find solutions but continuing to burn fossil fuels is not one as alternative sources are working well.

          • My petty, creepy cyberstalker with Stockholm syndrome strikes to waste recycled cyber bits on BS. It is besotted with me after so many spankings that it has endured from me! What is it with you uneducated buffoons that you feel compelled to follow your intellectual superiors after we have given you thorough schooling in the very basics of math and science? Those are emotionally appealing talking points, too bad they are not based in reality or have any scientific context and is meaningless and misleading. Definitely not from a scientifically literate brain. Very creepy!!

          • Rob thinks he’s being scientific when claiming fossil fuel usage is not good and alternatives work well, but can’t put together the simple facts that alternatives don’t work at all at night or when the wind doesn’t blow, thus requiring the use of fossil fuels at higher overall costs because modern society needs power 24/7.

          • I must be missing that there are no stored energy in facilities in your myopic world. I also thought nuclear, wave, hydroelectric, stored energy and geothermal worked successfully in the dark. What am I missing?

          • No ignorance on display there. Tell me how you would build solar panels and wind turbines without mining and fossil fuels? How you would build the equipment necessary to plant and harvest food. Nope he is 100% right on that score.

          • “I must be missing that there are no stored energy in facilities in your myopic world. I also thought nuclear, wave, hydroelectric, stored energy and geothermal worked successfully in the dark. What am I missing?”

            What you’re missing are the facts that more hydro in the US isn’t going to happen, wave energy is a joke, geothermal potential is very limited, and current battery technology is incapable of powering the modern grid. Nuclear is fine for electricity generation, but electricity can’t realistically power commercial long-haul road transport, ocean shipping and air transport, among many other things.

          • Cure you aliteracy. You are so far behind where technology and reality are. Look how electric trucks Amazon just ordered? I bet you still use a landline with answering machine and a pager too.

          • Those Amazon trucks are in-city, short mileage delivery vans. I said long-haul, as in tractor trailers. The technology does not realistically exist to electrify those. You can electrify them, but they won’t go far or haul much because the battery would be so heavy.

          • How so, no waste disposal conditions?

            Why not just mix it with large volumes of earth and bury it? Or is there some byproduct of fission in some reactors I’m missing that makes it materially different from the ore it came from, other than highly concentrated? If we treated it like any other strong chemical (acid or base) by diluting with an inert material we could simply re-bury it.

    • Hardly vast. All high-level waste created world-wide would fit in an eighty-metre cube. It’s a big old world!

      • Probably not, as that high-level waste would almost certainly suffer a supercritical meltdown in it’s interior from having such a large radioactive mass with no interior neutron absorbers.

          • Don’t be laughing, a Democrat politician will submit a Bill for the purchase of a “radioactive proof” eighty cubic meter container ….. including the name of the vendor authorized to supply it.

          • And Joe Biden’s son will be on the Board of the authorized vendor.
            Elizabeth Warren will reveal she is genetically 1/1024th radioactive.
            Pete Buttigig will tell us the Bible states radioactive decay is natural trans genderism.

        • Uhh, that comment was clearly to demonstrate to small volume of the world’s nuclear “waste”. All of the waste could easily be disposed of in deep closed geologic basins, if the Luddites would just go away.

          • Well, let’s put thing in perspective . . . all humans on Earth could fit inside a cube only 770 meters on a side, a total volume of less than 0.5 cubic kilometers.
            (ref: https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/the-human-cube-the-volume-of-humanity )

            All of that mass could “easily” be disposed of in deep closed geological basins, if the CAGW alarmists saw that as a means to eliminate anthropogenic CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere.

            But this is only meant to demonstrate the small volume of the world’s human population.

          • icisil, so far from being true, that it’s not even wrong.
            That amount of waste spread evenly over the world wouldn’t even be detectable against the background radiation.

          • All of the waste could easily be disposed of in deep closed geologic basins,

            Right, …. and the Mariana Trench is the deepest and safest “geologic basin” there is.

            So, ya just dump that nuclear waste on the ”convergent plate” side of the Mariana Trench and forget about it, …….. cause in due time it will eventually be “sucked” down into the mantle, to wit:

            The Mariana Trench is 10,994 meters (36,070 feet) deep and is located at a convergent plate boundary. Here two converging plates of oceanic lithosphere collide with one another. At this collision point, one of the plates descends into the mantle.
            https://geology.com/records/deepest-part-of-the-ocean.shtml

            .Of course, that negates the politicians having to spend BILLION$ more get rid of it.

        • It would not go supercritical – not enough fissile material without a neutron moderator. But it would surely meltdown because of decay heat.

      • I’m curious about the radioactive waste created by manufacturing Neodymium magnets for wind turbine=generators. What is the actual nature and volume?
        Can anybody point me to a source of fact?

    • The only waste issues are political. Politicians outlawing good solutions. Cheered on by anti-nuclear nutcases who don’t want there to be a solution to these problems.

      • Mark, I think that a lack of knowledge on the politicians’ part combined with the usual public apathy induced by the media overload of useless garbage treated as pertinence in their daily programming.

    • This was a self-inflicted wound caused by scaremongers to the political system for the exact reasons you state i.e. to create a “crisis”; it would take a single EO to undo but take a single EO to continue the self-inflicted would.

      All of this is based on poor understanding and stupidity.

  2. So, without nuclear, oil, gas or coal precisely how is a modern 24/7 society -with its ever larger population-to provide for its ever increasing energy needs?

    Banning smartphones, computers, the internet and social media would make a good start in reducing energy needs but I doubt those shouting the loudest would go along with that.

    Please, can we get an article from a senior Extinction rebellion spokesperson up at WUWT to explain how we become zero carbon by 2025 and where our power is to come from?

    tonyb

  3. Many people hear the word nuclear and automatically assume that means bad. My understanding though is that nuclear is more expensive than fossil fuels.

    • I made, at my last position, activated isotopes and building radio-pharmaceuticals bio-markers for about 12 years.

      We call that particular industry: “Nuclear Medicine”

      I was the cyclotron engineer/radio-chemist.

    • ,,,and automatically assume that means bad.

      How true. Beaumont, California, in the late 1980’s. Westinghouse wanted to put in a warehouse to store possible low-grade waste from power plants – items such as welding units that had ceased to work, towels, paper coffee cups etc that had been in containment. At a town hall meeting – “We don’t want nuclear waste in this town.”

      The amount of radioactivity that Westinghouse was licensed for was less than the allowance for the local hospital! People just aren’t aware of certain things.

      The facility was built. I spent several months one summer doing plant maintenance there. Got to ‘play’ with liquid nitrogen – used in some of the sensors. Fun – and educational. (I was working for an income tax preparation company at the time – summers off.)

  4. Both of them are bent on killing people in droves. At least the great megalomaniacs of the 20thC were honest about it.

    • Just so, Gary!
      They may be socialists of different nuances but their dictatorial proposals will have the same end effects.

  5. India cannot afford the cost over runs of nuclear and cannot ignore falling solar PV costs, at least in large arrays.

    • As long as India lacks an out of control legal sector controlled by environmental nut cases, they don’t have to worry about cost over runs.
      The so called falling costs of solar still haven’t managed to get solar within an order of magnitude of being cost effective.

      • Well, India did have a particularly bad experience with Enron. Pumped about $3 billion into the project and got nothing to show for it. So they may be having a case of “once bitten, twice shy”.

      • Dufus has clearly never visited India or Africa where rented singular solar panels are becoming almost ubiquitous among the poor who afford them by renting them on demand. It spews from its paricial experience. Just like their modern banking, everything is done via cell phone and cyberspace – decades ahead of the US banking and cell phone usage.

        • Well, I confess I have no idea what a paricial experience is, but solar panels will not lift them out of the abject poverty they are in resulting from a lack of reliable power. They are paying a high price for a little power.

          As far as banking, I write maybe two checks a year, mainly because I don’t want specific companies to have my charge card info, and they have a problem with accounts paid through the bank without their payment forms. Everything else is done online; an option everyone in the country has. Perhaps you need to come to the US before commenting further.

          • *paricial = parochial.

            Solar panels have eased the burden on many with respect to light and communications and listening to the radio and watching TV. They have more disposal income by not having to buy expensive fuels and batteries.

            Online banking is nowhere near cellular phone financial transactions. There is no longer a need for paper and coin currency and people cannot be robbed for their cash, etc. You need to travel more.

          • They have eased the burden.
            The burden caused by westerners who have prevented their governments from working on real solutions to their power problems.

            Government regulations and union work rules make it almost impossible for phone lines to be installed. Because of this cell phones are popular.
            Rob takes this as proof that they are ahead of us technically.
            As always, Rob sees whatever his ideological masters tell him to see.

          • My petty, creepy cyberstalker with Stockholm syndrome strikes to waste recycled cyber bits on BS. It is besotted with me after so many spankings that it has endured from me! What is it with you uneducated buffoons that you feel compelled to follow your intellectual superiors after we have given you thorough schooling in the very basics of math and science? Those are emotionally appealing talking points, too bad they are not based in reality or have any scientific context and is meaningless and misleading. Definitely not from a scientifically literate brain. Very creepy!!

            Cell phones were a late adoption in the US because payphones were ubiquitous and pagers were the alert tool. In Africa and other poor parts, the world phones often don’t work because cables are stolen for their copper value. It is clear you are parochial and never travelled and yes Africa’s embrace and use of cellular phone technology were about a decade ahead of the US. We still can’t do person to person shopping with our phones making currency obsolete. There are many more innovations I could share but you’re just stubborn and arrogant. Some times the first world is too advanced for its own good and doesn’t brace new technology easily.

        • When the anti-human nut jobs such as Rob prevent countries from building real power plants, the poor do what they can.
          Rob actually sees this as proof that alternative solutions are better.

    • You need to check out the population density of India and suggest where “large arrays” would be placed.

  6. Apparently people only die from coal pollution in India, not the US? Indian coal plants are about as modern as US ones, overall…

    and isn’t coal power supposed to be the answer to developing countries power needs?

    so hear we are condemning on the one hand what is being encouraged on the other?

    • THe coal pollution in India is the least of their air problems. The burning of cow dung and wood in densely populated areas like most of the way from Delhi to Dehradun (nearly 300 miles north) reduces the visablity to less than 3 miles. The problem is not having enough clean sources of power to cook, let alone for any heating when it goes to 4-5 oC at night; the sun is not an angry red disk – you just cannot see it.

      • If that be true then you must be spinning like a top in conservative right-wing circles. Pity we can’t hook you up and generate some sustainable and environmentally friendly energy. The planet is already in a climate disaster – 12 years hence is just showing that it will be in more trouble if we don’t start ameliorating our pouring of non-condensing GHGs into the atmosphere. As it is the planet’s climate will be off-tack for millennia thanks to the past century or so of unabated fossil fuel use, cement manufacture, land disturbance, and flaring.

        • Flaring prevents an even more potent GHG from entering the biosphere … CH4
          Flaring simply changes CH4 into far more beneficial CO2 (plant food necessary for Photosynthesis) and H2O (second vital component of photosynthesis).

          • Rookie, CO₂ is not plant food. Flaring is just cheap disposal of waste instead of sequestration. Whether as methane which naturally degrades to CO₂ or CO₂ is emitted – it is an unnecessary source that can be avoided with proper engineering and disposal.

          • If CO2 isn’t plant food, then what do plants use to create the Carbohydrates that they do eat?
            Hint Photosynthesis uses CO2 and H2O to make C6H12O6 (carbohydrates)
            6CO2 + 12H2O + Light Energy → C6H12O6 + 6O2 + 6H2O
            Without CO2 plants starve.
            CO2 is an integral part of Plant Food
            CO2 IS Plant Food
            Plants starve without it

          • • CO₂ is NOT plant food! “Food” is properly understood as a SOURCE of Gibbs Free Energy. CO₂ is not that as it has no chemical energy to convert. It is an aerial fertilizer and a necessary building block that plants and microorganisms photoautotroph to MAKE food from sunlight.
            • CO₂ without the other biogeochemical, photo and temperature autotrophic drivers and the right plant types i.e. C₃, has zero effect.
            • CO₂ is the prime GHG.
            • Humans are adding CO₂ to the atmosphere.
            • GHGs warm the planet.
            • Notwithstanding the difficulties, nuances and technical details we have known this since 1896.•The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were this high, millions of years ago, the planet was very different. For one, humans didn’t exist.

            Your biochemistry is junk science. Plants don’t convert CO₂ into O₂, period. Why lie? Lies make you look weak, desperate, and disreputable. They convert CO₂ into C₆H₁₂O₆ (glucose) and NADP (nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate) by photosynthesis. O₂ is produced by the hydrolysis of water, a precursor to the photosynthesis step.

          • Rob

            Can C3 plants survive without atmospheric CO2?

            No.

            Ergo – CO2 is plant food. It might not be the only plant food but it is essential.

          • Stupid logic and typical of “common sense” advocates. No water or no sunlight they die too. I think you will agree neither is food. CO₂ is an aerial fertilizer and a necessary building block that plants and microorganisms photoautotroph to MAKE food from sunlight

          • Plants use it to grow, and in fact die if there isn’t enough of it.
            Yet Rob declares that it isn’t plant food.
            Once again Rob demonstrates that ideology trumps facts.

          • • CO₂ is NOT plant food! “Food” is properly understood as a SOURCE of Gibbs Free Energy.

            by that definition Water is not food either yet none can live without it for more than a few days. If you remove CO2 from the equation, life comes to an abrupt halt. We are ALL Carbon based lifeforms on this planet and the source of that Carbon is mainly CO2. Without CO2 and H2O plants die, the animals that eat the plants die and the animals that eat the animals that eat the plants die. CO2 is Vital to Life on Earth and reducing it will have dire consequences.
            You then argue that CO2 is really just an aerial fertilizer. What is fertilizer but what you Feed to your plants? Whether Nitrogen based Ground Fertilizer or Aerial CO2 fertilizer, plants take it in and as such it is their food.

            According to Merriam Webster…
            food noun, often attributive
            \ ˈfüd \
            Definition of food
            1a: material consisting essentially of protein, carbohydrate, and fat used in the body of an organism to sustain growth, repair, and vital processes and to furnish energy
            also : such food together with supplementary substances (such as minerals, vitamins, and condiments)

            b: inorganic substances absorbed by plants in gaseous form or in water solution AKA CO2 is Plant Food

          • I’m afraid Merriam Webster is not a source for science and no CO₂ is NOT plant food, period! That may work for laypersons but not science. The Earth is not flat and the sun does not rise and set. The rest of your prolix comment is pure junk science and gibberish!

          • Your biochemistry is junk science. Plants don’t convert CO₂ into O₂, period. Why lie? Lies make you look weak, desperate, and disreputable. They convert CO₂ into C₆H₁₂O₆ (glucose) and NADP (nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate) by photosynthesis. O₂ is produced by the hydrolysis of water, a precursor to the photosynthesis step

            Plants through photosynthesis breathe in CO2 and breathe out O2
            6CO2 + 12H2O + Light Energy → C6H12O6 + 6O2 + 6H2O
            (6C-12O + 24H-12O) = 6C-24H-24O…6C-12H-6O + 12O + 12H-6O = 6C-24H-24O The sides balance so what is incorrect?
            6 molecules of Carbon Dioxide + 12 molecules of water + light energy = 1 carbohydrate + 6 O2 molecules and 6 water molecules
            Granted I am going back to when I was 9 (4th grade) 48 years ago but I don’t believe the physics of Chemistry has changed much since 1971
            Are you some type of Chemistry denialist?

          • Rob,
            Apparently even you know how to Google…
            Google Photosynthesis then come back and demonstrate how CO2 transformation into Carbohydrates (C6-H12-O6) doesn’t release 6 molecules of O2 as a byproduct

          • First, photosynthesis varies between plant and animal types. Second, all plant synthesis starts with a precursor of hydrolysis of water. That’s the source of the oxygen. Peruse this from my old lecture papers:

            Hydrolysis: 2H₂O + 2NADP (nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate) + e → O₂ + 2NADPH₂ (nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate-oxidase) or simply:
            2H₂O + 2NADP +e → O₂↑ + 2NADPH₂ (living organisms store hydrogen as NADPH₂ or NADH₂ rather than as H₂)

            The fate of the oxygens that come from CO₂ is more complicated to explain, In the equation:
            Photosynthesis: 6CO₂ + 6NADPH₂ + e → C₆H₁₂O₆ + 6NADP
            Out of the 12 oxygen in the 6 CO₂ molecules, 6 of them end up as part of the sugar molecule. The fate of the other 6 is more complicated to follow. Three of them end up as part of phosphoric acid ions, and the rest end up as phosphoric acid and water molecules, depending on tautomeric effects. You can read about the photosynthetic carbon reduction (PCR) cycle and Calvin Cycle if you want to figure it out.

          • From LiveScience
            https://www.livescience.com/51720-photosynthesis.html

            Photosynthesis is the process used by plants, algae and certain bacteria to harness energy from sunlight and turn it into chemical energy. Here, we describe the general principles of photosynthesis and highlight how scientists are studying this natural process to help develop clean fuels and sources of renewable energy.

            Types of photosynthesis
            There are two types of photosynthetic processes: oxygenic photosynthesis and anoxygenic photosynthesis. The general principles of anoxygenic and oxygenic photosynthesis are very similar, but oxygenic photosynthesis is the most common and is seen in plants, algae and cyanobacteria.

            During oxygenic photosynthesis, light energy transfers electrons from water (H2O) to carbon dioxide (CO2), to produce carbohydrates. In this transfer, the CO2 is “reduced,” or receives electrons, and the water becomes “oxidized,” or loses electrons. Ultimately, oxygen is produced along with carbohydrates.

            Oxygenic photosynthesis functions as a counterbalance to respiration by taking in the carbon dioxide produced by all breathing organisms and reintroducing oxygen to the atmosphere.

            On the other hand, anoxygenic photosynthesis uses electron donors other than water. The process typically occurs in bacteria such as purple bacteria and green sulfur bacteria, which are primarily found in various aquatic habitats.

            “Anoxygenic photosynthesis does not produce oxygen — hence the name,” said David Baum, professor of botany at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “What is produced depends on the electron donor. For example, many bacteria use the bad-eggs-smelling gas hydrogen sulfide, producing solid sulfur as a byproduct.”

            Though both types of photosynthesis are complex, multistep affairs, the overall process can be neatly summarized as a chemical equation.

            Oxygenic photosynthesis is written as follows:

            6CO2 + 12H2O + Light Energy → C6H12O6 + 6O2 + 6H2O

            And from WIKI the great and powerful
            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis
            Overall equation for the type of photosynthesis that occurs in plants
            6CO2+6H2O+Light=1 sugar (C6H12O6)+6O2 which uses all the water and exhausts 6Oxygen molecules but zero water
            Per >90% of verified (top 30) Google Hits (numbering more than 5.9 million), both are an accurate formulaic representation of Photosynthesis

        • Plant a garden, disturb the land…
          Erect a Wind Turbine, form a CONCRETE Footing for support…
          Erect a Solar Farm, form CONCRETE Footings for panel supports…
          Wind and Solar BOTH still require vast swaths of land clearing for installations and materials mining…(including CONCRETE and Fossil Fueled transportation to site and construct them)
          AND cannot provide electricity 24/7/365 without undesirable back-ups…
          Still night…no electricity generation…
          Stormy Windy Day…no electricity generation…
          Rooftop fire from Tesla Panel overheating…no electricity generation…(and no structure to supply power to)

          • Those are some emotionally appealing talking points, Bryan A; too bad they’re meaningless and misleading. Definitely not from a scientifically literate brain.

            Your red herring that solar panels don’t catch fire is nonsense. Their electrical circuits are like any other electric panel and always the possibility for fire.

          • I never stated that “Solar Panels don’t catch fire” You did in your reply, That is a Red Herring argument on your part.
            Concrete will Always exist as a building material until something better is created. CO2 from it’s production will always be a byproduct regardless of where the concrete is utilized.
            SO
            Concrete production is an invalid argument. (it is required, in massive quantities, for Wind Turbine footings)
            Land is disturbed for every construction job whether it is for Solar Panels, Wind Turbines, Nuclear Generation, or Coal or Gas fired generation OR housing/farming.
            SO
            Land Disturbance is an invalid argument.
            And Flaring transforms CH4 into more beneficial GHGs CO2 and H2O things plants require to grow and green the biosphere…
            SO
            Flaring is essentially an invalid argument
            (Yes CH4 does naturally decay to CO2 and H2O from Lightning and forest fires. Flaring just does the job immediately and with no CH4 residence time)

            If the object is to eliminate CO2 sources from electric generation and maintain a reliable generation source, Hydro and Nuclear make far more sense than intermittent Wind Turbine and Intermittent Solar panel production.

          • There is no data showing that there is a climate problem, much less disaster.
            What we have are morons such as yourself declaring that every big storm or large fire is proof of global warming, despite the fact that long histories of bigger storms and bigger fires exist. IN higher frequency as well.

          • From the little I have seen from Griff he is orders of magnitude more educated and knowledgeable than you – so thanks for the compliment.

        • Rob

          Kindly point us all to a scientifically credible, empirical study that demonstrates atmospheric CO2 is harmful to mankind below 1,000 ppm.

        • I am curious, Rob. Who in the world is having a climate disaster? What is the climatic cause of the disaster – temperature, wind, precipatation, or humidity? What disaster is it causing?

          Note that if it is climate, not a random weather event, the situation must have been recurring for a number of years, to the point that the abberation is now considered typical.

          • Why are you so void of knowledge? Check the rapidly warming Arctic where temperatures are running 12℃ – see the whole villages that have to be relocated because of Tundra collapse and sea encroachment for starters.

          • Don’t forget about those other settlements and villages AND former boreal forest remnants that are being uncovered by retreating ice fields and glaciers

        • Already in climate disaster???? Where?

          Actual science shows that the half life of CO2 in the atmosphere is only a decade or so.

    • griff

      Usual nonsense from you.

      120,000,000 people in the developing world will die by 2050 from pollution caused by burning timber and animal faeces for cooking and heating. (WHO).

      Take your ill informed, drive by comments and stick them where the sun don’t shine you ignoramus.

  7. Leading the call for Bernie Sanders to retire is probably the only thing I have ever agreed with that Hansen has said.

    He was at UNC the other night and the local TV station interviewed some of the kids attending the “rally” asking them why they supported Sanders. Remarkably most said they didn’t support him, just showed up to see him.

    • At least Dr. Hansen has the integrity to point out that wind and solar have no chance of achieving their stated purpose. He has stated that and advocated nuclear for a while now. Naturally, the left is studiously ignoring him.

      As far as I can tell, the cost of nuclear is mostly due to regulatory overburden. It has been economical in France for decades.

      Running a sensible nuclear program could be what Judith Curry calls a no-regrets policy.

  8. Off Topic…..but so it begins, as promised.

    The USA (Alarmist) Weather Channel is all in this morning on Catastrophic Global Warming, cherry picking various US cities and showing graphs with 2.5 to 2.8 degrees (F) increase in (Fall??) temperatures in these cities for the years 1970 to 2018.

    Also a blurb in the same segment telling of the ‘projected’ increased strength and severity of future hurricanes, due to warming oceans.

    I only tuned in to this media to see if they were adhering to the doctrine, that being the worldwide media push this week to reinforce the narrative, with the UN Climate Conference being held in NYC.

    Sadly, I WAS disappointed…..but certainly not surprised.

    • Anything I hear or see from the Weather Channel I take with a grain of salt, actually more like a truckload full! My guess is they didn’t bother to acknowledge how much development has taken place in those cities since 1970….. And more development leads to greater temps due to UHI.

    • I watched the Weather Channel a few minutes ago and they were promoting “potential” high temperatures for various cities in the U.S.

      So if they don’t have any record heat to report, they can still report on near-record heat.

      I noticed they didn’t have a special feature on potential record cold set today in other various U.S. cities. The Weather Channel emphasizes the southeast U.S. and its temporary warmth and ignores the U.S. northwest with its much cooler temperatures.

      It looks like bias to me. It looks like someone at the Weather Channel has a CAGW agenda.

      • Tom

        It’s coming. At some point one weather outlet will see an opportunity in reporting that there is evidence for cooling, as NASA has already reported I believe.

        It’s only a matter of short time before the dam breaks.

    • We were in an unusually (for the 20th century) cold period in the 1970s. Fortunately, we DID warm up a little since then.

      They could probably increase their revenue by selling some of those cherries they are picking.

  9. “Thousands of people PER DAY are dying in India from the pollution…. ” Is he talking about CO2? Coal ash? PM2.5 (dust in the wind)? SO2? CO? Are these medically supported statistics as in coroner’s reports or are they statistically generated statistics.

    • He may be referring to the burning of dung and other fuels inside the home for cooking and heating. These have been discussed elsewhere and are a significant health threat in the Third World. However, the context of the remark remains unclear.

    • Coach Springer

      WHO estimate 12,000,000 people in the developing world will die by 2050 as a direct consequence of medical conditions caused by inhaling smoke from burning timber and dung indoors to cook and heat with.

      We might imagine from the media that these are isolated villages is some remote African outposts, but they include cities where people have no access to/can’t afford electricity so they burn timber harvested ‘illegally’ from rain forests on a massive scale.

      However, it occurs to me that this is none of our business. The wealthy western world in the northern hemisphere burned most of it’s forests for fuel before it discovered coal, so why are we stopping the Amazon being chopped down for fuel?

  10. From the above article: “While Bernie’s plan would . . . it’s crucial to note that the plan . . . nor does it regulate or prohibit nuclear power abroad.”

    What? You mean the US can no longer dictate to foreign countries if and when they can build nuclear reactors, as well as to impose US regulations on them? Who knew?

    • The Mad Mullahs of Iran will be happy to hear Bernie’s take on the nuclear subject. Maybe they will send Bernie a political donation. No, probably not, because Trump has just about bankrupted them with his nuclear policy. They probably don’t have much extra cash to throw around right about now.

    • A legitimate fear is that the US Govt. might attempt to forbid any and all commercial nuclear activity by any and all US based companies anywhere in the world. It would be a total ban on all things commercial nuclear. We are to be reassured that Bernie’s anti-nuke plan would not go that far. For Now.
      Remember, in Bernie’s positions, there is no shortage of things which are unconstitutional, insanely expensive, or just plain crazy. None of these mundane considerations even slows these people down.

  11. Bernie, ironically side-swiped by the DNC last time around, and likely again this time around, echoes his British brother in the Labour Party. Hosting Greta while talking about population reduction is all the rage.

  12. James “coal trains of death” Hansen truly doesn’t get it, either. There is no reason whatsoever that India, or any other country “needs” to phase out coal. Zero, zilch, nada. And Hansen telling Sanders he should “retire” is code for saying Sanders needs to STFU. LOL. Hansen also needs to STFU, as his Warmunist ideology is also killing people.
    I imagine (silly me) that India knows better than anyone else, most especially climatist ideologues, what is best for India. If they start shutting down coal plants “because of the climate” though, then they will have chosen to go down the path of Stupid with respect to energy policy.

  13. “It’s time for Bernie Sanders to retire”

    I hope not. Bernie is a true dyed in the wool socialist who has managed to split the Democrats between being liberals and socialists. As long as 1/3 of the Democrats will cast their lot with Burnie, AOC and the rest of the socialist gangrene, then they have no chance at ever winning the Presidency. They will win some local congressional seats like AOC did, but that is the price we have to pay to keep the nutters out of the Senate and Whitehouse.

  14. Oh…for a moment I thought there might be the slightest shred of rationality coming forth “prophet of climate change”. So silly of me to consider the possibility

  15. The argument for cutting carbon dioxide emissions and the argument for the safety of nuclear power suffer from the same shortcoming. Both arguments can be proved to be logically unsound.

      • Sure, as long as there are no accidents. When accidents happen it’s potentially the worst. That’s the problem with nuclear.

        • How many people die as a result of falling down stairs?
          How many will die this month from doing so?
          How many from nuclear accidents?

          If you answer truthfully, you will next propose banning stairs.

        • There have only been three accidents resulting in only about a dozen deaths.
          All accidents involved old designs, and Chernobyl was a design rejected by the west because it wasn’t considered safe.
          Had the Soviets splurged on a containment vessel, the accident would have been contained and odds are nobody would have died.

  16. Bernie’s crime is that he says what the other Democrats are thinking but keeping their mouth shut. It is how he and AOC have driven the Democrats into the Leftist wasteland of unelectability. By opening up the dialogue in their ranks and exposing what was always there —socialism and the desire to control people — they lose the middle. Affordable reliable electricity and energy in general allows people to control their own lives.
    Even Pocahontas is unelectable with her Medicaid-For-All plans (which forbids private insurance) and her declaration that she would shutdown drilling on all federal lands and offshore as President. People do understand how both would destroy the middle class by making everything vastly more expensive.

    As for nuclear itself, the anti-nuclear democrats are certainly alive and in charge in California and New York State where viable reactors that could be re-licensed to continue to make reliable CO2-free electricity are being shutdown. Those are political payoffs to the GreenSlime billionaires who own those Democrats and who need to increase dependence on their wind and solar investments. And their anti-nuclear stance merely exposes the fact that climate change policy has never been about climate.

  17. James and Bernie could get a job sitting in the box seats above the Muppet Theater replacing Statler and Waldorf.

  18. Nuclear cannot be installed fast enough to meet their goals. There would be no new plants before 2030 and then only a handful. Of course, Nuclear has been one of the players since Thatcher broke the coal miners with the global warming-emergency scam

  19. At least when Sanders retires he will have a second career option promoting fried chicken…

  20. We couldn’t get one nuclear power plant built in the next 12 years, the stated ‘end of the planet’ by CO2 ‘pollution’! How the hell does Mann reconcile this? The planet Earth will be past the alarmists stated ‘use by date’ before even one nuke plant can be built!

    Answer: Mann knows the alarmist “12 years to climate disaster” is bullshat. But he’s happy to repeat it, to keep the gullible fool funding rolling in!

  21. Oh.

    France, yellow vest fricking fracking thing, technically, due to energy problem.
    Problem, ~70% nuclear.
    No amount of taxation can pay for the required upgrade of such an energy production scheme… impossible financially.

    The ideal solution;
    an upgrade including a significant reduction to less than actual, something around 50% dependency in nuclear, or even less if possible.

    But;

    Too hard and still too expensive, even under such consideration, because these guys in charge have being passing the buck for far too long now, in hope of some “miracle” coming their way, or simply because of this happening to be, was deemed a problem for others coming after them to solve.

    Nuclear has its limitation… too expensive to rely at it in the consideration of more than affordable penetration in the production amount.

    Just for the sake of a saying;
    Should consider thanking the Chernobyl, as otherwise we be facing now the Nuclear Energy
    self destructive economical black hole instead of the solar and wind power one.

    Do not be surprised to find out that when the green blob decides to abandon the renewable energy, it will feverishly reconsider and go full hands on supporting Nuclear…
    as these guys love to suck on any huge financial wastage schemes…
    as that is what they are experts at… and that is what they “fish” for,
    live and work for, seven eleven.
    Just offer a finger to them at such as, and they will take the hand and the entire “kingdom”, again.

    Any way, just saying, hopefully not upsetting any one there.

    cheers

    • Why should we be upset here that you don’t understand that much was learned from the human error causing Chernobyl, Fukushima and other incidents in our past. I think the development of human flight cost more lives than learning from nuclear mistakes so far… Care to show statistics otherwise?

      • Pop Piasa
        September 23, 2019 at 1:40 pm
        ———
        Thanks for the reply Pop.

        First, the point in my comment that you refer to, was a point made in the line of
        the: ” Just for the sake of a saying”, meaning simply a thought put forward as just an expression to share.

        Second, it does not necessarily have to be accepted or considered as valid,
        but at the least to be understood.

        So, if you allow me to explain it in consideration of your own reply to me.

        No amount of human life cost from human flights, had ever the “luxury” of
        effecting the outcome of the decision from the “rulers” of Europe (and others also) when it came to how to keep investing and spending (or actually wasting) taxpayers money in the consideration of the energy choice:
        Nuclear V Wind and Solar…. allegedly

        Chernobyl, had that “luxury”, allegedly.
        Too concerning. When and where the proposition of Wind and Solar scheme far much safer than the continuation of ever keep growing the Nuclear scheme.
        Quite a non necessary risk to take… when in the same time quite the same large leverage on the public purse with quite a lot more tempting perks there to exploit….
        again allegedly.

        Pop, again, all my reply to you, is in the line of:
        just for the sake of saying. 🙂

        Thank you for your consideration, appreciated.

        cheers

  22. Bernie needs to go hang out on his Russian estate and apply for citizenship so he can get Putin’s free health care.

  23. Rob says: “Rookie, CO₂ is not plant food. ”
    Mnnn…that’s some mighty fine BS, worthy, even, of Algore, the Clown Prince of BS!

      • Oh, stop pretending to be better educated. Up-thread at 4:15 pm you said “Us humans will find solutions …” which tells me you haven’t even learned your pronouns yet; you can’t differentiate between subjective and objective pronouns. Get thee back to school.

        And in another thread, Richard Courtney had set out a perfectly logical comment. In doing so, he found it necessary to repeat a couple of phrases for the sake of clarity. Having no counter to his clarity of logic, you chose to criticize that excess as pleonasm, assuming nobody here would discern what you were blathering about.

        It is you who are the cretin.

  24. What strange things to say. Millions dies from many causes. He doesn’t mention the millions being pulled, literally, out of poverty because of fossil fuels.

  25. I’m wondering if the moderators hired Rob because things were getting too slow around here.
    Surely nobody could be that clueless for free.

  26. So when James Hansen carried out that Fiddle with heating up the room for
    his big climate thing, he was actually just working towards the USA going
    Nuclear ?

    Funny I do not recall that message at the time. So now he is worried that old
    Bernie is going to cause the whole climate thing to collapse.

    Why didn’t the members of the original meeting say “”Gee the room is hot
    will someone turn on the air conditioner ?

    MJE VK5ELL

  27. @CO2 is not plant food:

    Increase in forest water-use efficiency as atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations rise:
    https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12291

    Deserts ‘greening’ from rising CO2:
    https://www.csiro.au/en/News/News-releases/2013/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2

    Increased tree densities in South African savannas: >50 years of data suggests CO2 as a driver:
    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02561.x

    Atmospheric CO2 forces abrupt vegetation shifts locally, but not globally:
    https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11238

Comments are closed.