Essay by Eric Worrall
According the Hansen the 2.0C climate target is dead.
Climate change target of 2C is ‘dead’, says renowned climate scientist
Prof James Hansen says pace of global heating has been significantly underestimated, though other scientists disagree
Damian Carrington Environment editorWed 5 Feb 2025 04.31 AEDT
The pace of global heating has been significantly underestimated, according to renowned climate scientist Prof James Hansen, who said the international 2C target is “dead”.
…
“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) defined a scenario which gives a 50% chance to keep warming under 2C – that scenario is now impossible,” he said. “The 2C target is dead, because the global energy use is rising, and it will continue to rise.”
The new analysis said global heating is likely to reach 2C by 2045, unless solar geoengineering is deployed.
…
In the new study, published in the journal Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, Hansen’s team said: “Failure to be realistic in climate assessment and failure to call out the fecklessness of current policies to stem global warming is not helpful to young people.”
…“The basic problem is that the waste products of fossil fuels are still dumped in the air free of charge,” he said. He also backed the rapid development of nuclear power.
…
He said: “We do not recommend implementing climate interventions, but we suggest that young people not be prohibited from having knowledge of the potential and limitations of purposeful global cooling in their toolbox.”
Political change is needed to achieve all these measures, Hansen said: “Special interests have assumed far too much power in our political systems. In democratic countries the power should be with the voter, not with the people who have the money. That requires fixing some of our democracies, including the US.”
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/04/climate-change-target-of-2c-is-dead-says-renowned-climate-scientist
There is plenty of evidence voters already do have the power in the USA, even when they choose to use that voting power in ways James Hansen doesn’t approve. In the recent Presidential election, Kamala Harris substantially outspent President Trump, but voters still chose President Trump. Clearly money isn’t everything, at least when it comes to US elections.
I’m not going to lose any sleep over James Hansen’s climate doomsday predictions. In the article above, a number of Hansen’s former colleagues distanced themselves from his latest outburst – with good reason.
James Hansen has made a number of predictions over the years which proven to be less than accurate;
1988: Global Warming Will Cause Droughts
2001: West Side Highway Will be Underwater Within 30 Years
2008: In five to 10 years, the Arctic will be free of see ice in the summer
etc.
Of course, even amongst climate alarmists, there is always someone who is determined to go one better
Interestingly even Hansen’s zeal for reducing CO2 appears to have limits. WUWT once offered a joint platform with Hansen, to support research into nuclear reactors. But Hansen went quiet, and didn’t respond to our offer.
I am however concerned about Hansen’s repeated attacks on democracy.
Hansen has his moment of glory, though nowadays even Hansen’s colleagues politely distance themselves from his extreme predictions. But Hansen still has some influence.
I believe Hansen’s attacks on democracy are potentially damaging. In periods of turmoil like the present day, there is a risk Hansen’s words will influence more young people to join radical environmental movements. Hansen has appealed to young people, and may still have the power to influence young people to embrace his climate extremism.
If even one young person is influenced by Hansen’s alarmist rhetoric, and as a result decides to throw away their future by committing a futile act of eco-terrorism, what a waste and a tragedy that would be, and perhaps already is.
I am not accusing James Hansen of deliberately inciting acts of eco-terrorism. But if you tell a bunch of young people the system is broken, and the world they will inherit will be a dystopian hellscape, don’t be surprised if some of them decide to try to take matters into their own hands.
First (corrected) sentence in the above article:
“According
theto Hansen the 2.0C climate target is dead.”Well, according to me, James Hansen is dead as an AGW-oriented public influencer. He just hasn’t realized that fact yet.
And as to his assertions that we need to fix “some of our democracies, including the US”, I simply observe that democracy in the US is apparently doing fine (witness the recent Presidential election & change process) . . . but it’s the purported and publicized “science” of climate change that first needs fixing.
More churning to turn the money spigots on or open them wider. The money scam that this ‘science’ represents is reprehensibble and all who participate in it should be ashamed. And that includes the True Believers who should be doubly ashamed for leaving the priniciples of science as laid out by Richard Feynman locked in a dark, dank basement.
Just a quick introduction as this is my first post here. I’m Glenn from Norwich, Norfolk, England. I hate this man James Hansen. In my opinion he should be in prison for crimes against humanity.
I’m not too happy with Hansen, either. 🙂
Welcome Glenn.
Seconded
Hanson is shouting FIRE in a crowded theater … of course he is to blame for the violence
Who is Hanson?
Solar geoengineering??? Someone needs to tape this guys mouth shut
What would be easier, solar geoengineering, or talking China and India into stopping their CO2 production?
Both things would be equally daunting.
But, it’s very easy to say we should dim the sun to cool the Earth. Talk takes no effort at all. So that’s the course Hansen takes.
Future generations will see dimming the sun was unnecessary, and would have been a bad idea had it been implements in any way, shape or form.
My concern, Tom is that the idiots in charge just might try something like that without any thought what so ever of the unintended consequences. Of course it is un-needed, and never will be needed, but that has never stopped those who are convinced that they know better than the rest of us. And why would we need to talk China and India, or major portions of the global south for that matter into reducing their emissions?? Seems to me that nothing but good can come from more plant food in the atmosphere. and more energy available for human growth.
“My concern, Tom is that the idiots in charge just might try something like that without any thought what so ever of the unintended consequences.”
I think this would be such a serious matter, that it would be cause for War, to prevent this from taking place.
So, I’m not too worried about this happening in the current political situation.
If Joe Biden, and his radical Democrat Climate Alarmists controlled the world, and there was nobody to stop them, then I would be worried about something like this happening.
In fact, as we exit the Holocene interglacial having shown what a pathetic little damp squib CO2 is, any solar engineering is going to involve increasing the TSI. Future generations – just make sure you vote out the US democrat party and UK labour before you engage.
Renowned for always being wrong.
His track record doesn’t look good.
Maybe that’s why he is stressed all the time, promoting “The End is Nigh!”.
Hansen has become a real disappointment. He represents what can happen when a good scientist turns into an activist- celebrity.
At least you spelled his name right.
The CAGW crowd have no proper evidence to support their views. We have likely surpassed the dreaded 1.5C marker and yet here we. I have no respect for Hansen or Oreskes or Mann or any of them. They have no problem with power their problem is when they don’t have the power. They are losing and it is going to get worse for them and for good reason.
I think Trump will probably know that he can’t go after them all (there’s too many of the trough-feeders), so it might be just a few token examples. This guy is high on the list, but I would have Mann higher.
Hansen is a disappointment.
Twenty-five years ago, he wrote (www.pnas.orgycgiydoiy10.1073ypnas.170278997) that CFCs would replace CO2 as the dominant greenhouse gas, except, he wrote, that CFCs were to be eliminated by the Montreal Accord of 1989), except that did not happen. Except, and in addition, HFCs replacing CFCs are also potent GHGs which, along with SF6, etc. were not considered in his PNAS paper, in collaboration with other climate Illuminati of that period.
So much for finished science.
Fortunately, CO2 is not effective at measurably increasing the planetary temperature either, but it has proven effective at ‘greening the planet’.
Now, we are told that a 2C temperature is inevitable, and presumably, his predicted 6 m sea level rise by 2100, is still extant.
Hansen is a prime example of what may happen when a good scientist becomes an activist-celebrity.
Fame & Fortune, Indie!
Why are you defending this walking, talking turd? He knew what he was doing.
….. and, yes, I know what an insult that is – to turds.
A bit of an advise to Eric Worrall and other contributors to the discussion. When you are writing temperatures, you can express the degree symbol by simply pressing (and holding) the “alt” key to the left of the space bar, then type 0176 on the numeric keypad on the right of the keyboard. That will print the ° degree character. Many more special characters can be found on https://www.alt-codes.net/ and similar websites.
Good tip, with a small addendum – this is a Windows trick, so won’t work on Mac or Linux
Making such a claim is a ‘safe bet’ not much different from “Heads I win, tails you lose.” When there is a binary outcome to an event, a 50% chance for either outcome doesn’t tell us anything! We know with 100% certainty that one of the two events will occur. However, saying that there is a 50% chance that a particular one will occur means there is 0% predictability of which one that will be.