Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Climate Scientist James Hansen on, um, Religion.
Let me preface this by remarking that I am personally an atheist and have a low opinion of cult thinking, although as is ethically required, I respect the right to have a religion, with the caveat that religious people do not have the right to harm other people, which is what the religion to which Hansen refers does. It definitely harms people, killing them actually, since fossil fuel use, um, kills people.
Interestingly, there is some cultists who seem to have a religion about Jim Hansen, as we can see here at E&E, while holding no respect for his views on energy, none at all.
Now, let me be clear on something: This argument, "James Hansen says..." is possibly an example of the logical fallacy called "appeal to authority," which, as described in the link just posted as:
Description: Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered. Also see the appeal to false authority .
Of course, Dr. Hansen, is not a nuclear engineer, and thus might be considered a "false authority," on nuclear issues, although he has offered in a paper that antinukes and "I'm not an antinuke" antinukes ignore, that I frequently post, that offers supporting data on the death toll associated with antinukism, as evidence for his support for nuclear energy:
Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power (Pushker A. Kharecha* and James E. Hansen Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47 (9), pp 4889–4895)
It's an old paper, pushing 13 years, during which fossil fuels killed, at the rate of 7 million per year from air pollution according to another source I frequently link: Global burden of 87 risk factors in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019 (Lancet Volume 396, Issue 10258, 17–23 October 2020, Pages 1223-1249).
Based on the Lancet data, antinukism - which is nothing more than support for fossil fuels - killed about 91 million people since Hansen's paper was published. Hansen now gives a much higher figure for the hourly death rate associated with fossil fuels than the Lancet paper indicates, although he adds water pollution, but whether he has support for that, I'm not sure. He may have misspoke since he is making an oral argument without data before him.
For the record killing 91 million people is the equivalent of killing everyone in that coal dependent antinuke hellhole Germany, and then some.
As for an "Appeal to Authority" claim, it is quite possible, likely, that Hansen doesn't know as much about nuclear engineering as say, I do from years of private study of the issue, or my son, who is a nuclear engineer, does, nor my son's girlfriend, also a nuclear engineer, does, but as someone who does know a great deal about nuclear engineering with a focus on nuclear chemistry, I fully credit his remarks that antinukism is a cult that kills people, even if his numbers in the interview may be off significantly.
The quote comes with a video, which I have not had time to watch, but if one wishes to watch the video, it's at the link.
The link is here: The Green Interview, James Hansen
The quote from the text at the link on nuclear power:
Nuclear Power
Hansen says that currently the world is getting about 85 percent of its energy from fossil fuels and that putting a price on carbon would allow clean energy alternatives to compete. He argues that nuclear power should be part of the mix that replaces fossil fuels, but he says the anti-nuclear power lobby, a “quasi-religion that opposes nuclear power,” does not have a command of the facts. “Nuclear power has been extremely beneficial in limiting impacts on human health and deaths. For example, the total number of people killed by nuclear power in the history of nuclear power is less than the number of people killed by fossil fuels in the time that’s it’s taking for this interview. In one hour more than 10,000 people die from the effects of fossil fuel pollution, air pollution and water pollution.” Hansen believes that nuclear power could potentially be a significant contributor to clean energy and serve as an alternative base-load electric power but, he says, “It should be the next-generation nuclear power, which solves some of the objections that people have to nuclear power but it has not been allowed to compete.” The U.S. should develop fast reactors that consume nuclear waste and thorium reactors to prevent the creation of new long-lived nuclear waste, he says.
Hansen says that currently the world is getting about 85 percent of its energy from fossil fuels and that putting a price on carbon would allow clean energy alternatives to compete. He argues that nuclear power should be part of the mix that replaces fossil fuels, but he says the anti-nuclear power lobby, a “quasi-religion that opposes nuclear power,” does not have a command of the facts. “Nuclear power has been extremely beneficial in limiting impacts on human health and deaths. For example, the total number of people killed by nuclear power in the history of nuclear power is less than the number of people killed by fossil fuels in the time that’s it’s taking for this interview. In one hour more than 10,000 people die from the effects of fossil fuel pollution, air pollution and water pollution.” Hansen believes that nuclear power could potentially be a significant contributor to clean energy and serve as an alternative base-load electric power but, he says, “It should be the next-generation nuclear power, which solves some of the objections that people have to nuclear power but it has not been allowed to compete.” The U.S. should develop fast reactors that consume nuclear waste and thorium reactors to prevent the creation of new long-lived nuclear waste, he says.
I added the bold, with which I agree.
A correction to another figure put forth by Hansen: According to IEA figures published in the annual World Energy Outlook, the use of fossil fuels in "percent talk" has not changed very much over this century. In the year 2000, it was 80.2%, in 2016, 81.0%, in 2024, 79.4%. In absolute numbers, since energy use is rising not falling, from 420 Exajoules in 2000 to 654 Exajoules in 2024.
In the period between 2000 and 2024, the use of dangerous coal has risen by 81 Exajoules, dangerous petroleum use has risen by 39 Exajoules and the use of dangerous natural gas has risen by 61 Exajoules.
I have almost all of the World Energy Outlooks in my files for this century, and some from the 1990s. I have constructed a table which I post here from time to time from the data in some select years:
The 2025 data, which I do not expect to be very different from previous years in terms of increases and percentages, will be published in the 2026 WEO, most likely in November.
My corrective comments notwithstanding, I agree that antinukism is a fact free cult, although I do expect members of this antinuke cults, some of whom write here, whose membership is either indifferent to fossil fuels, scientifically illiterate, or badly informed, any one, two or all three, are likely to respond with the usual chanted dogma.
Have a nice day.
6 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
