Hansen Savages Democrats In Shock Statement. Turns on Clinton Administration.

James Hansen, the controversial scientist at the centre of the global warming movement has turned on America’s Democrat party in a shock announcement, savaging past Democrat administrations for “huge mistakes” that denied America the possibility of producing zero carbon emissions energy by now.

Andy Revkin of the New York Times reported that Hansen was not happy with the current Obama administration, as despite offering his services “I never heard back anything from the White House”. This “lame” approach, he said could be seen in past Democrat administrations:

Nowhere is the lame middle-of-the-road go-slow compromise approach clearer than in the case of nuclear power. The [Obama] Administration has been reluctant to admit that the Carter and Clinton/Gore administrations made a huge mistake in pulling the U.S. back from development of advanced nuclear technology.

That is the way to make nuclear power safer (nuclear power already has the best safety record of any major industry in the United States) and resistant to weapons proliferation

New York Times. Dot Earth. NASA’s Hansen Pushes Obama for a Carbon Cost and a Nuclear Push.

Hansen also slammed President Obama for buckling to advocacy groups who impede progress on nuclear power, rather than being a “responsible leader” and authorizing a major new programme of building new nuclear power stations:

Nevertheless, the easiest thing that he could do, and perhaps the best that we can hope for, is for him to give a strong boost to nuclear power.

Unfortunately, he seems to fall prey to Democratic politics on this, rather than being a responsible leader.

New York Times. Dot Earth. NASA’s Hansen Pushes Obama for a Carbon Cost and a Nuclear Push.

Hansen’s comments may well be a dig at blogger Joe Romm, formerly Acting Assistant Secretary at the Department of Energy for the Clinton administration. Despite frequently proclaiming global warming to be an existential threat to humanity, Romm has hindered the move to low emissions energy by waging a campaign against nuclear power, which – as Hansen notes – has “the best safety record of any major industry”. Why is Romm ignoring the advice of the scientists he himself champions? Is it science, or is it politics?

Opinion:

This is a perfect example of how the campaign over man-made global warming is a political campaign far more than a scientific one. Nuclear power could provide the zero or low emissions energy that the warmists claim is desperately needed to save the world.

Yet they campaign virulently against it, on spurious grounds. They demand that we listen to the scientists on global warming. Yet, when those same scientists say that nuclear power is safe and should be pursued on a massive scale, they go silent, or point to a fringe minority who advocate against it on ideological grounds.

Why?

About these ads

12 responses to “Hansen Savages Democrats In Shock Statement. Turns on Clinton Administration.

  1. Dr. James Hansen
    “I never heard back anything from the White House”.

    Why should you? You are an unimportant old fool spouting crap via NASA. Retire now for the sake of mankind. One small step out for Hansenkind, one giant leap for Mankind. You know it’s the right thing to do. Just do it!!!

    The good doctor me thinks is suffering from the pheomenon known as the Messiah Complex. He has gotten too big for his boots despite his failed temperature projection since 1988. FAIL, FAIL, AND FAIL AGAIN. Now onto the cooling trend….. caused by co2 no doubt.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/08/opinion/08brooks.html

    • But note the important thing here – the alarmists are all over him when he’s making his prognostications on sea level rise or massive temperature jumps, but when he demands nuclear power to tackle the problem – where are they?

      They either ignore him, or they dismiss the argument on dubious grounds. Very occasionally one particularly daring warmist might venture to suggest that perhaps we should take another look at nuclear. The speed with which they get slapped down is a perfect illustration of the political animus behind their soi-disant “science”

      • Here is someone else who recommends nuclear energy – Dr. James Lovelock – Gaia Hypothesis:

        “Now that we’ve made the earth sick it won’t be cured by alternative Green remedies like wind turbines or biofuels, and this is why I recommend the appropriate medicine of nuclear energy as a part of a sensible portfolio of energy sources. ”
        http://www.jameslovelock.org/page12.html

        Greens are in knots over all this. ;>)

    • That’s funny, they called me up and offered me a big job with a nice corner office and a cafeteria pass. All I had to do is say “antherapo”…er…. ah…. “anthraxjopenic” …. er ah….. “man-made global warming” ten times a day.

      Sincerely,
      Professor Irwin Corey

  2. Dr. James Hansen me thinks is what we would call the USEFULL IDIOT for the US Government.

    He thinks he is very important when in fact he is not. US presidents go every 4/5 to 10 years or less and yet Hansen has been around for way toooooooooooooo long. It is time to go!!!!! Cooling is coming and your AGW stance is about to buckle very. Give it up my dear man.

  3. Missed word:
    stance is about to buckle very badly.

  4. I agree with Hansen re: nuclear energy. We’re not going to produce huge amounts of cheap, reliable energy with solar panels or wind mills. Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTR) seem very promising WRT operating cost, fuel availability, safety, long term waste, and terrorism but we need lots of R&D work to make LFTRs commercially viable.

    We have a lot of coal but it won’t last forever and there is an environmental cost associated with mining and burning it. Mountain top mining is particularly deplorable. Coal might be more valuable as part of a goal to gas process that would enable the USA to reduce its dependence on foreign oil.

  5. Those who celebrate Hansen for backing nuclear power should know that Hansen also opposes existing designs of nuclear power plants. ;-)

    • I would expect nothing less from one of the chief warmists!

    • Although I generally disagree with Hansen in general I do think existing designs should be phased out because modern designs will be safer and more efficient. Unlike Hansen I think that will happen naturally over time. Additional R&D money on modern nuclear power plant design is not unwarranted.

  6. Pingback: Climategate.nl» Blog Archive » James Hansen Middelpunt van de Wereld, maar niet heus

  7. ‘Why?’

    Because they are misanthropes and luddites.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s