Climate Scientist James Hansen on, um, Religion. [View all]

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:

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:



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.