An URGENT Chat with the Godfather of Climate Science

[@axellieb]

German here, and a resident of Japan. I volunteered in the 20km zone around the Fukushima reactors back in 2011 so I know the situation there quite well. As Prof Hansen says, most of the misery that occurred back then (and is still ongoing now) was caused by the needless evacuation order and the subsequent refusal to admit that this was a mistake and to back down. Radiation had nothing to do with it. God damn these politicians and bureaucrats. A much smaller zone and one not randomly shaped as a circle but rather one encapsulating the actual funnel-like spread pattern would have been so much more meaningful and kind to people. As for the German public's stance on nuclear - it's a mystery. The only thing I can speculate is that the consistent, multi-decade bombardment with anti-nuclear messages (to large extent the responsibility of the Greens and their allies) has indeed succeeded in brainwashing the vast majority of the population. Good luck trying to reverse that.

[@genkiadrian]

FWIW, the size of the exclusion zone around the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant has been decreasing over the time and around 80% of the evacuated population have already returned to their homes.

[@briancam_2000]

Axel Lieber "As for the German public's stance on nuclear - it's a mystery. The only thing I can speculate is that the consistent, multi-decade bombardment with anti-nuclear messages (to large extent the responsibility of the Greens and their allies) has indeed succeeded in brainwashing the vast majority of the population. Good luck trying to reverse that." Your Statement takes the MYSTERY out.

[@axellieb]

@@genkiadrian Yes, true, but it took them six or seven years to begin lifting the evacuation status, I think.

[@NaumRusomarov]

Mmm.... Not Germany and I'm not implying that Germans are the same as Austrians, but Austria banned nuclear already in the '70s and reconfirmed the ban in 1997. Anxieties about nuclear power have existed for a very long time in the populace, well before any "Greens" could consolidate. Perhaps pretending that the "Greens" are at fault instead of admitting that most people are extremely skeptical and wary of nuclear power, and slowly working toward changing those views is what brought down nuclear power in Austria and Germany.

[@axellieb]

@@NaumRusomarov I wasn't "pretending", I was speculating. The wide-spread nuclear phobia has to come from somewhere. If it's not persistent messaging, what is? Keep in mind also that Austria is blessed with abundant hydro power which Germany is not. Hydro provides the baseload in Austria that nuclear used to (and still partially does) provide in Germany. This is how Austria has been able to get away from coal. Good for them. I'd also take hydro over nuclear if I could. Why not?

[@GINOD42]

I thought it interesting that Hansen mentioned how he was asked to change his testimony to make things seem less dire. Nowadays, it's exactly the opposite. If you dare to be a "lukewarmist" you are silenced. Go to The Free Press and search "I left out the full truth to get my climate change paper published." I'm not saying one side is wrong and the other is right. But the debate itself needs to happen.

[@HealingLifeKwikly]

The climate debate HAS happened, and there's a mountain of scientific evidence proving our emissions caused the recent warming, that warming is hurting us, other species, and ecosystems in hundreds of ways, and further warming is an existential threat to humans and the planet. The reality is that the IPCC reports UNDERestimate the risks we face, because to get all the countries on Earth to sign off on the report, they have to tone it down. Thus, each successive IPCC report winds up increasing the threat level for global warming and sea level rise over the previous support. And the IPCC report doesn't even cover the full spectrum of ecological threats to our future.

[@onemotherpucker]

​@@HealingLifeKwiklywhat a load of crap. Every prediction...every single one...was wrong. You people just keep moving the date for for your predictions. SMFH

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

With a phase out of fossil fuels in an era of climate change with a corresponding massive increase of electric vehicles, we face a bleak future of outrageous electricity prices with massive rolling blackouts without nuclear.

[@NaumRusomarov]

or not.

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

@@NaumRusomarov No, unless there is a technological quantum leap in energy storage knowledge/ability, our fate is sealed. Wind and solar will be the biggest problem if we think we are going to replace fossil fuels and nuclear with those renewables that the greenies keep screaming about. Nuclear will be the only way to prevent this.

[@NaumRusomarov]

@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk yeah right. it's not like there's a fuckton of research showing that we can power everything with renewables. there was even a paper *today* (8 December 2021), which shows *again* the same thing -- we can power everything with renewables without a problem.

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

@@NaumRusomarov Unless you get that storage capacity, your 100% renewables meme will guarantee outrageous rates and massive rolling blackouts.

[@NaumRusomarov]

@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk baseless assertions.

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

If the general public was educated about nuclear energy, there wouldn't be an anti-nuclear movement, except against nuclear weapons.

[@kazparzyxzpenualt8111]

Guy Macpherson has expressed legitimate concerns on the sudden loss of safe conditions at all nike plants in climate scenarios he describes. As far as I can tell it is a technology that only incidentally makes power quite expensively and is and only ever was a weapons scam. And remember you can't hug your children with nuclear arms. It should never have been suggested as an earth based power option the timeline is simply too long for any consideration. A perfect world this is not and nukes can never make it better.

[@lancechapman3070]

I feel better now finding out my conclusion that nuclear power is necessary is shared by such a thoughtful person.

[@mrunning10]

It is not only 'necessary' it is the ONLY energy source with the $/watt that will save us out of this fucking fossil fuel mess (FFFM) 400 helium bed atomic piles near the coastlines feeding the electric grids, cracking seawater into hydrogen, and powering carbon capture round the clock. Only thing that will work, everything else is a transition.

[@billbruce5528]

Mountain tree line science studies show the medieval warm period was 0.7 C warmer than today. Today's climate is not outside natural variances, even with the additional CO2 we are adding to the environment.

[@joeyelton407]

what is the 'correct' temperature??????

[@billbruce5528]

Is there such a thing?????

[@NomadicLiving]

Like most climate discussions, the existential threat is not that it's too hot outside to work or we might lose our coastal cities; the danger is it will be too hot for fish to reproduce, too hot outside for cattle, and too hot and dry outside to grow crops, not to mention the crops wiped out by floods and other severe weather changes. Starvation is the threat.

[@davidhilderman]

So James, how much warmer was the earth 6000 years ago when the Sahara desert was lush with life? (I know you know) how did civilization deal with it? It is called a climate optimum for a reason

[@rickwilliams1204]

Well there's not much we can do about the heat. However au contraire we are entering an ice age

[@jimrobcoyle]

Nomadic, Dear Person, you are a victim of a psychological operation. Hugs...

[@tristan7216]

It would be pretty funny if near equator sea surface temps got high enough to kill off oxygen producing algae, as fires and people simultaneously destroyed the two great rain forests. HA-ha!

[@georgechoquette5735]

9 times more people die of the cold than the heat.

[@Grobocopatel]

Haven't yet watched the interview, but I'm already grateful you managed to get Dr. Hansen. Thanks guys!

[@scottmedwid1818]

Excellent interview Christopher! You both brought up fantastic points that people need to know about.

[@vincentkosik403]

In his bood Dr Hansen wrote in like words ...if we don't get t our population under control all is for naught... Still waiting for us to do so....

[@mrunning10]

What the fuck are YOU doing to help?

[@bimmjim]

Put the engineers in charge. We'll fix all this $H!T real quick.

[@GlobeHackers]

We are trained, voracious consumers. If we don't address inherent cultural issues, we will continue to put devastating pressure on limited resources, delicate habitats, and life. Culture, what we believe, think, and do, must be critiqued and addressed. We are addicted to all kinds of things, the energy required to produce things, and the religious ideologies we adhere to in order to justify our commodification of things. Carbon emissions are just one aspect of the more extensive, profound problems we face.

[@paulsiebert4863]

15:02 Fossil fuels a cost to society? In these same moments, you note the work achieved by burning a gallon of liquid fuel. So, which is it?

[@joeyelton407]

Hansen seems a walking contradiction.......

[@andrewpaterson5192]

James Hansen .. " anyway ..... I dont have the answers .. "... so ... after 30+ years of focus .. still no answers . No wonder so many thoughtful people conclude either imposed degrowth or doom.

[@lesbrattain6864]

Hansen makes a lot of sense and needs to be listened to.

[@tyronedlisle4412]

Fantastic! Thank you James and Chris

[@todjones6571]

Why not ask him why Manhattan isn't under water yet as he claimed it would be?

[@mrunning10]

Why not ask the climate change deniers? NO ONE has EVER said "Manhattan will be under water by now" Do you even understand fucking ENGLISH???

[@onemotherpucker]

​@@mrunning10stop lying...he absolutely did say that. And many other stupid things.

[@mrunning10]

Find it, post it, reference it anywhere you can. Doesn't exist. You get your science degree and statistical degree and physics degree and math degree from Trump University no doubt. Doesn't change a thing for YOU, even if Jesus Christ Himself showed you "proof" on fucking engraved stone Tablets. Science isn't "stupid" only the idiots who refuse to fucking learn anything. @@onemotherpucker

[@blauschuh]

"China is really good at building nuclear plants... come help us out" ... No Thanks. Every think why things get done 'so quickly' and 'on budget? Have you seen the issues with other 'mega' projects in China. Rampant cutting of corners, rampant corruption, rampant pay offs. It's one thing to stuff substandard concrete into an apartment building... it's another thing entirely to cut corners on your containment vessel at a nuke plant.

[@eddybiaz5677]

They haven't arrested him yet?

[@vincentkosik403]

I read Dr Hansen's book Storms of my Grandchildren and remember him writing unless we come to grips with population He talks about this and afraid unless it grows capitalism collapses ....it's a catch 22 situation

[@peterdollins3610]

***** Great video. Love Doctor Hansen. Subscribed.

[@happyhome41]

Excellent interview. Thank you !

[@48Ballen]

1 degree Celsius doesn't affect anybody's ability to go outside. This temperature change is not discernible by humans so his comments are bordering on the absurd. The temperature change recorded by these "warmers" is highly suspect because of the data set that they use. The fact is that the heat island effect is causing the data to be erroneous . The real warming is about 1/2 a degree C . Second, the effects of CO2 are waning because of saturation. Hansen's thoughts has been debunked by many reputable scientists.

[@joeyelton407]

my in-laws are snow- birds.......I'm not sure how they adapt to the 50F degree change, twice a year, but I'll ask them.....

[@a.randomjack6661]

Economics 101 "A meorologist does not have to worry that the weather may change it's ways because he or she has made a particular prediction. Whereas in social sciences, whether is sociology, economics, whatever. The phenomenon really cares about our theories about the phenomenon. Because, as theories have the capacity to alter our behaviour" Yanis Varoufakis, famous Greek economist I would recommend his eye opening book: "Talking to My Daughter About the Economy: A Brief History of Capitalism"

[@eddybiaz5677]

Mieses Institute

[@chapter4travels]

Climate Doomers embrace Hansen when he's making his catastrophic predictions no matter how badly they fail. But when he proposes an actual solution to their imagined crisis, they reject him. Kind of makes me question their real agenda.

[@Jc-ms5vv]

Imagined Crisis?? Open your eyes and take a look what’s happening around the world

[@chapter4travels]

@@Jc-ms5vv There is nothing out of the ordinary happening around the world, they want you to believe that, but no statistics show that.

[@Jc-ms5vv]

@@chapter4travels clearly not paying attention then!

[@chapter4travels]

@@Jc-ms5vv Just because you desperately want to believe it, doesn't make it true.

[@Jc-ms5vv]

@@chapter4travels the floods, heatwaves, droughts, crop failures, water shortages, rapidly melting permafrost/ glaciers/ ice caps And the fact that we’re in the midst of a mass extinction is all very true

[@christinearmington]

Didn’t I read that money for research in Antarctica had recently been cut? Are the fossil fuel corporations reaching into the science pockets? Science to benefit us all. We need measurements and data. 📈

[@dereknewbury163]

Information rich and well defined arguments, thank you

[@jimrobcoyle]

Well, James, who has financed your lifes work selling this psychological operation?

[@oasill]

Ironic youtube propaganda. Having worked in the field it is trgic to see how propaganda works. Mix fact and fiction and add emotions. Ignorant persons fall for this.

[@rapauli]

** [ Yes and most nuclear power plants need cooling waters - sometimes when water is too warm, it forces a plant to shutdown. More difficult for the hot summer months., ]

[@AndrewLanecptplanet]

Amen 🙏 Indeed, I got to meet Dr Hansen circa 2015 at Arizona State while earning my Masters Degree of Sustainable Solutions there in Phoenix! I was in my Army Dress Blues no less! I had already bought my Used Nissan LEAF that my young son drives while I EVolved to a Chevy Bolt! If you need a car to get around EVs are the future! It’s very easy to find free fuel all over the place in a big city! Of course walking, biking and transit are all much greener! But you can do things in a car like move a ton of scrap cardboard or scrap metal on a trailer one could never do manually or with transit!

[@joeyelton407]

I support EVs......we have dozens of train loads of EV fuel leaving Wyoming every week.

[@johnbatson8779]

if by Godfather you mean totally corrupted then you are absolutely correct

[@glidercoach]

Yes totally agree. In 1988 he said the West Side highway in lower Manhattan would be under water in 20 years.

[@teemusaarinen1970]

"We are geoengineering the hell out of this planet." Could not think of a better way of saying it. Sad that rational sense is so unpopular and it too often is just about making everything into "politics" for in fact nothing else than assumed self benefits. If you want to hear rational sense I highly recommend to watch this interview of Dr. James Hansen.

[@seawanderer8371]

no such thing as carbon free electricity! Even Nuclear depends on fossil fuel to maintain its infrastructure.

[@carldavid1558]

This is astounding news. Van Allan had an instrument on the first satellite. I wonder how he got the Russians to agree to putting that on Sputnik. This tells me a lot about your guest. It confirms how much I’ve heard about him.

[@spjkq]

Very encouraging that Hansen supports nuclear power.

[@jimrobcoyle]

Even a broken clock can be correct on occasion.

[@shawnnoyes4620]

Excellent interview Dr James Hansen and Dr Chris. Thank you !

[@terryaltman7179]

Dr. James Hansen is the scholar who got me interested in climate science twenty/thirty years ago, while I was still in high school!

[@iancormie9916]

The question of nuclear development is one of economics. Canada'a reactors are being upgraded and new reactors are being planned so Canada at least has a good idea of what electricity costs should be viable over the foreseeable period of time. We also have a good idea of what a range of fossil fuel prices will be as reserves are depleted. This being the case, when will nuclear generation costs be lower than fossil fuels.

[@horsegirl555]

One MISTAKE in your reply. There is NO FOCCIL FUEL!!! That is a term begun by ROCKEFELLER in the year 1909 to create a fear that we could run out of fuel at any time. Crude oil is the proper term. THINK A LITTLE!!! The average oil well is between 1500 and 2000 feet deep. Ain't no fossils down there !!!!

[@cultureandarts4you]

While Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) may seem like a silver bullet, it's worth remembering that due to Henry's Law, the oceans have a way of 'giving back' stored CO2 to the atmosphere when they feel the balance is off. So much for a one-way ticket to carbon sequestration!

[@mhirasuna]

Everybody, please go to 53:21 to 57:35, which begins with "Fukushima...Boy there are aspects to this nuclear story which are just hard to believe." Do you believe what Hanson is saying?

[@RichRich1955]

His book Storms of our Grandchildren is one book everyone should read

[@ObeseLovahBoi]

Great work! I came here from Ex.Haust

[@georgenelson8917]

But there is a real nasty problem with nuke power :the honest human inability to build long term sustainable societies, collapse of capitalism, overpopulation, climate change, over shoot of natural resources. Humans will not be able to keep the long term maintenance and running nuke plants , the pumps stop pumping, the rods in the pools of cool water fails :MELTDOWNS all over the planet. Other wise , nukes are ok. Plus , if humans keep building the nuke power plants , so we humans will continue to overpopulate and overshoot.

[@dipakganguli2027]

Pity no discussion on methane nor on Thorium nuclear generator or small scale nuclear reactors as a cluster which are viable. Also, every home should have its own energy generation from solar to geothermal to biomass techniques. All these are feasible. Large scale industrial units are time and resource consuming - and yet small and distributed techniques can be applied now world wide, even in Africa, with a little bit of willingness and efforts.

[@NineInchTyrone]

Tell us about fraud and garbage data in the climate hysteria Business

[@ladislavtoman9327]

The name James Hansen and the words Climate Science must NEVER be used in the same sentence!!

[@das250250]

@42:00 China's capability is way talked up. The standards are way lower than European standards for building and safety.

[@pramgod628]

N.B: 1gal imp=4,546L 1gal US= 3,785L Diff de 0,761L

[@A3Kr0n]

At 23 minutes all I'm hearing so far is more complexity, more growth, more energy usage, more peril to our world.

[@VK4VO]

No such thing as carbon free electricity,,,, i'd love to see that but by definition it is impossible.

[@patrickfrank5893]

None of Jim Hansen's published air temperature projections includes physically valid uncertainty bounds. The predictions are physically meaningless. doi: 10.3389/feart.2019.00223 His published work on the global air temperature record ignores instrumental resolution and the impact of systematic measurement error. The air temperature record isn't better than ±0.6 C (1σ). It can tell us nothing about the rate or magnitude of warming since 1900. doi: 10.3390/s23135976 His body of climate work since 1987 is nearly worthless, scientifically. Future generations will rank Jim Hansen right up there with Paul Ehrlich, making a career of scaring people to no useful end.

[@peaceandpocket]

41:42 ..that particular comment didn’t age well, about how China handled the pandemic .. overall though, great interview 🙏

[@noam3]

Amory Lovins has a better understanding of the energy transition we need - which includes the low-hanging fruit of efficiency. kzbin.info/www/bejne/ZqvNq4COd8hqrqc Regarding nuclear power, it is a massive industry with plenty of paid lobbyists that even the biggest corporate welfare suppliers don't want to invest in - too expensive, too much waste, too unreliable. On nuke "reliability", it's easy enough to find the endless articles on nuke plants needing to be offline - most recently half of France's nuke plants due to corrosion and river water being too warm to keep them cool. Meanwhile, Ukraine's nuke plant is threatened by missiles landing in the area.

[@millholmehouse]

Excellent interview and very informative

[@justiceitself]

8:55 Gave me chills, it's just like that "Don't look up" scene.

[@Nill757]

No, Hanson is capable and sober and and knows what he’s talking about, both about climate change and about solutions like nuclear power and geo engineering. Everybody in Dont look up was a babbling self interested idiot.

[@onemotherpucker]

​@@Nill757RALMFAO

[@solarwind907]

I like that, James Hansen said “give it whatever star review you think it deserves :-)“

[@glidercoach]

Perfect title for the video! Godfather Hansen: _"Nice climate you got there. It sure would be a shame if somethin' happened to it."_ _"Give me some of that sweet multi Billion dollar research money and everything will be fine."_

[@gregnicholson7614]

You say Nuclear is the only viable base load. I think Quaise Energy Is an even better option for base load. Microwave drilling down 10. Miles to harvest geothermal energy lasting for 100s of years. Testing to begin next year. And a hope to drill at an existing power plant to replace the fossil fuel in 2028.

[@rd264]

worth exploring yes, but not yet demonstrated.

[@ericdanielski4802]

Nice video.

[@segasys1339]

Slightly disasppointed that Hansen prefers cardio to lifting but this was great. This channel is making a priceless contribution to sensemaking. Thanks for all your work!

[@jimrobcoyle]

"Possibly" is not "Actually".

[@daveandrews9634]

The west antarctic ice sheet is melting because it sits directly on top of an active volcanic system. We need to take of the CO2 goggles off and do more research on undersea volcanism. El Niño is also likely fed by undersea volcanism.

[@christinearmington]

Please. Let’s not learn how to build anything requiring concrete from China.

[@reggosse3901]

This guy is a nut. We are thrilled to have you.

[@rolandvantol2338]

What a load of crap….Godfather, thank u Not

[@rolandvantol2338]

Sorry, I do not recall this comment. But my credentials are my own. As are yours. Anybody can be wrong, and there are many contradicting opinions about pretty much everything. Greetings.

[@ground752]

Starvation this year will be extreme

[@erikfrederiksen7775]

Even going back to a climate like the mid century will not keep our shoreline. The heat content we have already put into the ocean will keep chewing at the Antarctic Ice Sheet for centuries. The West Antarctic Ice Sheet is toast, that's 3.3 meters of sea level rise there. Greenland's marine sectors are also undergoing Marine Ice Sheet Instability, another 3 meters. East Antarctica has 19 meters of sea level rise equivalent of ice with its feet in a warming ocean so we'll see something from there as well.

[@NillWill]

There’s a volcano under west Antarctica !

[@erikfrederiksen7775]

@@NillWill So what? It's been there a long, long time and it's only recently that the ice sheet has started hemorrhaging ice.

[@NillWill]

@@erikfrederiksen7775 hmmm, volcano must be waking up

[@erikfrederiksen7775]

@@NillWill If so you should have provided evidence of that, but that is not the case, it is warmer ocean water, from climate change. Wake up

[@NillWill]

@@erikfrederiksen7775 just search for “volcanoes under Antarctica “

[@bobray7790]

we had the coldest winter in over 50 years. its all BS.

[@Stealthbong]

Have you never paused to dwell on why it's called "global" warming?

[@christiansmith-of7dt]

Darker than black

[@alisonmcgillivray8008]

excellent interview. A thought about how Canada can help Africa acquire nuclear power. Export Development Canada is a crown corporation which LOANs money to international buyers of our goods or services AND they provide significant payment insurance to the Canadian companies who are selling abroad. So that means SNC Lavalin could be selling and installing CANDU's to African countries, and, in the time it would takefor these newbuld plants to be up and running, SNC Lavilain could also be provide a number of full ride scholarships to train a bew generation of Africa's best and brightest to become nuclear engineerscomplete with internships/ and further post grad training at Bruce Nuclear or wherever so that they could return to Africa with lots of Canadian hands-on experience to run these plants.

[@alisonmcgillivray8008]

Hey Chris: I wanted you to know I just sent a somewhat embellished cut-and-paste of this comment to Bruce Nuclear directly. I figured why not go to the source and ask what stands in the way of this straight forward win-win-win.... I will let you know if they get back to me. In the meantime, thanks for your decoupled inspiration to be the change I need to see in the world this morning.

[@rd264]

gov subsidies [taxpayers funded] of privately owned and operated corporations in the form of low interest or subsidized interest loans? Do Canadian taxpayers know about that, the ones paying market rates for loans to buy a house or car or run a business in Canada??

[@alisonmcgillivray8008]

@@rd264 EDC Export Development Canada is NOT available for INSIDE the country. because that would look like direct competition by a crown corporation to the Private banks of Canada. The oligarchs would be pissed if the BAnk of Canada strayed onto" their fiat money creation via loans" territory at home. HOWEVER these banks are I imagine quite happy for their clients to ability to repay loans by getting EDC subsidies outside our borders where nobody can trace this $$$

[@alisonmcgillivray8008]

@@rd264 A rhetorical question?

[@alisonmcgillivray8008]

​@@rd264 probably the reason it is Export Development is that is offshores this subsidizing to support GDP knowledge that said it is a Government Program. so the information is available to anyone who looks it up.

[@burgesspark685]

guy is a massive scam artist should be ashamed of himself - no integrity

[@Stealthbong]

....except all his research findings have stood the crucial test of time and have proven to be very prescient. One day, Burgess, it might dawn on you who the real frauds are, but I doubt it - in the meantime, remorselessly taking the piss out your stupidity will continue to be a source of amusement.

[@onemotherpucker]

None of his predictions have come true...none of them.

[@erinbaldridge8360]

Salt in the atmosphere b/c nobody lives down there anyway? How might it affect them if they did? Do so-called non-human animals count? His views on nuclear seem kind of primitive. Our reactors are old not the "advanced modern reactors" nuclear advocates always label them to be. Used to like him but he came across as a real ass on this podcast.

[@NineInchTyrone]

B S. B S

[@solartonytony5868]

😆😆😆😆😆😆 @grindupBaker ... what are the 'well known issues' ?

[@NaumRusomarov]

I have huge respect for Hansen's work and deep understanding for his views, but this bullshit techno-optimism got us into this mess in the first place -- the belief that we can behave as shitty as we want and that some magical technology in the future will fix everything. Nuclear or any other fancy tech won't save us, as well as ranting about it, we need deep fundamental changes in how we run societies; even if we decarbonised the electricity sector, industry and transportation today, we'd still end up decreasing our co2 footprint by maybe 50%-60% because the rest is from agriculture and deforestation. The rainforests in Brasil and Indonesia are still getting shopped down and set on fire for palm oil, cattle farming and growing soy beans. This is something that we can already fix "today", yet we're not doing anything.

[@avdmerwe]

So even if technology massively reduces our impact on the environment you oppose it? That seems crazy. We cannot fix the problem without such technology. Unless we all commit mass suicide. I suspect that is you favoured solution,

[@NaumRusomarov]

@@avdmerwe I don't oppose it, if it was up to me I'd focus at the least on not shutting down any of the plants and keeping them running for as long as possible. But I am seeing a lot of people focusing on it as if it is the silver bullet for all our problems. It is not the silver bullet. At best it's a crutch; building a few nuclear power plants here and there won't decarbonise transportation, industry, agriculture or even help a lot with our energy needs. At worst, it's an expensive distration; we've had nuclear for 60 years and it really hasn't helped tremendously. Half of the co2 in the atmosphere was released in the last 30 or so years. Doing again and again that which hasn't worked in the past is pretty much the definition of insanity.

[@avdmerwe]

@@NaumRusomarov You are wrong about that. Historical experience shows it is possible decarbonise electricity generation extremely quickly by building nuclear power plants. Even better, it can scale up pretty much anywhere and there are no real limit in terms of land, material, or manpower. There is no other technology that comes close. The only reason is likely to fail is that people oppose nuclear or are apathetic like you, for whatever reason. In both cases this attitude is a danger to the rest of humanity.

[@NaumRusomarov]

@@avdmerwe “no limits on land, material and manpower”? Do you consider us as fools?

[@NillWill]

HEMP FOR VICTORY!

[@chapter4travels]

His entire career is based on the lies he told and he can't back down on them now. How does he sleep at night? To live a lie must be terrible, I feel sorry for him.

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

Show where he lied.

[@henrimourant9855]

Literally the opposite.

[@axellieb]

Lol, what?

[@scottmedwid1818]

OK… Dr. James Hansen has had a long in story career he has published numerous papers. Where has he been wrong? Please cite your sources, these are extraordinary claims

[@Grobocopatel]

Are you high? How can you be so articulate in your writing though?

[@nxgrs74]

The albedo/atmosphere make the Earth cooler not warmer. Yes or no? If no pls ‘splain. The GHGs must absorb “extra” energy upwelling from the surface radiating as a black body. (aka Radiative Forcing) The kinetic energy heat transfer processes in the contiguous atmospheric molecules make surface BB impossible as also demonstrated by experiment. Agree or disagree? If disagree pls ‘splain. If both or either of these points is correct the greenhouse effect is not. No greenhouse effect, no GHG warming, no man/CO2 driven global warming or climate change. RF is akin to caloric, phlogiston and luminiferous ether. A made up, hocus pocus, handwavium explanation for the GHE. Neither are real. Version 2.0 120721

[@kayakMike1000]

More like the god father of bad predictions, shitty science, and corrupt scientists.

[@NaumRusomarov]

Bitching about "storage" is meaningless when the projections are something like a production of 1TWh/year of Li batteries just in the EU by 2030; that's the amount you need for EVs. With 1 TWh of storage you can power the entirety of the UK for about a day and a half, more than enough to avoid any problems with renewables in the near future. Economies of scale will take care of this problem, or you wait for the 1st gen of cars to get old in 10-15 years and use those batteries for grid-scale storage. This really is a nothing burger.

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

And where do you think you are going to get all this lithium from. Might want to do some checking before you make a further fool of yourself.

[@NaumRusomarov]

@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk Being offensive isn't making you look any smarter. It just makes you look more pathetic. If you want people to treat you like an adult, learn to communicate like an adult. 1. I didn't take that number out of my ass. It's an industry estimate of the expected demand and supply for batteries. 2. Lithium is very abundant. New mining locations are discovered all the time. There's enough of lithium for everything. 3. New battery production is not the same as lithium mining. Batteries are highly recyclable. 4. For grid storage there are also other technologies besides Li-ion batteries. Energy storage is energy storage. Batteries are nice, but they're not the only technology.

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

@@NaumRusomarov You can't make enough lithium batteries to do what you meme, and if you had done any investigation on this you wouldn't even be here. There are no practical energy storage methods available today that will allow us to use 100% renewables. Nonsense is not impressive.

[@NaumRusomarov]

@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk *more unsubstantiated assertions* maybe you should make a video about it? I'm loving your conspiracy ridden videos about "nuclear energy".

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

@@NaumRusomarov I have hundreds of videos by many contributors on the channel. We just love to wipe the floor with all you ignorant anti-nukers.

[@MrBenumea]

Godfather? Of Climate CHANGE? PLEASEEEE!!! This further reinforces the argument that attributing atmospheric temperature changing forcing to anthropogenic causes “is and absolutely ignorant, stupid and unsupported dogma,” given the immense thermal inertia and timescales involved in the Earth's climate system, particularly the soil respiration, photosynthesis, trees and plants, continental rift, and oceans degassing (97.03% of CO2 equivalent emissions). On top of which other major forcing have to be accounted for: water vapor, particulate matter, dust, cosmic rays’ albedo ...and of course, the main source of energy the Sun. To convert gigatons of carbon (GtC) to gigatons of CO2 (GtCO2), we use the molecular weight ratio of CO2 to C, which is approximately 44/12. Photosynthesis: 120 GtC × (44/12) ≈ 440 GtCO2 Ocean Degassing: 90 GtC × (44/12) ≈ 330 GtCO2 Soil Respiration: 60 GtC × (44/12) ≈ 220 GtCO2 Plant Respiration: 60 GtC × (44/12) ≈ 220 GtCO2 Fossil Fuel Emissions: 10 GtC × (44/12) ≈ 37 GtCO2 Updated CO2 emissions Summary 2023: Photosynthesis: 440 GtCO2 per year 35.28% Ocean Degassing: 330 GtCO2 per year 26.47% Soil Respiration: 220 GtCO2 per year 17.64% Plant Respiration: 220 GtCO2 per year 17.64% Fossil Fuel Emissions: 37 GtCO2 per year 2.97% ~Total: 1,247 GtCO2 per year 100% Conclusion: Natural earth's emissions of CO2 eq are in fact, 32.7 times larger than anthropogenic emissions. Annual increments of 2.5 ppmv into the atmosphere include all sources. Since man-made or anthropogenic contributions are only ~ 2.97% of the total earth’s emissions, the unfeasible results from the global ignorant + stupid policies of Net Zero CO2 are perverse, twisted, and fraudulent, since the retarded, childish, and silly absurdity of reducing absolutely all anthropogenic CO2 emissions will refer exclusively to that ~ “2.97%” therefore the reduction of the total earth atmospheric temperature will reflect an infinitesimal change only relative to that minuscule percentage. Unless all emissions and forcing remained univariable which will never happen. Soil respiration has a season variability of up to ~30-50 % this variability alone is 17 times greater than all anthropogenic coal, gas, and petroleum emissions combined. All species on Earth thrive at an “optimal” 20 degrees Celsius Note1: Plants thrive at ~23.3°C. Note 2: Mean surface temperature of Earth today is about ~15°C. Son in average earth’s average temperature require to increase 5-8 °C. to reach optimum life temperature. Conclusion: The estimated temperature -changes- due to each source of CO2, based on their radiative forcing contributions, are as follows: • Photosynthesis: 0.365°C • Ocean Degassing: 0.275°C • Soil Respiration: 0.185°C • Plant Respiration: 0.185°C • Fossil Fuel Emissions: 0.030°C Net Zero Averted Temperature Increase R. Lindzen Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, U.S.A W. Happer Department of Physics, Princeton University, U.S.A W. A. van Wijngaarden Department of Physics and Astronomy, York University, Canada (June 11, 2024) Abstract Using feedback-free estimates of the warming by increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and observed rates of increase, we estimate that if the United States (U.S.) eliminated net CO2 emissions by the year 2050, this would avert a warming of 0.0084 ∘C (0.015 ∘F), which is below our ability to accurately measure. If the entire world forced net zero CO2 emissions by the year 2050, a warming of only 0.070 ∘C (0.13 ∘F) would be averted. If one assumes that the warming is a factor of 4 larger because of positive feedbacks, as asserted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the warming averted by a net zero U.S. policy would still be very small, 0.034 ∘C (0.061 ∘F). For worldwide net zero emissions by 2050 and the 4-times larger IPCC climate sensitivity, the averted warming would be 0.28 ∘C (0.50 ∘F). Conclusion As shown by (1), (23), (25) and (26), there appears to be no credible scenario where driving U.S. emissions of CO2 to zero by the year 2050 would avert a temperature increase of more than a few hundredths of a degree centigrade. The immense costs and sacrifices involved would lead to a reduction in warming approximately equal to the measurement uncertainty. "It is impossible to find a more perfect example of a sublime global stupid policy: "all pain and no gain. Data, physical facts, and calculations conclusively determine that even if the entire world achieved “net zero” emissions by 2050, even with the perversely exaggerated IPCC’s 4 larger positive feedbacks climate sensitivity, the reduction in global warming would be a mere 0.28 ∘C (0.50 ∘F). The net zero policy is a dogmatic, narcissistic global initiative that is utterly absurd. Natural factors like solar cycles, atmospheric dust, water vapor variability, volcanic activities, soils respiration, ocean degasification, and naturally generated aerosols will vastly outweigh any negligible temperature reduction from eliminating global CO2 emissions. The Net Zero Global Agenda, based on fabricated false syllogism of a non-existent climate change crisis, is indisputably stupid: "all pain and zero gain." Even if every nation on the planet could miraculously reduce their CO2 emissions to Net Zero by 2050 (or any other “always in the future target” year), the temperature increase averted would only be a few hundredths of a degree Celsius, a change too minuscule to be measure accurately, and well within the margin of error and uncertainty. This fact demonstrates the sheer futility and absurdity of the “Net Zero” imposing by decree and obscene subsidies, the even more polluting Green “Sustainable + Clean” Energies agenda. Dogmatic: The term implies an unyielding adherence to a particular doctrine and blind activism, without considering facts, data, or science. Given that the Net Zero policy is promoted based only on beliefs, consensus, and manipulated false convictions, crisis, and urgency, disregarding the scientific method and data, describing it as "dogmatic" is appropriate. Narcissistic: The climate change crisis is a self-centred, grandiose approach to a fabricated existential false threat. Global policies are being pushed with an “argumentum ad baculum” sense of moral superiority, with total disregard for data, knowledge, science, logic, or the practical real-world impacts on humans. It is, in fact, sociopathic narcissism. Global Stupid Policy: The Net Zero “goal” is indeed a global initiative. Climate change is a natural and ongoing process, with the Earth's climate always experiencing fluctuations. Globalists have rebranded “Global Warming” as “Climate Change” as a sale publicity pitch. In reality, the Earth is still recovering from the last Ice Age, a process that undeniably and naturally involves periods of warming none of these caused by anthropogenic emissions, since man did not exist at the time or didn’t use coal gas or petroleum. If globalists assume they can control the global climate, they might naively believe they can achieve a state where the climate remains static. This delusion leads to the absurd conclusion that they could inadvertently halt natural climate variations altogether, potentially causing more harm than good. Such a belief exemplifies sublime stupidity-an Olympic-class level of ignorance. The notion that human intervention can regulate the Earth's climate to a perfect equilibrium is not only scientifically baseless but also dangerously arrogant. Furthermore, increased CO2 levels have directly contributed to numerous benefits, including enhanced food production, higher GDP, improved greenery, and increased human longevity. These factors demonstrate the complexity of the climate system and the essential role CO2 plays in supporting life and economic growth. Reducing CO2 emissions drastically without considering these benefits could lead to unintended negative consequences, making the Net Zero agenda not only impractical but also criminal, genocidal and suicidal. Utterly Absurd: Since there is absolutely not a single potential benefit of the Net Zero global policy to justify the social and economic costs and self-imposed civilization collapse, furthermore when natural emissions overshadow any minimal impact of human emissions

[@Nill757]

@54mins: Gregory B. Jaczko (/ˈjɑːskoʊ Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission In office May 13, 2009 - July 9, 2012 No experience in nuclear power engineering or operation or design Is now a wind developer, thanks to the wind industry. Forced closure of Yucca mountain repository by lying to other directors, and in violation of federal law, according to a federal judge. In my opinion, is the man most responsible for the only public deaths surrounding the accident, via the unnecessary evac of the the ill and seniors, miles away from the plants.