Charlie Rose

jackie wolf heinl  10/14/2008 01:34 PM Report

Bravo Dr. Hansen. Interested parties can check out www.350.org which is an organization dedicated to reducing carbon dioxide levels to 350 ppm. This level is considered safe and one which will allow a climate with snow.

jackie wolf heinl  10/14/2008 01:33 PM Report

Bravo Dr. Hansen. Interested parties can check out www.350.org which is an organization dedicated to reducing carbon dioxide levels to 350 ppm. This level is considered safe and one which will allow a climate with snow.

GP  09/03/2008 05:07 AM Report

(trying again with formatting)

<p>

Rough transcript (at about 8:30 into the video):

<p>

"...burns all of the nuclear material, so there is minimal waste. Now we burn less than 1% of the nuclear energy in the uranium and most of it is waste that has lifetimes of tens of thousands of years. And it has to be stored someplace for a very long time period. With the fourth generation nuclear power it burns all of this waste, which solves our waste problem and minimizes the dangers of proliferation."

<p>

Where do I begin? I hugely respect Dr James Hansen and wouldn't dare to debate him on any science issue involving climatology -- not that I would want to, I know he's right. But this nucular stuff is obviously not his thing, and he would have done wise not to touch it without first thoroughly reading up on it.

<p>

1) Current generation light water reactors use uranium enriched to 3%. Most of the U235 is burned, some of the U238 is converted to Pu, part of which is also burned, and part of the Pu remains. ALL of the actually burned fuel (U, Pu) is converted to fission products.

<p>

2) Apparently Hansen seems to use the word "waste" only to refer to actinides, i.e., thorium and heavier, which are still fissionable or "fertile" for breeding, and typically decay over tens of thousands of years. While these are a major problem, the fission products, or "ashes", are waste too! Yes, they mostly decay over mere decades and are gone after centuries. And no, you cannot use them to build an explosive nuclear device. But yes, you CAN build a pretty nasty "dirty bomb" -- if you manage to handle this "hot" stuff.

<p>

3) Yes, the actinides are extracted on-site and re-cast into fuel elements. A lot better than transporting the stuff back and forth between reactor and reprocessing plant. But if the whole installation falls into the wrong hands, also the actinides, and the capability for producing them, do. So fourth generation doesn't really address the problem of technology proliferation.

<p>

4) In the current generation of reactors, the U238 in the original fuel is not "waste". The small part of it that is converted to Pu and then burned, becomes waste. The Pu that is not burned is waste too, long-lived waste. But the rest remains as a pretty harmless, very long lifetime (4.46 Ga) natural isotope.

<p>

5) There are actually several fourth generation designs, the Argonne fast breeder being only one (but the one apparently discussed).

GP  09/03/2008 05:05 AM Report

Rough transcript (at about 8:30 into the video):

"...burns all of the nuclear material, so there is minimal waste. Now we burn less than 1% of the nuclear energy in the uranium and most of it is waste that has lifetimes of tens of thousands of years. And it has to be stored someplace for a very long time period. With the fourth generation nuclear power it burns all of this waste, which solves our waste problem and minimizes the dangers of proliferation."

Where do I begin? I hugely respect Dr James Hansen and wouldn't dare to debate him on any science issue involving climatology -- not that I would want to, I know he's right. But this nucular stuff is obviously not his thing, and he would have done wise not to touch it without first thoroughly reading up on it.

1) Current generation light water reactors use uranium enriched to 3%. Most of the U235 is burned, some of the U238 is converted to Pu, part of which is also burned, and part of the Pu remains. ALL of the actually burned fuel (U, Pu) is converted to fission products.

2) Apparently Hansen seems to use the word "waste" only to refer to actinides, i.e., thorium and heavier, which are still fissionable or "fertile" for breeding, and typically decay over tens of thousands of years. While these are a major problem, the fission products, or "ashes", are waste too! Yes, they mostly decay over mere decades and are gone after centuries. And no, you cannot use them to build an explosive nuclear device. But yes, you CAN build a pretty nasty "dirty bomb" -- if you manage to handle this "hot" stuff.

3) Yes, the actinides are extracted on-site and re-cast into fuel elements. A lot better than transporting the stuff back and forth between reactor and reprocessing plant. But if the whole installation falls into the wrong hands, also the actinides, and the capability for producing them, do. So fourth generation doesn't really address the problem of technology proliferation.

4) In the current generation of reactors, the U238 in the original fuel is not "waste". The small part of it that is converted to Pu and then burned, becomes waste. The Pu that is not burned is waste too, long-lived waste. But the rest remains as a pretty harmless, very long lifetime (4.46 Ga) natural isotope.

5) There are actually several fourth generation designs, the Argonne fast breeder being only one (but the one apparently discussed).

MJC  08/28/2008 12:48 AM Report

re: Comment by allyn on Wednesday, Aug 13 at 08:46 PM viz. "Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System " - you cited NOVA/Horizon's excellent Dimming the Sun documentary but appear to have almost completely misunderstood it. Andy (Sunday, Aug 24 at 11:16 PM) already put us straight on CO2 forcing vs H20 feedback -- but you should not have used the NOVA name to support your argument. You need to watch Dimming the Sun a couple more times, paying more attention to the role of aerosols and aerosol/clouds interactions.

re: Comment by Ken on Wednesday, Aug 13 at 09:48 AM. I don't want to know "both sides", I want to know the side that is supported by the best available science and Jim Hansen gave us just that.

Andy  08/24/2008 11:16 PM Report

Allyn (above) and others who are think water vapor is important to climate change need to study some atmospheric physics. Despite the fact that water is the predominant greenhouse gas, water vapor cannot force climate, because water molecules only stay in the atmosphere for an average of nine days (compare this to carbon dioxide, which stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years). The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is a reaction (or “feedback”) to changes in factors that actually force a change in the earth’s energy balance. Another way to think about this: if humans started a huge evaporation program to increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere we couldn’t change the earth’s climate, we’d just cause more rain. The water vapor we put into the atmosphere won’t stay there long enough to change climate.

However, our huge program of burning fossil fuels and pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere will force climate to change, as carbon dioxide will stay in atmosphere for centuries, all that time contributing to an intensified greenhouse effect. This intensified greenhouse effect alters the energy balance of the earth, and that forces the climate to change.

Uncle Ron  08/20/2008 10:43 PM Report

Whether or not global warming is caused by man or nature or a combination of both, consider the possibility of using the issue for other purposes. As noted by Norm Rogers above and,

if true, Mr. Hansen has received $ 920,000 from leftist foundations (Tides and Soros). This makes one suspicious of another "agenda" in light of the following history: In 1975, the Rockefeller Task Force issued "The Managing of Interdependence: The Planning Function" - a report calling for a global central planning regime including "environmental monitoring" activities. Two years later "The Unfinished Agenda" was issued by a panel underwritten by the The Rockefeller Brothers Fund and called for among other things an end to nuclear power, heavy taxation of fossil fuels, population controls, severe restriction on the use and ownership of automobiles, etc.. In 1985, the Environmental Grantmakers Association was formed to distribute billions of dollars to leftist environmental groups and to support the promotion of the United Nations "Agenda 21" blueprint for eco-regimentation of the world including the indoctrination of public school students in the Green Gospel of environmentalism. The United Nations "Kyoto Treaty" is the follow-up to Agenda 21 - another attempt to institute the socialist green agenda. Behind all this are the numerous leftist green groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense, Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, Nature Conservancy, Center for Biological Diversity (and its Wildlands Project) and numerous others who receive billions of dollars to promote the socialist/green agenda via the schools, constant lawsuits and unending propaganda. In his book, "The Collapse of the Kyoto Protocol," Stanford professor and Council on Foreign Relations member, David Victor spells out why Kyoto will fail and it pretty much has. This is further discussed by Robert J. Samuelson in his 6/9/08 "Newsweek" column. Whether you believe in global warming catastrophe or not, you might consider looking into the possibiltiy that there are "interests" out there who despise "capitalism" and would love to see it fail. Is Mr. Hansen one of these people perhaps? What is his real agenda? Only time will tell.

Neil MacCallister  08/19/2008 05:45 PM Report

Thank you, Preston, there is a whole world at stake here, and many opportunities for answers! Trapped heat is trapped energy, right? ..Plants love CO2, right? (..and give off both O2 and food!) The most efficient "photovoltaic cell" is the chloroplast, ..and that has been here longer than we have! My local paper reports on some amateur physicist generating fusion reactions in his garage (..beat THAT, Eddie Vedder!) Who among us is afraid of the future? Not me!

Preston  08/19/2008 09:10 AM Report

Mr. Mac., Your comments make it hard for me to disagree with you.

Neil MacCallister  08/18/2008 10:53 PM Report

So what if there is a slight global warming? ..or increased CO2 content? Last month PBS let another scientist say that the loss of our pollinating honeybees will see us clawing at each others' hungry throats sooner than we will see a rise of ocean levels. It is fear that is the most destructive here: Should we ban all international travel (and cargo) to avert a bird-flu plague? I once read of a 1910 fear of the automobile on the grounds that "Peoples' bodies would fly apart at 20 mph". Should we start building the "Childhood's End" spacecrafts now? (..as Mr. Rove recently essayed that we should!) On the other side are many scientists who say that harmonizing our work-world, and our study, and our invention is just our new challenge, ..a request from our foresight that many people are happy to address! Good for them, good for us, good for the planet! I am glad we are here on Earth, I am glad we are smart, and I am happy we will solve our problems (..eventually). We always do!

Preston  08/16/2008 02:10 PM Report

The interview, and all previous comments to this one. Excellent!

G.R.L. Cowan, H2 fan 'til ~1996  08/15/2008 02:36 PM Report

Will there be a transcript?

Tom Blees  08/15/2008 02:59 AM Report

Sorry, I didn't realize html wouldn't work in these comments. That link was meant to be for www.prescriptionfortheplanet.com

Tom Blees  08/15/2008 02:56 AM Report

Mark,

Most of the fears you express are not applicable to Generation IV nuclear reactors, especially if they're built with on-site fuel cycling, which is the plan. It will NOT result in long-lived nuclear waste, and plutonium or other weapons-grade material would never be separated. In fact, once fuel enters the plant no actinides would ever leave the plant. As for your argument that so much carbon dioxide is released in the process of mining uranium, that wouldn't apply at all since, as Dr. Hansen accurately reported, we already have sufficient spent fuel from lightwater reactors and stocks of depleted uranium to power the entire planet for hundreds of years. If you'd like the details, I'd invite you to read <a href="http://www.prescriptionfortheplanet.com/">my book</a> when it comes out sometime about the end of August.

mark  08/14/2008 08:12 PM Report

The mass media, politicians and most environmental groups do not want to ask why our society largely ignored the warnings about climate change. Few of them also consider how Peak Oil and global warming are two ways of looking at the same problem of overconsumption, since our monetary system is predicated on ever increasing growth. The best analyses of Peak Oil and of global warming each conclude that the problem would have to be addressed a decade or two before it manifests at full strength - yet both problems are here, now. Perhaps the truth is that the shadow government (corporations and the military industrial complex) did not want to deal with these problems because the solutions are inherently decentralized and would require relaxation of centralized power control systems. Since we missed the opportunity to solve these issues as gently as possible, governments are instituting a global surveillance police state to suppress dissent as the oil that runs the show becomes more scarce and expensive, and climate change reduces available food and water supplies.

mark  08/14/2008 08:09 PM Report

http://www.oilempire.us/nuclear-climate.html

Nuclear Climate:

Nuclear power makes climate change worse

Coal inputs into the fuel cycle, tremendous heat generated, energy to babysit the wastes for eons

Nuclear reactors boil water to spin turbines to generate electricity, not oil.

Nuclear power cannot displace the use of oil (which mostly powers transportation, very little oil powers the North American electric grid).

An enormous amount of coal power is required to run the nuclear fuel cycle: uranium mining, milling, enrichment and fuel fabrication. The amount of energy required to babysit the wastes for millennia cannot be calculated, but it is arrogance beyond description to assume future generations will be able to take care of our problems.

August 13, 2008

Climate scientist James Hansen was on the Charlie Rose show tonight (Aug 12, 2008, aired locally on Aug 13), saying how we need to leave some of the fossil fuels in the ground to save the air. He clearly said that we are essentially at Peak Oil.

But when he was asked about alternative energy, he said that nuclear energy had "good potential to be part of the solution," claiming that fear was the real problem with nuclear reactors. He did say afterwards that solar and wind are good and have lots of potential.

He doesn't seem to understand that making electricity and making liquid fuels are two very different things.

His promotion of nukes is for a new design that supposedly doesn't make long lived nuclear waste. "We wouldn't have to mine more uranium in the next few hundred years if we used the nuclear waste" we already have - in other words, he is promoting reprocessing of nuclear waste to extract the leftover U and Pu. Dissolving nuclear fuel rods into acids to precipitate out the fissionable materials is the single most toxic technology yet invented, even garbage incineration, paper mill chlorinated wastes and chlorinated herbicides don't have as long lasting health impacts on future generations. Some of the isotopes make the timelines of ice ages seem very short in comparison.

Hansen also said that "we shouldn't rule out nuclear because it scares us."

He claims that "fourth generation" nuclear reactors would supposedly eliminate the problem of long lived nuclear waste, although the process of fissioning uranium is not substantially changed by the type of reactor design -- all fission reactions create hundreds of isotopes not present on Earth before 1938, some of which have very long half lives and all are toxic to life.

Fourth generation nukes would still poison distant generations, would require massive fossil fuels to build and fuel, they are not in commercial operation (so they're untested) and the resources that would be spent on building lots of reactors would be better invested in energy efficiency, relocalization and renewable energy.

The 1975 "Barton Report" from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission admitted that a police state would be needed to safeguard the nuclear materials if "reprocessing" was used to "recycle" nuclear fuels.

Perhaps, like James Lovelock, he merely doesn't understand the climate (and health) impacts of running nuclear reactors. If we were a planet of peaceful robots this might have some more validity, but DNA and ionizing radiation are incompatible and all reactors give bomb materials to their operators (even fourth generation nukes would still do this, especially if reprocessing of irradiated fuel rods was done to provide some of the new fuel).

I look forward to the day when people who get on TV to talk about "moving beyond oil" understand that electricity and liquid fuels are not the same things, that fossil fuels are more concentrated than alternatives, and that renewable energy that doesn't destroy DNA can power a stable state society but not a growth based economic system.

http://www.oilempire.us/nuclear-power.html

a 93 million mile evacuation zone is needed for all nuclear power

(the sun rises every day - that's the only safe form of nuclear energy)

On October 31, 1975, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission published "The Impact of Intensified Nuclear Safeguards on Civil Liberties," also called the Barton Report after its author, Stanford University law professor John H. Barton. It is a study of the breakdown in basic civil liberties that would result in a future plutonium economy. Among its conclusions is a startling prediction that detention without charge and even torture might be used against dissidents in the future, since the legal barriers against such practices would evaporate after a declaration of nuclear emergency, especially a theft of "special nuclear materials." [NRC contract AT(4924)0190.\

Author Robert Jungk in The Nuclear State asked "Is it surprising if we begin to ask ourselves whether it is not these repressive and harshly authoritarian aspects of the nuclear industry that make it so attractive to some people and some interest groups"

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/inetSeries/plutoEcon.html

Our Plutonium Economy And A Free Democracy

Are A Contradiction In Terms

Shaft  08/14/2008 07:54 PM Report

This is one of the most interesting conversations I have had the privileges to listen to. Dr. Hansen is an American hero, the first time I had a chance to listen to Dr. Hansen was with sixty minutes program. For the first time I realized that we have people who are willing to stand up to White House bullying, in that program Dr. Hansen reveals this administration's tactic in suppressing the threat of global warming. The administration's mouthpiece (not scientists by trade) were changing words on scientific reports in order to make it sound as if the fact has not been established yet. That was a sobering reality for me of this administration's ignorant position on global warming. It is clear that this administration is guided by very small number of corporation interest lobbyists flooding the Senate and the White House accessing themselves through the back doors to effect policy. It just makes you wonder why the White House was against revealing the real threat of global warming, of-course they know what the cause is and the people who are guiding the administration's policy are non other than rich oil-cartel groups. It just happened the main culprit of global warming is carbon emission and the most powerful corporate groups guiding the administration's policy are in the business of releasing carbon to the atmosphere. Hence there is a clear conflict of interest the White House was in, on one side it receives much of its campaign contribution from the rich oil-cartel groups and on the other side energy lobbyists contributing so much of the dough, and Dr. Hansen's main task is informing the administration and the public the threat of global warming and the culprit, i.e. CARBON! Its sad how the carbon we emit is thinning the ozone layer mostly in the North and South poles liquefying the million years old ice, which will eventually flood the world sinking low sea level and off-shore states. This is in addition to going to war with other nations to secure this very culprit in the form of hydrocarbon energy source. If you think about it, we destroy a smaller nation seating on hydrocarbon reserve in order to destroy the world with the very oil we went to war to secure. Due to hydrocarbon energy source we go to war, and destroy the environment and flood low sea level countries. Not to mention angering our only light source, the sun. The more carbon we release mean allowing the sun to penetrate the protective stratosphere to send her most powerful rays through the holes we knowing make by releasing so much of the carbon particulates into the stratosphere. If we did not have such honest and determined heroes arguing on behalf of mankind people like Dr. Hansen, Mr. Gore, and Mr. Pickens we would lose our world in no time, mankind should thank these individuals for having to stand up for the rights of man to breath unpolluted air.

Goathaus  08/14/2008 04:49 PM Report

How come you did not ask Hansen why temps have gone down the last 10 years, while CO2 has continued to climb?

Jacob  08/14/2008 12:15 PM Report

How discouraging it is to see that the Chinese government and its middle class are steaming ahead into our own mistakes and toward using the same pollutants and the 150 year old technology that the -West- has used so far.

It is part of creating this blind flight forward into a potential disaster that the wealthy countries are running away from and asking them (the Chinese) to find a solution.

America (the main source of global pollution as today) should want to be remembered as the world leader of the future generations, as a moral authority, and the next administration shows little sign of this glorifying perspective…

Charles  08/14/2008 03:30 AM Report

many comments here validate Hansen's lucid exposition of the mis-information campaign supported by energy interests.

more to the point, Hansen identified AGW in 1988. It only took 20 years to make it on Charlie Rose?

Norm Rogers  08/13/2008 11:40 PM Report

James Hansen was given a pass by Charlie Rose. No difficult questions were asked and Hansen's questionable statements were accepted. Charlie should have Roy Spencer on his show. Spencer is a scientist with views opposite to Hansen. He testified before Barbara Boxer's committee at the same time as Hansen.

Recently Hansen showed his lack of tolerance for dissenting viewpoints by the suggesting that the CEO’s of Exxon and Peabody Coal should be tried for “high crimes against humanity and nature.” Hansen clarified this on NPR's Diane Rehm Show on June 23, 2008:

“…CEO’s of these large energy companies are guilty of crimes against humanity if they continue to dispute what is understood scientifically and to fund contrarians …”

This is not normally the type of stuff that government employees say on the radio. But Hansen makes his own rules.

Hansen has a strong following. Hansen is so popular with the Washington press corps that he received a standing ovation at a June 23, 2008 speech at the National Press Club before he said anything . One wonders if Hansen also wants to put reporters who “dispute what is understood scientifically” in jail along with the CEO’s.

In contrast to Hansen who abuses his government position by carrying on a PR campaign against his administration bosses, Roy Spencer, a global warming skeptic simply resigned his position in NASA when he decided that he wanted to speak out on political issues. Spencer points out in his book, Climate Confusion , that Hansen received a $250,000 grant from a foundation headed by John Kerry’s wife and then made a speech favoring Kerry in the 2004 campaign. This could be a violation of the Hatch Act that restricts federal employees from engaging in partisan politics. It was reported in the Investors Business Daily that Hansen received $720,000 in 2006 from a foundation controlled by far left billionaire George Soros.

Charlies should have asked Hansen what the price of gas would be if we followed Hansen's plan for a carbon tax.

Hansen is an extremist - his PR strength is that he comes across as mild mannered

Uncle Ron  08/13/2008 11:32 PM Report

It is sort of galling that Dr. Hansen complains he is stifled by the media in getting

his message out. Actually, he is one the most quoted, interviewed and published scientists around. Whether he is right or wrong on global warming we the currently living will probably never know. The earth has gone through both glaciation and inter-glaciation periods for the last 400,000 years. We are now about 10,500 years into a typically 10-12,000 year "inter-glacial warming" period.

A 100,000 year or so glacial period will follow if past trends continue. Man's technological genius will eventually solve any real CO2 problems - probably through nuclear power and advanced auto engine technology. In the meantime, demonizing the oil industry is absurd. A recent "History Channel" program on oil refining detailed the process of chemisty genius that supplies the world not only with many types of fuels but hundreds of other products man uses from plastics to asphalt.

Mr. Hansen has no current substitutes for most of these products - would he just have the world stop and we can get off? Does he have any solution to a lack of economic production and progress for the world's growing population if oil products are suddenly banned? Nuclear waste - used nuclear fuel rods - are being 98% recyled in France and the remaining 2% waste can be safely stored for the 100 years when half-life is no longer dangerous. Thousands of years storage of this 2% waste remainder is not necessary.

Roy Fassel  08/13/2008 09:46 PM Report

For those who think Bush is to blame for everything......

Bush gave a speech at the White House on June 11, 2001 which included these statements:.......

"First, we know the surface temperature of the earth is warming. It has risen by .6 degrees Celsius over the past 100 years. There was a warming trend from the 1890s to the 1940s. Cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s. And then sharply rising temperatures from the 1970s to today.........

There is a natural greenhouse effect that contributes to warming. Greenhouse gases trap heat, and thus warm the earth because they prevent a significant proportion of infrared radiation from escaping into space..........

Concentration of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have increased substantially since the beginning of the industrial revolution. And the National Academy of Sciences indicate that the increase is due in large part to human activity.........

Yet, the Academy's report tells us that we do not know how much effect natural fluctuations in climate may have had on warming. We do not know how much our climate could, or will change in the future. We do not know how fast change will occur, or even how some of our actions could impact it……………………

Our country, the United States is the world's largest emitter of manmade greenhouse gases. We account for almost 20 percent of the world's man-made greenhouse emissions. We also account for about one-quarter of the world's economic output. We recognize the responsibility to reduce our emissions. We also recognize the other part of the story -- that the rest of the world emits 80 percent of all greenhouse gases. And many of those emissions come from developing countries.........

This is a challenge that requires a 100 percent effort; ours, and the rest of the world's. The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. That's why 95 members of the United States Senate expressed a reluctance to endorse such an approach.""""""................

Climate change is caused primarily by sunspot activities changes. The Antarctic has roughly 20 times the ice as the North Pole and it has gained ice in recents periods. The North Pole has lost ice. The planet has a net gain in ice. No one has any explanation for this. Humanity can not alter "climate changes." Period.

L Stock  08/13/2008 09:26 PM Report

The same people who claim global warming is a hoax are the same ones who voted for and have supported Cheney-Bush for 7 1/2 years. When knucklehead James Inhofe claimed global warming was a hoax he was the number one recipient of oil and gas money. So much for credibility.

allyn  08/13/2008 08:46 PM Report

I need to point out that of all the greenhouse gasses CO2 (carbon dioxide) is only 2% of the total, and the least effective at warming up the atmosphere. That's right, CO2 (carbon dioxide) is the least effective of the greenhouse gasses. We need to worry about the true culprit of greenhouse warming. We need to worry about the greenhouse gas that is a whopping 95% of the total. And that greenhouse gas is H2O (water vapor).

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Watch the _Nova_ episode _Dimming the Sun_ and learn the science rather than continue being sheep led to the slaughter.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dimming the Sun

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

And read the transcript

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3310_sun.html

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

You will see the power of the major greenhouse gas H2O (water vapor) to not only heat the earth but also cool the earth. Then you have to ask why someone like James Hansen would lie to the American public by claiming CO2 (carbon dioxide) is the problem when science has known for over a hundred years how greenhouse gasses work. That's right, even the Victorians knew more about greenhouse science than Al Gore and company.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

BTW, thanks to _sock puppet_ for showing how to paragraph this bizarre blog. Charlie needs to upgrade his software. Charlie, tell Bloomberg to cough up some money and fix it.

John  08/13/2008 07:54 PM Report

Global warming is a HOAX. In fact, the earth is entering a global COOLING period, as first reported by Russian scientists years ago. Even some of global warming's strongest proponents have publicly admitted that there IF the earth is cooling there is NO evidence that it is caused by man.

Who is paying this so-called expert, Al Gore?

kay  08/13/2008 05:34 PM Report

Hansen was nothing more or less than a mouth piece for the climate change hoax. Charlie for the first time I was sad you had someone on.

I watch you 5/52 a year and you have shaken my loyalty with the globalist global warming filling up your time and mine. Do your research please and be more balanced.

Thank you.

Chris  08/13/2008 03:07 PM Report

Why would scientists like James Hansen and others inform us, who aren't scientists, about the association between greenhouse gases and global warming if they didn't think it was true? What do they have to gain?

These people risk their jobs and reputations by doing so.

Casual observation over the last 30 years would convince most that the climate is rapidly changing.

I applaud Dr. Hansen for his courage in speaking up.

Rudy Larsen  08/13/2008 11:47 AM Report

I consider Dr. Hansen a hero as much as any NASA astronaut. He has challenged and survived a political environment that is harsher and more destructive than the vacuum of space in order to try to save this planet from self destruction.

sock puppet  08/13/2008 11:35 AM Report

This is heartfelt trepidation for GM, Ford et al should gas pump prices fall too much further. They, complicit with big-oil, would love to return to their high-margin production of SUV's. A more obtuse industry would be hard to imagine. OOPS! Maybe not. The financial wise-guy industry, where entitlement to loan origination fees obliterated prudent loan qualification tests on a scale large enough to bring about a world-wide calamity. Now that's capital greed or GREED.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________

Big oil and the (now belittled) big three would override any concerns for global warming in the name of profits in a NY minute. Lower pump prices would be calamitous for their short-sighted egregious greed.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________

Until we can tie going-green (global cooling) to greed the planet is toast.

Ken  08/13/2008 09:48 AM Report

it would be nice if you would show both sides of the story instead of just one opinion on the problems with global warming and the energy crisis. Dr. Roy Spencer would be a good scientist to have on your show and he could give you the other side of the story. http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/