In case you missed these.
Wind turbines are neither clean nor green and they provide zero global energy
Supporting wind power is virtue signaling, but it should be called virtue noise.
The real strike price of offshore wind
If you oppose nuclear power, you don’t care about the planet.
Climate scientists admit they were wrong on climate change effects
Thank you, Captain Obvious. It’s been clear the models are wrong for quite some time. I guess it’s time to start walking back the credibility destroying apocalyptic predictions.
IS THE EARTH’S CLIMATE HISTORY LARGELY A FRAUD?
Fudging the numbers?
Annnd… we have to visit the hurricane claims:
New book: ‘Why Hurricanes Can’t Be Blamed On Global Warming ‘
Since we’ve had 12 years without any, there’s a pent up need to blame ‘climate change’ when we get some.
World has three years to prevent dangerous climate change, warn experts
— Chicken Little
What would we do without experts?
Doom predictions on the first Earth Day in 1970:
“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
— George Wald, Harvard Biologist
“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”
— Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day
“In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish.“
— Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
— Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
Oops. Guess the science was less settled than we thought.
Of course, failure has not diminished this heated rhetoric over the last 47 years. We’re always just a few years from climate catastrophe.
For another 107 examples, see this.
On October 31st I wrote:
It’s so simple, just find a big ‘social problem’ with dozens, or hundreds, of different causes and impose a single 2,000 page solution. I don’t know why we didn’t think of this approach to solve the obesity epidemic. We’ll just put nutrition labels on candy machines, ban soft drinks over 16 ounces and move toward taxing calories.
While we’ve already done the first two of those things, the part about taxing calories was half tongue-in-cheek. I needn’t have worried that it was over the top, though I did get the wrong social problem. I should have known “Climate Change” would be the real reason: UK Researchers: Tax Food to Reduce Climate Change
“Emissions pricing of foods would generate a much needed contribution of the food system to reducing the impacts of global climate change,” said Dr Marco Springmann of the Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food, who led the study. “We hope that’s something policymakers gathering this week at the Marrakech climate conference will take note of.”
Much of the emissions reduction would stem from higher prices and lower consumption of animal products, as their emissions are particularly high. The researchers found that beef would have to be 40% more expensive globally to pay for the climate damage caused by its production. The price of milk and other meats would need to increase by up to 20%, and the price of vegetable oils would also increase significantly.
This is a perfect example of MIT Technology Review editor David Rotman’s demand for an updated command-and-control industrial policy:
[There is a] compelling argument that we need more coherent and deliberate strategic planning in tackling our economic problems, especially in finding more effective ways to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions
The 2000 pages needed to implement this will consist of 1) tax credits for pregnant mothers, exemptions for starving third worlders and waivers for Senators and Congressmen and their aides; 2) lobbyist provisions for Archer Daniels Midland; 3) definition of the bureaucratic requirements; 4) determination of the amount of tax for protein content, say tofu vs. hamburger; 5) surtaxes based on greenhouse gas contribution variation due to processing and transportation; 6) all manner of amendments entirely unrelated to the taxing of food and 7) other things you’ll have to read the bill to find out.
“[U]nless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return” and “a true planetary emergency.”
-Al Gore, January 25, 2006
Al? That tipping point? It’s today.
The emergency is New York and D.C. digging out.
California Governor Jerry Brown:
Never underestimate the coercive power of the central state in the service of good.
Or evil, Governor Brown, you oh so Superior Man.
Meanwhile, California Climate Policies Chilling Housing Growth.
And, Can California Be Saved? I know which way I’d bet.
Last Tuesday Mark Steyn appeared before Senator Ted Cruz’s sub-committee on Space, Science and Competitiveness. The topic was climate change.
Steyn’s observations are well worth your time to read, and don’t neglect the videos. I particularly enjoyed watching Senator Ed “Marquis” Markey being reminded he isn’t, in fact, nobility.
While you are at Steyn’s site, visit the Steyn Store. Christmas is almost upon us, and Mark’s suit/countersuit with Dr. Micheal “Fraudpants” Mann drags on expensively. Gift certificates are available.
Laurence Jarvik has more from the hearing here. Also recommended for comment on GOP attendance at the hearing and a clip of Steyn defending free speech.
Obama: Climate change conference “a powerful rebuke to the terrorists.”
What, we’ll lubricate windmills with bacon grease?
Global bishops call for ‘complete decarbonisation’ by 2050
Bishops launched a global appeal Monday for a break-through at upcoming Paris climate talks, including a “complete decarbonisation” of the world’s economy and more help for poor countries battling the effects of climate change.
They propose eliminating 95% of reliable energy in 35 years.
What we will depend on as the basis for generating the wealth needed to help poor countries during, and after, the transition is left to God. In this scenario, absent a Miracle, poor countries will be grateful the Bishops and the green fantasists kept them poor. They’ll fare an order of magnitude better than will developed economies.
The Bishops’ understanding of economics fits right in with Bernie Sanders’. He should hire them as spiritual advisors. He does need a Miracle.
The bishops said any agreement “should limit global temperature increases to avoid catastrophic climatic impacts, especially on the most vulnerable communities…
Those responsible for climate change have responsibilities to assist the most vulnerable in adapting and managing loss and damage and to share the necessary technology and knowhow,” they said in a statement.
They’re hiring some bureaucrats to do God’s work: An “agreement” is going to “limit global temperature increases.” The religious fervor is settled.
This ritual invocation has already been attempted, unsuccessfully, by an individual vastly more charismatic and more widely viewed as messianic than these Bishops: “This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.“
Beyond all this, there’s this other carbon based energy thing called wood. Sans miracle, that’s what the survivors in what used to be known as developed countries will be burning when they are not occupied shoveling horse manure from the decaying streets. They’ll care nothing for poor countries, nor for the Bishops mistaken humanist pieties.
Theoretically, robbing Peter to pay Paul can only work if Peter has something left to rob. There are always Miracles, though.
I’m not sure when we accepted the idea that government funding is non-ideological, even apolitical. But, today, when an idea is discredited because of its funding source it’s almost always the evil corporation(s) said to be at fault. It’s the Koch brothers or George Soros taking the heat. When government funds something that proves to be disastrous, idiotic or even evil, government gets a pass. As if government has no agenda and always has good intentions.
We’ve become blasé about Federal pecuniary feasance, mis-, mal- and non-, in many areas: Medicare, where periodically someone is arrested for multi-million dollar fraud; Corporate welfare, where billions are shoveled into the furnace, but those responsible are rarely held accountable; Federal grants promoting cowboy poetry, about which most merely shake their heads in wonder; Planned Parenthood, where we pretend money isn’t fungible.
Nowhere, however, is the damage worse than in funding science research. Especially in the case of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW).
We’re told that anyone skeptical of CAGW is bought and paid for by Big Oil – their opinions should therefore be dismissed. Fully half the arguments from CAGW proponents would disappear if they couldn’t argue ad hominem. Well, turnabout is fair play.
In CAGW huckster Professor Jagadish Shukla, who urges the President to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) against CAGW skeptics we have an excellent example.
I offered my support to Consumers Energy if they would get on with building nuclear plants and get rid of windmills.
This is the most obvious way to rapidly reduce CO2 emissions. Those afraid of “climate change” should be all in. Warm mongers who oppose nuclear power simply aren’t serious about CO2 reduction.
But don’t take my word for it, take the word of a leftwing “science is settled” magazine…
In just two decades Sweden went from burning oil for generating electricity to fissioning uranium. And if the world as a whole were to follow that example, all fossil fuel–fired power plants could be replaced with nuclear facilities in a little over 30 years…
Such a switch would drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions, nearly achieving much-ballyhooed global goals to combat climate change. Even swelling electricity demands, concentrated in developing nations, could be met. All that’s missing is the wealth, will and wherewithal…
“As long as people, nations put fear of nuclear accidents above fear of climate change, those trends are unlikely to change,” Brook adds. But “no renewable energy technology or energy efficiency approach has ever been implemented on a scale or pace required.”
Also consider the opinions of Dr. Patrick Moore, Co-Founder of Greenpeace, and Stewart Brand, publisher Of The Whole Earth Catalog.