Tag Archives: Climate change

Climate Doomsters in Driver’s Seat

From Science Matters

By Ron Clutz

Joe Oliver wrote at Financial Post We are in the grip of climate-change catastrophism.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

The climate-change movement is a powerful cultural entity. It does not affirm or negate the reality of its core narrative, which is for science to decideCulture does, however, explain the power and prevalence of the narrative, the political and societal responses to it and the apparent willingness of many people to incur immense cost to avert a supposed existential threat, without proof of either its existence or our ability to alter its impact. In a new book available from the Global Warming Policy Foundation, The Grip of Culture: the Social Psychology of Climate Change Catastrophism, Andy A. West, who works for the Philosophy Foundation in London, provides an academic analysis of the phenomenon. Its lessons have particular relevance to Canada’s climate obsession.

As we know, the overarching climate narrative is that human GHG emissions have created a climate emergency that calls for urgent and extraordinary action, without which the consequences for humanity will be catastrophic. In many ways, its cultural characteristics parallel religions and ideological movements, starting with an unshakable foundational belief impervious to contradictory evidence, and extending to incessant incantations from politicians, mainstream media, thought leaders and environmentalists.

The faithful are reassured by groupthink, while apostates or sinful skeptics,
i.e. “deniers,” are vilified, penalized and ostracized.

Environment and Climate Change Minister Steven Guilbeault’s veiled threat to charge Premier Scott Moe of Saskatchewan criminally if he violates federal coal regulations evokes Thomas of Torquemada, Grand Inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition — though so far absent the burnings at the stake. The movement has its high priests and priestesses — Al Gore, Justin Trudeau, Greta Thunberg, King Charles and Mark Carney, none a scientist — who convey certainty to the multitudes.

Core principles and a multitude of subsidiary tenets are validated by exaggerated interpretations of scientific studies, as well as anecdotal evidence and conveniently chosen statistics that reinforce the sacred text. For example, the end of the Little Ice Age is invariably the starting point for calculating a global temperature increase — which is like a government calculating its effects on economic growth by starting at the trough of the last recession. Confirmation bias is provided by influencers, including uniquely unqualified Hollywood stars, who propagate the doctrine of the faith. Fear is employed as a powerful motivator and is inculcated from childhood. Apocalyptic doom is preordained for collective disobedience and salvation promised for devotees and repentants who comply with onerous strictures, many of which have no practical utility.

The instinctive response from climate alarmists to public hesitancy is that “the science is settled,” the facts are overwhelming and the need so urgent they can’t waste time quibbling with ignorant or malevolent naysayers who in any case are probably racist, misogynist, far-right conspiracists.

Climate alarmists have a fundamental problem, however, which may help explain their stridency. The complexity of climate science is not settled, as Steve E. Koonin, a physicist and former undersecretary for science in Barack Obama’s Department of Energy, explained in his 2021 book, Unsettled. Other prominent scientists agree, although they are a distinct minority.

Nor is climate apocalypse supported by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), even though its conclusions go farther than the scientific studies on which it allegedly relies. Proffered evidence is based on models that have consistently run hot. Yet the conventional consensus is to accept at face value the predictions of people who have been consistently and spectacularly wrong and who, if they were around in the 1970’s, were more than likely to have issued dire warnings about an impending ice age, like Paul Ehrlich and Kenneth Watt, as well as newspapers and journals like Time, Science Digest, The New York Times and Newsweek.

Barring a miraculous technological innovation, there is
virtually no chance of reaching global net zero by 2050.

Two-thirds of GHG emissions come from poorer countries that are deliberately increasing their use of fossil fuels, while the developed economies, including Canada, have consistently failed to reach the targets they have set themselves. And it takes centuries for excess carbon dioxide to disappear from the atmosphere, so any partial reduction in anthropogenic emissions would only slow their increase, not prevent it or eliminate them. Nevertheless, McKinsey says $275 trillion may be spent on the doomed gesture, disproportionately hurting the least advantaged and weakening the West in what may actually be an existential struggle with an expansionist communist China.

Andy West writes that culture can be a great unifier of societies and even civilizations. But because it is not based on reason, it can also be extraordinarily destructive: witness the calamities perpetrated by communism and fascism. So it is uncertain where climate catastrophism may lead or what negative feedback could potentially provoke a counter-reaction. Last year’s European energy crisis did undermine support for it, even if green activists claimed it proved we need more of the renewable energy that had in fact made the continent more vulnerable to higher prices and inadequate supply.

Zeitgeists do change. When people have to choose between food and heat and when the poorest countries are deprived of the affordable energy they desperately need to raise themselves up, then practicality and guilt may eventually change people’s beliefs. That they haven’t yet done so demonstrates the power of culture in the face of logic, morality, self-interest and the facts.


Retraction of Paper Saying There is No Climate Emergency Illustrates How Dependent Climate Activists Are on Scaremongering by Chris Morris at Daily Sceptic.

The recent cancellation of Alimonti et al shows clearly that catastrophising bad weather events and attributing them to a collapse of the climate is now the main weapon deployed to scare populations into embracing the Net Zero agenda. Of course, reference is still made to global warming, but most recent rises seem to owe more to frequent upward retrospective adjustments of temperature, rather than any significant natural boost. Perhaps we should not be surprised by this turn of events. In a short essay titled ‘The New Apocalypticism’, the science writer Roger Pielke Jr. noted: “For the secular millenarian, extreme events – floods, hurricanes, fires – are more than mere portents, they are evidence of our sins of the past and provide opportunities for redemption in the future, if only we listen, accept and change.”

The climate is collapsing all around us, shout the headlines – they require we ignore the data, the historical record, even common sense. When all is said and done, the Earth is not actually boiling! Well Professor Gianluca Alimonti and three other Italian scientists didn’t ignore the past data, much of it in fact from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and they found little change in extreme weather events. They published a paper concluding that there was certainly not enough to justify the declaration of a ‘climate emergency’.

A year later, the publisher Springer Nature bowed to the demands of a group of activist scientists and journalists led by the Guardian and Agence France-Presse and retracted the non-conforming paper. An addendum was proposed and sent to four reviewers for comment. Three reviewers argued for publication. The fourth stated that typical readers were not climate experts and “editors should seriously consider the implications of the possible publication of this addendum”.

We own climate scienceboasted UN communications flak Melissa Fleming at a recent World Economic Forum disinformation seminar, and we partner with Google to keep our version at the top of the search list. What a great service these climate experts provide in telling us what to think and see as we unsophisticated rubes struggle towards the path of true enlightenment!

For the distinguished climatologist Dr. Judith Curry, the Alimonti affair is “why I no longer publish in peer-reviewed papers”. She described the behaviour of the journal editors as “reprehensible” in retracting a widely read climate paper just because it contained “politically inconvenient conclusions”. She is right of course – the Alimonti affair is another shocking scientific scandal that casts further doubt on the climate science peer-review process.

But then, Dr. Curry is merely a scientist in all this
–she doesn’t own the science.

Book Review: Green Breakdown

From Net Zero Watch

By Professor Michael Kelly

‘Green Breakdown: The Coming Renewable Energy Failure’ by Steve Goreham, New Lenox Books (IL, USA), 2023. A review by Michael J Kelly FRS FREng

This is simply the best book I have read on the specific current set of global issues around climate change mitigation and energy policy.   It is simply a must for everyone to read, and especially for those who advocate the green agenda.   In my opinion, the latter have time now to repent their sins and to escape the worst of great retribution that will inevitably come when things go badly wrong.

To date more than $15 trillion has been wasted in efforts to switch to zero-carbon processes with little gained in energy-system performance, reliability or reduction in real pollution.

The earlier chapters of this book summarise the gains made for humanity by the abundance of cheap energy over the last two hundred years, the problems posed by alleged future climate change, leading to the current war on hydrocarbons and the nirvana of 100% renewables.  The next chapters start to throw up the immense problems associated with domestic energy (I much prefer cooking with gas than electricity), electric vehicles in winter and cold climates, and our reliance on shipping and aviation for many of our essentials in life.   Global heavy industry simply cannot survive on renewables or/and hydrogen.

Until now the book follows a familiar story, but it has two strong advantages over the competition: (i) the best ever collection of relevant hard data and trends on the all the topics and (ii) truly comical inserts drawn from the media, such as the report on the last page from Fox News that a New York Times essay says “You Should Mate with Short People to Save the Planet”!

The highly distinctive part of the book is the last two chapters, entitled ominously “Energy Crisis and the Seeds of Failure” and “Green Breakdown and the Future”.   The former contains a detailed analysis of the 2022 global energy crisis, caused by widespread weather extremes and greatly exacerbated by consequences of the Russian attack on Ukraine.   Europe got through this crisis by the thinnest of margins.   One box entitled “The Destruction of European Industry” shows cascading effects whereby the low level of the Danube prevented coal barges from restocking coal-fired power stations, and the consequential forced load-shedding of vital industries.

The last chapter shows how, when we are further down the track of renewables without dispatchable back-up for electricity, a repeat of 2022 will be truly catastrophic for humankind, visiting on us now with certainty what the climate alarmists are promising in the great distant future, namely a global societal breakdown, likely before 2040 if the same collection of problems coalesce again – severe weather, international conflict and a global energy system on the brink of instability.

I can only add the speculation that, when the time comes, we will need the equivalent of the Nuremburg trials to apportion blame and secure damages for those hardest hit: the poor round the world.

James Cleverly Needs $4 Trillion a Year For His Sustainable Development Goals!


By Paul Homewood

h/t Dennis Ambler

British Foreign Secretary James Cleverly announced this week that the UK will push to unlock global finance and help developing countries invest to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

According to Cleverly, the spotlight will be on improving the global financial system, including making it easier for developing countries to access funds and invest in their own sustainable development. Cleverly also insisted on the UK’s support for climate preparedness and improved access to education worldwide.

Climate change, the threat of pandemics, and stagnant economic growth are some of the biggest challenges facing the world’s most vulnerable and require a united global effort to tackle.

Unlocking more finance from international financial institutions and the private sector will be critical if we are to achieve those goals and the UK is already playing a key role by mobilizing private investment, improving global tax systems, and future-proofing for climate change – including through the UK’s recent US$ 2 billion commitment to the Green Climate Fund.

The UK is announcing pledges and reforms that will unlock billions of pounds in global finance and support developing countries investing in their future to boost sustainable development goals.

As representatives of global governments gather for the Sustainable Development Goals Summit, the Foreign Secretary further underlined new financial guarantees for Multilateral Development Banks to help the UK’s overseas aid go further and multiply its impact by unlocking more affordable loans.

Through one of these guarantees, the UK will help unlock up to US$ 1.8 billion of climate finance to support at-risk populations across Asia and the Pacific in adapting to the impacts of climate change and increase their resilience to natural disasters. It will help accelerate their transition from fossil fuels to low-carbon energy sources, demonstrating how sustainable economic growth and development can go hand-in-hand.

“The extra finance needed to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals is estimated to be around US$ 4 trillion annually. We urgently need bold global action to build a bigger, better, and fairer international financial system that helps close this gap,” Cleverly said.

The UK is providing a guarantee of up to $300 million to the Innovative Finance Facility for Climate in Asia and the Pacific (IFCAP). We estimate this will unlock $1.2 to $1.8 billion in additional climate financing over the next 5 years, meaning around a 4 to 6-time return of increased climate finance compared to our guarantee commitment. The Innovative Finance Facility for Climate in Asia and the Pacific (IFCAP) is a multi-donor financing partnership facility set up by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) with the goal of scaling-up finance for accelerated action against climate change in Asia and the Pacific.


James Cleverly seems to have forgotten that money does not grow on trees!

Any money spent on Sustainability Development Goals, whether public or private, is money that cannot be invested in other, probably more worthwhile projects.

And heaven knows how many of these billions will be wasted or misappropriated.

Rishi Sunak speaks sense on Net Zero


By Rupert Darwall 

Britain’s prime minister Rishi Sunak was denounced before he’d uttered a word on net zero ahead of his short remarks on Wednesday. Lord Deben, the recently departed chair of the statutory Climate Change Committee, took to the airwaves to accuse the government of stupidity. Lord Zac Goldsmith, son of the billionaire Sir James Goldsmith who resigned from the government earlier this summer, said the prime minister had no mandate to change any net zero commitments and should call an immediate election.

As it turned out, Sunak’s remarks did not substantively change very much. “I’m absolutely committed to reaching Net Zero by 2050,” the prime minister insisted. True, the prime minister pledged that the government wouldn’t force families to rip out their gas-fired boilers and replace them with expensive heat pumps. And he announced that the ban on sales of petrol and diesel cars would be pushed back to 2035, which former prime minister Boris Johnson had brought forward to 2030 in one of his periodic fits of climate jingoism. What Sunak didn’t say was whether the rising quota of electric vehicle (EV) mandates squeezing out sales of conventional vehicles would remain in place.

This, though, would be to miss what the prime minister had done: politically, everything has changed. “No one in politics has had the courage to look people in the eye and explain what that involves,” Sunak said of net zero. “That’s wrong – and it changes now.” He promised that his approach to net zero would be pragmatic, proportionate, and realistic.

Of course, net zero by 2050 is none of those things. It is ideological, disproportionate, and unachievable. So why the vehemence of the climate lobby’s attacks on Sunak? In their eyes, Sunak has committed the worst crime of all: he has broken the net zero omertà, which enforces a pact of silence on discussing the policy’s true costs. In public, net zero should only be spoken of as the growth opportunity of the century, something that’s good for the economy as well as the planet. That it might inflict cost and hardship must never be said.

Sunak has destroyed this silent agreement. He has made it possible for mainstream political discourse to mention possible downsides to net zero. In this respect, he’s been assisted by his opponent’s reaction. Labor could have closed the issue down by saying it would be counter-productive to bring forward the ban. Instead, Labor leader Sir Keir Starmer immediately pledged to reverse Sunak’s reversal of the 2030 ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars. With EV sale mandates still in place, there is very little before and after difference – except Sir Keir now owns the downsides of the net zero anti-car policy.

Commentary on EVs focuses on the user experience – the vehicles’ cost premium, for example, or problems such as range anxiety and the inconvenience of re-charging them compared to filling up with a tank of fuel. These issues make EVs either a luxury purchase for individuals or a tax-efficient purchase made by businesses on behalf of their employees. There’s been much less focus on the implications for the electrical grid of mass EV adoption. As Manhattan Institute senior fellow Mark Mills discusses in a recent paper, “Electric Vehicles for Everyone? The Impossible Dream,” transitioning automotive energy derived from molecules to electrons has enormous implications for the grid and local distribution networks.

It’s not solely about the relative costs of electricity versus liquid hydrocarbons. (Electricity is much more expensive before taxes, a net zero fiscal hole Labor also needs to address.) According to Mills, transporting a unit of electrical energy using wires and transformers is about 20-fold more expensive than transporting the same quantity of energy as oil in pipelines and tankers. When you fill up your tank with gasoline, the same amount of energy per second is going into your car as being generated by four 5-megawatt wind turbines. The electrical grid and local distribution networks are simply not designed to accommodate the enormous increase in electrical power required for mass EV adoption – and the faster the EV charger, the more power it needs.

Upgrading Britain’s electrical network for EVs will cost many tens of billions of pounds. Who pays? That’s now a question for Sir Keir and Labor to answer. Will electrical utilities discriminate between electricity used to charge an EV and boil a kettle? Some 55% of British households don’t own a car. Does Labor expect the 55% of non-car owners to subsidize the cost of grid and local network upgrades for the benefit of the small proportion of the 45% of car owners who have EVs? Labor’s green socialism inverts traditional socialism. It envisions less well-off members of the community subsidizing better-off EV owners through their electricity bills.

The prime minister can have had few illusions about the consequences of breaking with the climate consensus to speak of costs and downsides. The climate lobby is well-funded and deeply networked throughout politics and the media. It required courage and conviction for Sunak to have taken this step. Thanks to him, Britain’s climate policy debate will never be the same.

This article originally appeared at Real Clear Energy


Rupert Darwall

Rupert Darwall is a Senior Fellow at the RealClear Foundation.

Long-lasting La Niña events more common over past century

From Tallbloke’s Talkshop

 September 24, 2023 by oldbrew 

‘Global temperatures typically increase during an El Niño episode, and fall during La Niña’ – says BBC Science. This article also refers to ‘El Niño and La Niña, the warm and cool phases of a recurring climate pattern’. The featured research concludes that recent La Niñas are different, being more to do with warming, supported by ‘complex computer simulations’. The question is: does ‘the recent increase in multiyear La Niñas’ (per the study title) since 1998 suggest more cooling, or not? In the climate science world we read that ‘answers remain elusive’.
– – –
Multiyear La Niña events have become more common over the last 100 years, according to a new study led by University of Hawai’i (UH) at Mānoa atmospheric scientist Bin Wang.

Five out of six La Niña events since 1998 have lasted more than one year, including an unprecedented triple-year event [Talkshop comment – no, occurred three times since 1950]. The study was published in Nature Climate Change.

“The clustering of multiyear La Niña events is phenomenal given that only ten such events have occurred since 1920,” said Wang, emeritus professor of atmospheric sciences in the UH Mānoa School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology.

El Niño and La Niña, the warm and cool phases of a recurring climate pattern across the tropical Pacific, affect weather and ocean conditions, which can, in turn, influence the marine environment and fishing industry in Hawai’i and throughout the Pacific Ocean.

Long-lasting La Niñas could cause persistent climate extremes and devastating weather events, affecting community resilience, tourist industry and agriculture.

Determining why so many multiyear La Niña events have emerged recently and whether they will become more common has sparked worldwide discussion among climate scientists, yet answers remain elusive.

Wang and co-authors examined 20 La Niña events from 1920-2022 to investigate the fundamental reasons behind the historic change of the multiyear La Niña. Some long-lasting La Niñas occurred after a super El Niño, which the researchers expected due to the massive discharge of heat from the upper-ocean following an El Niño.

However, three recent multiyear La Niña episodes (2007–08, 2010–11, and 2020–22) did not follow this pattern.

They discovered these events are fueled by warming in the western Pacific Ocean and steep gradients in sea surface temperature from the western to central Pacific.

“Warming in the western Pacific triggers the rapid onset and persistence of these events,” said Wang. “Additionally, our study revealed that multiyear La Niña are distinguished from single-year La Niña by a conspicuous onset rate, which foretells its accumulative intensity and climate impacts.”

Results from complex computer simulations of climate support the observed link between multiyear La Niña events and western Pacific warming.

Full article here.
– – –
Research article: Understanding the recent increase in multiyear La Niñas.

Historical change of La Nina shows increasing frequency of multiyear events. Credit: Wang, et al., 2023

Notes for Sunak: Energy Transition Risk Vs. Climate Change Risk

From Science Matters

By Ron Clutz

Two perceptive op eds by Dr. Judith Curry provides thinking pertinent to UK Sunak’s reconsideration of climate policies.  Her articles in December and January for Sky News Australia was The faux urgency of the climate crisis is giving us no time or space to build a secure energy future. and Rapid technological innovation – not harmful renewables policy – key to lighting our energy future.

Note: “faux” means “artificial” or “contrived”–IOW “fake” without any Trumpian overtones.  I referred to Sunak in the title because he is now the man in the barrel for raising energy issues.  But those elected officials who climb down even a little from ruinous Zero Carbon promises will find themselves in the same predicament.  So this messaging would serve many in these dire straits.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

There is a growing realisation that emissions and temperature targets
are now detached from the issues of human well-being
and the development of our 21st century world.

For the past two centuries, fossil fuels have fueled humanity’s progress, improving standards of living and increasing the life span for billions of people. In the 21st century, a rapid transition away from fossil fuels has become an international imperative for climate change mitigation, under the auspices of the UN Paris Agreement. As a result, the 21st century energy transition is dominated by stringent targets to rapidly eliminate carbon dioxide emissions. However, the recent COP27 meeting in Egypt highlighted that very few of the world’s countries are on track to meet their emissions reductions commitment.

The desire for cleaner, more abundant, more reliable and
less expensive sources of energy is universal.

However, the goal of rapidly eliminating fossil fuels is at odds with the urgency of providing grid electricity to developing countries. Rapid deployment of wind and solar power has invariably increased electricity costs and reduced reliability, particularly with increasing penetration into the grid. Allegations of human rights abuses in China’s Xinjiang region, where global solar voltaic supplies are concentrated, are generating political conflicts that threaten the solar power industry. Global supply chains of materials needed to produce solar and wind energy plus battery storage are spawning new regional conflicts, logistical problems, supply shortages and rising costs. The large amount of land use required for wind and solar farms plus transmission lines is causing local land use conflicts in many regions.

Given the apocalyptic rhetoric surrounding climate change, does the alleged urgency of reducing carbon dioxide emissions somehow trump these other considerations? Well, the climate ‘crisis’ isn’t what it used to be. The COP27 has dropped the most extreme emissions scenario from consideration, which was the source of the most alarming predictions. Only a few years ago, an emissions trajectory that produced 2 to 3 oC warming was regarded as climate policy success. As limiting warming to 2 oC seems to be in reach, the goal posts were moved to limit the warming target to 1.5 oC. These warming targets are referenced to a baseline at the end of the 19th century; the Earth’s climate has already warmed by 1.1 oC. In context of this relatively modest warming, climate ‘crisis’ rhetoric is now linked to extreme weather events.

Attributing extreme weather and climate events to global warming can motivate a country to attempt to rapidly transition away from fossil fuels. However, we should not delude ourselves into thinking that eliminating emissions would have a noticeable impact on weather and climate extremes in the 21st century. It is very difficult to untangle the roles of natural weather and climate variability and land use from the slow creep of global warming. Looking back into the past, including paleoclimatic data, there has been more extreme weather everywhere on the planet. Thinking that we can minimize severe weather through using atmospheric carbon dioxide as a control knob is a fairy tale. In particular, Australia is responsible for slightly more than 1% of global carbon emissions. Hence, Australia’s emissions have a minimal impact on global warming as well as on Australia’s own climate.

There is growing realization that these emissions and temperature targets have become detached from the issues of human well-being and development. Yes, we need to reduce CO2 emissions over the course of the 21st century. However once we relax the faux urgency for eliminating CO2 emissions and the stringent time tables, we have time and space to envision new energy systems that can meet the diverse, growing needs of the 21st century. This includes sufficient energy to help reduce our vulnerability to surprises from extreme weather and climate events.

Framework for a robust transition of our energy systems.

In transitioning to cleaner sources of power, we need to acknowledge that the world will need much more energy than it is currently consuming – not just in developing countries, but also in countries with advanced economies. Constructing, operating, and maintaining low-carbon energy systems will itself require substantial amounts of energy, with much of it currently derived from fossil fuels. Increasing adoption of electric vehicles and electric heat pumps will increase electricity demand. More electricity can help reduce our vulnerability to the weather and climate: air conditioners, water desalination plants, irrigation, vertical farming operations, water pumps, coastal defenses, and environmental monitoring systems. Further, abundant electricity is key to innovations in advanced materials, advanced manufacturing, artificial intelligence, robotics, photonics, quantum computing and others that are currently unforeseen or unimagined.

In the near term, laying the foundation for new energy systems is
substantially more important than trying to stamp out fossil fuel use.

This should focus on developing and testing new energy technologies. There will continue to be demand for fossil fuels over the coming decades. Countries that restrict fossil fuel production will not only hurt themselves economically. Paradoxically, restricting fossil fuel production in the near term will actually slow down the energy transition, which itself requires substantial amounts of energy to implement.

The best use of the next three decades is to continue to develop and test a range of options for energy production, storage, transmission and other technologies that support goals of reliable, low-cost energy while lessening environmental impacts and carbon emissions. A more prudent strategy is to use the next two to three decades as a learning period with new technologies, experimentation and intelligent trial and error.

Near-term targets for CO2 emissions, such as 75% renewable energy by 2035, drives the energy transition towards using existing technologies in ways that are counterproductive in the longer term. The perceived urgency of making such a colossal transformation can lead to poor decisions that not only harms the economy and overall human wellbeing, but also slows down progress on reducing carbon emissions.

Rapid technological innovation across all domains of the global energy sector continues to accelerate: long-distance transmission and smart microgrids, energy storage, residential heating, electric vehicles and remarkable progress in advanced nuclear designs. Different countries and locales will use different combinations of these innovations based upon their location, local resources, power needs, and sociopolitical preferences.

In Addition:  Energy Balance Includes Every Energy Source 

Richard O. Faulk explands on the above perspective writing at Forbes: Stop Demonizing Fossil Fuels

If we are going to discuss the climate change movement’s agenda, let’s admit that the underlying problem they seek to resolve is an energy imbalance—one which they attribute to humanity’s excessive reliance on fossil fuels that contribute to global warming. To many members of the movement, the imbalance can only be corrected by reducing our dependence on sources such as coal and oil, and replacing them with others (ie. natural gas, ethanol, solar, wind).

Although this sounds tempting to some, the proportion of each source’s contribution to the new “balance” is elusive—both scientifically and politically. Indeed, many environmentalists largely neglect other important energy sources—such as nuclear energy—even though nuclear power plants produce negligible greenhouse gases. In its haste to “save the Earth,” the climate change movement has failed to appreciate that, for the foreseeable future, every source of energy is essential. We cannot afford to demonize and exclude any resources. Instead, each competing source must be sustained by a balanced energy policy that fosters economic growth, environmental protection and human health.

Moreover, if we are seriously concerned about global environmental issues, this new balance cannot be struck without considering its impact on economic, environmental and health concerns in each nation. This requires open minds regarding how certain resources, such as fossil fuels, can be used in developing nations which cannot reasonably be expected to shift immediately to alternative sources.

The use of coal, for example, as an imported product in such countries should not be disfavored while society diversifies to accommodate cleaner-burning technologies and affordable alternative sources. Encouraging such exports creates markets in developed nations that offset pressures to reduce usage domestically. Without relatively inexpensive imported resources, developing nations cannot develop their economies—and insisting on unaffordable alternatives denies them the opportunities that developed nations have exploited for centuries. The inevitable result will be continued poverty, depressed nutrition, increased disease and premature deaths in developing nations—a scenario that any reasonable climate advocate should find unacceptable.

Nevertheless, many climate activists doggedly argue for policies that will suppress the availability and use of fossil fuels in developing nations—as though renewable and other cleaner-burning sources were already available to meet the needs of their disadvantaged citizens. The insensitivity of such policies is alarming—especially since renewable and alternative fuel sources are not yet widely available and effectively deployed even in wealthier nations, such as the United States. It is irrational and, indeed, cruel to insist that fossil fuel use should be minimized globally when such an approach deprives the world’s most impoverished nations of relatively inexpensive and widely available energy sources.

Fossil fuels offer developing nations a “bridge to the future”
that empowers economic development and, ultimately,
diversification of energy resources.

A “balanced” energy policy therefore must consider much more than the appropriate global blend of energy sources. It must also consider the types of energy that can best be utilized in particular nations according to their financial abilities, technical skills and particular needs. It is naive to insist that renewable or alternative sources replace fossil fuels if those advanced sources are unaffordable, unavailable or otherwise impractical in the locations where energy is needed. Such idealism does nothing to feed the hungry, heat and light their homes, workplaces and schools, or encourage economic and technical development.

Manufacturing Consent in Times of Crisis – Dr. Richard Lindzen, Harvard/MIT Climate Scientist DS 183

The DemystifySci Podcast

Dr. Richard Lindzen is an American atmospheric physicist known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides, and ozone photochemistry.

He served as the Gordon McKay Professor of Dynamic Meteorology at Harvard University and was appointed as the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the MIT.

Dr. Lindzen has disputed the scientific consensus on climate change and criticizes what he has called “climate alarmism”.

Rather than picking apart the arguments for or against said climate narratives, our conversation is largely focused on the question of what would motivate such alleged deception were it found to be the case.

Tell us your thoughts in the comments!

00:00:00 Go!

00:01:17 Outsider scientific research

00:04:33 Maxwell & the academic press

00:07:43 Editors serve the industry

00:12:16 Climate narration

00:20:33 Pressure against dissent

00:25:56 The Iris Effect

00:33:38 Motivating the standard narrative

00:43:30 Paleoclimate

00:48:06 Rotation of Earth v. airflow

00:57:24 Myopic considerations

01:05:57 Education as indoctrination

01:11:50 Science as guillotine

01:17:33 Defined v. undefined problem solving

01:21:48 Incentive wars

01:26:55 Institutional conditions

01:35:25 Manipulation of graphs

01:37:45 Different kinds of intelligent conversation

01:41:12 Academics as politics

01:47:02 Venus & climate science

01:55:38 University experience

02:07:30 Endless war

02:15:05 Youtube censorship, throttling, shadowbans

02:18:33 Dealing with villification

02:26:45 Secret history of GISS

02:34:32 Closing thoughts

British PM Announces Net Zero Retreat as King Charles Visits France

From Watts Up With That?

Prime MInister Rishi Sunak. By Chris McAndrew – link, CC BY 3.0, link. King Charles at COP21. Public Domain, Link

Essay by Eric Worrall

Did Prime Minister Rishi Sunak wait until King Charles was safely on his way to France, before announcing a Net Zero retreat?

Rishi Sunak delays petrol car ban in major shift on green policies

By Sam Francis
Political reporter, BBC News

In a speech from Downing Street on Wednesday, Mr Sunak said moving too fast on green policies “risks losing the consent of the British people”.

Among the key changes announced were:

  • A five-year delay in the ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars, meaning a requirement for all new cars to be “zero emission” will not come into force until 2035
  • A nine-year delay in the ban on new fossil fuel heating for off-gas-grid homes to 2035
  • Raising the Boiler Upgrade Grant by 50% to £7,500 to help households who want to replace their gas boilers
  • The ban on the sale of new gas boilers in 2035 remains, but the government will introduce new exemption for poorer households
  • Scrapping the requirement on landlords to ensure all rental properties had a Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) of grade C or higher, from 2025.

…Read more: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-66871457

Meanwhile, King Charles addressed the French Parliament on the need for greater climate ambition;

King Charles uses historic address to French parliament to label global warming an ‘existential challenge’ and call for a ‘sustainability agreement’ with France – hours after Rishi U-turned on green targets


PUBLISHED: 16:41 AEST, 21 September 2023 | UPDATED: 03:20 AEST, 22 September 2023

King Charles made history today by becoming the first British monarch to address the French Senate – and used his speech to declare global warming as ‘our most existential challenge’ – just hours after Rishi Sunak put the brakes on Net Zero.

The monarch spoke of the close friendship between the UK and France but focused on tackling climate change, calling for a new ‘entente cordiale’ specifically to ‘tackle the global climate and biodiversity emergency’.

Speaking in perfect French, Charles suggested France and Britain needed the same unity shown in the World Wars and now Ukraine to ‘stand together’ on the environment, shortly after the PM warned that imposing ‘unacceptable costs’ and ‘heavy-handed’ proposals on families risked wrecking support for saving the planet.

…Read more: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12543555/King-Charles-British-monarch-history-address-French-senate-today-meeting-rugby-stars-Brigitte-Macron.html

Waiting until the king is out of the country, before staging a revolution – there is plenty of precedent for that.

Not that Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s timid retreat could really be described as a revolution – more likely a desperate attempt to bring false hope to furious voters, many of whom are counting the minutes until they can throw his incompetent administration out of office.

“Listen to me!”: A Climate Study into Angry Young People

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

“… when I discuss climate change with people who are older than me, the general response is to … feel angry and betrayed by their lack of involvement, considering that they contributed to the world we now live in.’ …”

‘Listen to me!’: Young people’s experiences of talking about emotional impacts of climate change

Charlotte A. Jones

Chloe Lucas University of Tasmania School of Geography, Planning, and Spatial Sciences, Australia

Received 23 December 2022, Revised 21 July 2023, Accepted 30 August 2023, Available online 16 September 2023, Version of Record 16 September 2023.


  • •Results of a large national Australian survey of young people (15–19 years)
  • •High concern, worry, powerlessness, and frustration about climate change.
  • •Respondents most commonly talked to friends about climate change feelings.
  • •Feeling listened to predicted talking about climate change feelings.
  • •Differences in emotions when talking to different generations were evident.
  • •Young people need respect, opportunities to act, and shared understanding.


The emotional significance of climate change for young people is becoming recognised. However, their experiences of talking about these feelings are not well understood, despite being acknowledged as an important avenue for support and social change. This article reports on a survey of 1,943 young people aged 15–19 years living in Australia. The survey examined their level of concern about climate change, the feelings they associate with climate change, whom they talk to about these feelings, under what conditions, and with what effects. Respondents reported a high level of concern about climate change, most associated with feelings of worry, powerlessness, and frustration. Friends were most trusted to share these feelings with, followed by parents/guardians and then teachers. The most important predictor of young people talking about their climate feelings was whether they felt listened to. Respondents were more likely to feel comfortable having climate conversations with younger or same-aged people and associated these conversations with hope. In contrast, climate conversations with older people were most often associated with betrayal, uncertainty, and worry. Through open-ended responses, the young people surveyed called for further respect and consideration of their views, opportunities to drive action and lead climate conversations, and a need for shared understanding of the issues at stake. Our findings highlight opportunities for those who care about and interact with young people to help them come to terms with the challenges of living in a changing climate through listening and creating safe spaces for what can be difficult discussions.

When talking with older people about climate change, nearly half of respondents expressed they felt betrayed (49.4%). This was supported in respondents’ open-ended reflections with one stating ‘when I discuss climate change with people who are older than me, the general response is to nod and smile and then change the subject which makes me feel angry and betrayed by their lack of involvement, considering that they contributed to the world we now live in.’ 38.5% of respondents said that when they talked to people older than them they felt uncertain, and 32.4% said they felt worried. This uncertainty and worry could be directed towards climate change, or about the direction and form of the conversation. As one participant described, ‘talking with people older than myself can be a mixed bag, it’s unsettling.’ Only a small percentage of respondents felt encouraged (15.3%), comfortable (13.5%), hopeful (11.9%) and safe (6.1%) when talking with older people. For those who did experience these feelings, open-ended responses indicated this was related to being supported and learning from older people: ‘I feel when talking about climate change to older people, I become more informed of the situation.’.

One key avenue through which the findings of this study could be enacted is within education structures, offering opportunities for changing intergenerational relationships through student–teacher interactions. While less than half of the respondents of this study shared their feelings about climate change with their teachers, it was clear from our findings that participants who felt regularly listened to by their teachers were more likely to talk to them about their emotions. Further, high perceived teacher concern about climate change was also a significant factor in increasing the likelihood of these conversations. …

Studies have demonstrated how cultures of silence and silencing work to produce and cultivate maladaptive behaviours and denial (Verlie, 2022Norgaard, 2011). Conversely, to offer young people the opportunity to talk about climate change in open, non-judgemental conversation, and most importantly to listen, rather than seek to reframe their perspective, is to offer them power to adapt and respond to the crisis they face. …

…Read more: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378023001103?via%3Dihub

To her credit, the author admitted that the sample in her study was possibly biased, because “… the survey was based on a non-representative and convenience sample which may have led to a higher proportion of respondents who are concerned about climate change and engaged in climate action.”.

What does the study tell us?

I get a strong impression that young people who participated in the study think talking to older people about climate change is intolerable, if the older people do anything which remotely challenges their climate beliefs. Even nodding, smiling and trying to change the subject is enough to arouse feelings of betrayal. Young climate fanatics demand complete attention, submission and enthusiastic affirmation, otherwise they “feel betrayed”.

Nobody, including the author, asked why older people are frequently so dismissive of climate concerns, why they don’t express concern at the same intensity as young people, and the most absurd precept, the implicit believe that the climate education process is only supposed to go one way, from the younger people to the older.

The author and the participants appear to have completely ignored or discounted the possibility they might learn something new, if they do some listening, instead of insisting on doing all the talking.

One thing is very clear, this intense anger and sense of betrayal seems about as far as you can get from mutual tolerance and respect for others, which underpins Western democracy and civil society.

We all have fun laughing at the climate snowflakes getting offended at their own shadows, but then I had a disturbing thought.

Was the Chinese Communist Revolution an explosion of mob violence perpetrated by a group of left wing Maoist snowflakes?

Did the students who stormed the schools and universities, dragging teachers into the street and beating them to death, genuinely believe they were delivering righteous justice to traitors? “Traitors” being defined as anyone who gave the slightest hint of less than absolute devotion to the Maoist ideals embraced by the students?

How do we convince today’s young fanatics that they don’t have all the answers, that sometimes they need to listen to the experience and opinions of others? How do we convince them to not blind themselves with irrational feelings of hurt and betrayal, when in the presence of someone who doesn’t completely share all of their beliefs?

How do we shore up the foundations of our freedoms, by ensuring our young people learn tolerance and respect for others? Values which were so universal in our youth, it never occurred to us such values might be lost to future generations?

I think we need answers to these questions, and fast, before something terrible happens.

Climate Empire vs. The Rebellion: The Farce is Strong with These Guys

The Heartland Institute

Last week, Climate Change Roundtable discussed, “The failure of peer review: Climate is Beholden to Bullying and Bad Decisions.” That episode dealt with the bullying of a journal to remove a paper. This week we look at another incident: The use of FOI requests by NASA’s Dr. Gavin Schmidt to look into correspondence between authors, editors, and collaborators for for another paper they don’t like, of which Dr. Willie Soon was the lead author.

Join our host, Anthony Watts, and weekly panelists, Dr. Sterling Burnett and Linnea Lueken, and Dr. Willie Soon as will delve into the fight between the dark Climate Empire and the Climate Rebellion over the right to publish, or perish at the hands of the Climate Empire.

Tune in LIVE for Climate Change Roundtable at Noon CT/1PM ET this Friday to engage in this enlightening discussion. Don’t forget to leave your questions to have them answered live during the show! Tune in to share your thoughts and be a part of this pivotal conversation.