NYT Claim: Obama's catastrophic climate denial

obama head

Bill McKibben, writing for The New York Times has published an attack on President Obama, accusing him of “climate denial”.

According to McKibben;

MIDDLEBURY, Vt. — THE Obama administration’s decision to give Shell Oil the go-ahead to drill in the Arctic shows why we may never win the fight against climate change. Even in this most extreme circumstance, no one seems able to stand up to the power of the fossil fuel industry. No one ever says no.

By “extreme” I don’t just mean that Shell will be drilling for oil in places where there’s no hope of cleaning up the inevitable spills (remember the ineptness of BP in the balmy, accessible Gulf of Mexico, and now transpose it 40 degrees of latitude north, into some of the harshest seas on the planet).

Now, having watched the Arctic melt, does Shell take that experience and conclude that it’s in fact time to invest heavily in solar panels and wind turbines? No. Instead, it applies to be first in line to drill for yet more oil in the Chukchi Sea, between Alaska and Siberia. Wash, rinse, repeat. Talk about salting wounds and adding insult to injury: It’s as if the tobacco companies were applying for permission to put cigarette machines in cancer wards.

And the White House gave Shell the license. In his first term, President Obama mostly ignored climate change, and he ran for re-election barely mentioning the subject until Hurricane Sandy made it unavoidable in the closing days of the campaign.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/13/opinion/obamas-catastrophic-climate-change-denial.html

Is President Obama really a climate “denier”? I believe President Obama is in denial, about evidence which contradicts the narrative he is being fed by alarmists. However, surely by any rational measure, President Obama is the greenest president ever.

The fact that greens can call someone like President Obama a climate “denier” with a straight face, in my opinion once again demonstrates that you cannot appease intolerant extremists. The most fanatical greens, in my opinion, have no intention of accepting any form of industrial activity whatsoever. They will not be satisfied, until they have completely dismantled the modern world, and restored the endless toil, disease and brutal misery of the pre-industrial age.

Advertisements

222 thoughts on “NYT Claim: Obama's catastrophic climate denial

  1. bit of luck Obama will realise he is being hounded and dig in his heels….
    and pigs seen performing air displays over the white house…

    • Given Obama’s famously thin skin, I can only hope that he responds to this criticism by approving even more drilling.

      • I thought that the Shell approval was a response to being snubbed by the Saudi King? But who knows, maybe McKibbles rant will spark the approval of some more permits for gas drilling on federal lands just in time for Kerry to go to Paris just as the next round of carbon based extraction is ramping up in the U.S.

  2. Correction – ” The most fanatical greens, in my opinion, have no intention of accepting any form of industrial activity whatsoever. They will not be satisfied, until they have completely dismantled the modern world, and restored the endless toil, disease and brutal misery of the pre-industrial age. (for everyone but themselves)”
    This is the reason why they are slowly slipping into oblivion, we ignorant masses see the hypocrisy and turn the channel.

    • Yes the key point is “everyone but themselves”.
      There are a few who actually do revert to a very simple level of living, returning to the wilderness. The overwhelming majority would rather sign their souls to the devil than give up their cell phones or any other products made possible as a byproduct of the fossil fuel industry.

      • ‘rather than give up their cellphonbes..’
        Or in the case of Mr Gore and his climate conference globetrotting buddies, their jets.

      • Like their cars fuel, the fuel for the truck that delivery EVERYTHING, including the food in their local super market. Yes, that caving into the Fossil Fuel Industry. Stop the fuel and find yourself out of office.

      • I think you guys think the “greenies” are noble. One, they are nuts. Two, they are backed by billionaires who hope to set up a “carbon market” and make billions more off this mess they call Global Warming, er, Climate Change

    • My answer to the fanatical greens is, if you really believe what you preach, then do us all a favor and go jump off a cliff.

  3. Too funny.
    But I don’t know which is more funny, the idiotic suggestion that Hurricane Sandy was proof of the overwhelming catastrophe of climate change or calling Obama a climate denier supporting a fossil fuel industry so it can continue to power modern civilization.
    McKibben is like a badly written character in a disaster novel, you can’t make people like him up.

    • I’m sure that many of the over-the-top people involved in the psychodramas of the “Greens” justify their behavior by claiming that they’re just “playing a role” in support of a higher goal. They’re not really crazy, oblivious, un-self-aware, hypocritical, catastrophist, innumerate, etc.

    • The funniest part is McKibben’s 350.org is funded by oil to help a oil producer make bigger profits by restricting transport. The biggest way Obama could get even for the slam being so thin skinned is approve the keystone XL and lift ban on exports.

  4. “….Obama sits in the White House,
    Counting out piles of green money;
    Paying his pseudo scientific friends,
    (For real scientists it isn’t so funny).
    Grants and subsidies thrown around,
    A whole industry has been created,
    And it’s all based upon an hypothesis,
    Just a theory that’s been inflated.”
    Read more: http://wp.me/p3KQlH-Co

  5. Now, having watched the Arctic melt, does Shell take that experience and conclude that it’s in fact time to invest heavily in solar panels and wind turbines?

    Back in the 1970s, when OPEC had us seriously worried, several of the big oil companies did invest heavily in the solar voltaic industry. Then the pressure was released and oil started to flow again. As far as I can tell, none of those solar companies still exist.

    • And they also Patented
      Gravity base of offshore production platform with ice-pentrating peripheral nose sections
      US 4422804 A
      Abstract
      Application number US 06/329,372
      Publication date Dec 27, 1983
      Filing date Dec 10, 1981
      And the company I worked for built them –
      Artificial Islands
      by Frank P. Robertson, (Sr. Vice Pres., Morrison Knudsen Constr. Co., Boise, Idaho)
      Civil Engineering—ASCE, Vol. 53, No. 8, August 1983
      Artificial islands constructed from gravel fill have become a preferred approach to drilling for oil in hostile Arctic environments. These man-made islands are being built to serve as both drilling platforms in the search for new oil fields and production platforms once reserves are discovered. At last count, 17 such islands have been built in the Beaufort Sea, off the coast of Alaska, and at least 20 more are in the planning stages.
      Old tech

      • Interesting. Are these islands also the basis of territorial claims, as China is currently doing with its much criticised artificial islands in the China sea?

      • Having now better informed myself I note that China is not basing its territorial claims in the South China sea on the presence of these islands and indeed takes the position that artificial islands cannot be the basis of a territorial claim.

  6. I just had to laugh at the Weepy one. This is simply hilarious. Actually, I think it’s a really good thing that alarmist alarm-ism is becoming so stridently and shriekingly shrill. It’s going to lead more folk to see through it IMHO.
    Keep it up WBM – we need you to keep up these ludicrous claims. You may very well be the skeptics most useful fool.

  7. Ah, the cultists are turning on each other for not being pure enough. In a rational environment this might signal their impending collapse. But if this were a rational environment, the insanity never would have got this far down the road.

    • That’s exactly the observation. Fanatics end up turning on their own and eventually self-destruct. History is filled with precedents. As I said before, the only question left is how many innocent bystanders they will take with them while they march to their inevitable end.
      What a great photograph of our Talk-Show Host in Office, btw.

  8. The only denial…is the liberals denial about their hero talking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time.

  9. Both the author of this post and real believers in Climate change miss the real agenda in the White House. Obama says one thing and does another for a very good reason. It’s the same reason as the Rockerfellas (who also publicly espouse the climate change mantra), that of Global Governance. The global warming campaign is nothing more than a tool to achieve this end. The Global Governance goal is supported by both sides in congress, only the Right has different tools to achieve it. So fight terrorism or fight climate change, either way you vote, the losses to freedom to a band of global elites marches ever onwards as the White House and Congress swap from one bogeyman to another and back again whilst continuing the illusion of choice.

  10. Quote:
    “Now, having watched the Arctic melt, does Shell take that experience and conclude that it’s in fact time to invest heavily in solar panels and wind turbines? No. Instead, it applies to be first in line to drill for yet more oil in the Chukchi Sea, between Alaska and Siberia. Wash, rinse, repeat.”
    Sorry Billy baby, but we don’t use crude oil to generate electricity in this country, except for 1% of it.
    http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3
    • Coal = 39%
    • Natural gas = 27%
    • Nuclear = 19%
    • Hydropower = 6%
    • Other renewables = 7% • Biomass = 1.7%
    • Geothermal = 0.4%
    • Solar = 0.4%
    • Wind = 4.4%
    • Petroleum = 1%
    • Other gases < 1%
    This is as of the end of March this year. You Billy boy are just one of many irrational green eco-religious fanatics who falsely and stupidly make an association between crude oil on one hand and wind and solar energy on the other. Crude oil is used for refinement into air and surface transportation fuels and for refining into plastics, petrochemicals and artificial materials….all of which contribute to the standard of living we enjoy in this country. Investment in wind turbines and solar panels is not going to make any meaningful impact on our demand for and consumption of crude oil and its refined products.
    I suppose I should realize that eco-religious fanatics like you are too busy ranting and raving to take the time to find this out. Silly me for believing you could. Billy boy, you get funnier with each passing day.

    • I haven’t seen the actual numbers lately but it takes one heck of a lot of crude to manufacture, ship, install and maintain wind turbines.

      • No doubt quite true. Which makes his quote above even more ridiculous. Talk about biting the hand that feeds your pet energy source.

      • Which would all be expressed in the price of the windmill, so if there was not a net gain in energy: the windmill could not be profitable and would not be built. The value of the energy produced has to pay for the energy consumed in manufacture. There are subsidies, but costs other than energy (labor for example) would more than offset that.

        • Chris4692

          Which would all be expressed in the price of the windmill, so if there was not a net gain in energy: the windmill could not be profitable and would not be built. The value of the energy produced has to pay for the energy consumed in manufacture. There are subsidies, but costs other than energy (labor for example) would more than offset that.

          ONLY in a for-profit, free-market, unregulated industry free of political bias and hand-holding.
          GE, Siemens, Solyndra, GM and many thousand other Big Companies rely on Big Government for – at a minimum reducing interferences and excessive taxations that will destroy their future, and at a maximum, giving such “Big Government friendly” companies direct subsidies,M heads got called to Washington and put on a show trial for their “sins” against unions – and promptly had toa ccept Big Government millions to save worthless factory jobs that vote democrat. Solyndra never was intended to “make money” by working – only by creating fundraising schemes and short-term tax dodges. The heads bailed out after making THEIR money – the rest paid with their jobs and their investments in a bankruptcy.
          So. Wind turbines are purchased built, and erected to gain very, very short Big Government money for erecting wind turbines and getting the initial tax write-offs and credits. Long term maintenance? Not funded. Long term dismantling and enviro corrections for the power lines and roads and concrete and copper and steel wasted? Not even thought about. Service life of more than 4-5 years? Not sought for – too expensive. Short-term maintenance? Leave it for the dupes (er, innocent) people who re-buy the erected turbines. Ignored by the short-term profiteers.
          So, lifetime energy production? When even the best wind units generate only 17 – 23% of nameplate ratings? Negative.

      • Chris4692
        May 13, 2015 at 8:32 am
        “Which would all be expressed in the price of the windmill, so if there was not a net gain in energy: the windmill could not be profitable and would not be built.”
        Yes. If there were no subsidies it would not be built.
        The first 1 MW wind turbine was built in 1945 somewhere in New England, in Vermont or so. After storm damage it was removed. Because there were no subsidies.
        An interesting side effect of the subsidies in the form of guaranteed prices for electricity fed into the grid is that it makes storing energy i.e. in batteries comparatively LESS profitable, as e.g. the German feed in law rewards solar and wind independent of the current supply situation.

    • A few formatting issues fixed due to the limitations on the WUWT blog platform.
      Major energy sources and percent share of total U.S. electricity generation in 2014:
      * Coal = 39%
      * Natural gas = 27%
      * Nuclear = 19%
      * Hydro-power = 6%
      * Other renewables = 7%
      *Biomass = 1.7%
      *Geothermal = 0.4%
      *Solar = 0.4%
      *Wind = 4.4%
      *Petroleum = 1%
      Other gases < 1%

      • oops leading spaces were omitted by WordPress template, replaced here by ~ symbol
        What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source?
        In 2014, the United States generated about 4,093 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity.1 About 67% of the electricity generated was from fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and petroleum).
        Major energy sources and percent share of total U.S. electricity generation in 2014:
        *Coal = 39%
        *Natural gas = 27%
        *Nuclear = 19%
        *Hydropower = 6%
        *Other renewables = 7%
        ~Biomass = 1.7%
        ~Geothermal = 0.4%
        ~Solar = 0.4%
        ~Wind = 4.4%
        *Petroleum = 1%
        *Other gases < 1%

    • Electric cars charged with clean energy, new, non-polluting, easily recyclable materials (plastic is an abomination). Simple. Sensible people are retraining in these cleaner technologies. Whilst were grateful for the oil, we all have to accept change is now inevitable.
      [“Sensible people”, you mean like Anthony Watts? – he has an electric car see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/23/electric-cars-its-all-about-the-battery/ Please post a picture of yours. – mod]

      • mike hamblet
        You say

        Whilst were grateful for the oil, we all have to accept change is now inevitable.

        If so, then the change will be an acceleration to the continuing increase to coal usage.
        Coal provides around 30.1% of global primary energy needs, generates over 40% of the world’s electricity and is used in the production of 70% of the world’s steel.
        See here.
        Richard

      • Mike H: Are you suggesting that all motor vehicles on the road today can be replaced with electric vehicles that will be one day recharged solely with wind and solar energy? You’re kidding, right?
        The solar panel was invented back in 1954 Mike. So it’s been around for 6 decades now. Yet, as of March of this year, solar panels are only providing 0.4% of our electricity needs. Any energy source which cannot break into the energy market big time after 6 decades probably never will.
        Wind turbines have been around for quite a while now too, and they still are at only 4.4% if you don’t mind them being avian cuisinarts. I do. Wind turbine operators should be fined for the birds they kill the same as the fossil fuels industry is. Double standards suck.
        Keep dreaming your eco-dreams Mike. That is all they will ever be.

      • People using Electric cars is up to them. There are many circumstances where an EV would be an asset to a consumer. However, there are also just as many circumstances where an EV would not be of service to a consumer.
        EVs cannot be made by “sensible” materials in an eco-friendly way. The batteries are toxic and certain batteries can lead to fires. The safety standards in place for road vehicles means that you use either special plastics or metals, both of which are equally unfriendly to someone who thinks that CO2 is pollution. The few body materials that “come from nature” are still plastics, they are just less resilient and need a lot of additional CO2 to create than the oil-based or even the synthetic plastics.
        Additionally, there is no real re-training for these technologies as everything that goes into an EV has been around for over a century. Even a gas-powered engine has an electric motor (used to generated electricity from mechanical action). Even the technologies like PV don’t come anywhere near “new” nor do their installations.
        There is no environmental reason to use an EV. There is only a circumstantial reason to use an EV. If it works for you, great. If not, great.

      • ‘ non-polluting,’
        go on make use laugh tell us what part of electric cars are ‘non-polluting to help you out, you can forget any aluminium involved and the batters their manufacturing is ‘very polluting ‘

      • Re solar and wind power, a few random thoughts:
        Every megawatt of these intermittent sources must be backed up by a reliable source, or there will be a risk of destabilizing the grid or, worse yet, blackouts.
        Consider what occurred in NYC or LA when a blackout occurred. And project that onto the whole country, on a regular or even occasional basis.
        No, the grid must be nearly foolproof and able to supply any demand no matter what.
        And there are few choices for reliable and ready-to-turn-on-at-a-moments-notice power sources.
        Because of the economics and the various drawbacks, it seems unlikely that wind and solar will be able to provide more than a small fraction of the US needs anytime soon. And coal plants are being regulated out of business. The prospect of insufficient supply looms.
        We need nuclear, but no one is talking about that. It may be the only way to make wind and solar feasible without very high cost back-up gas turbines being always on standby.
        Germany is a case study of how hard it will be to “go green” re electricity generation.
        As for electric cars, I love the idea, and plan to buy a Tesla someday.
        But, it would not take a very large number of people buying electric cars before they would overtax the grid capacity we have right now.
        Imagine 25,000,000 people getting home and plugging in their car at 5:00 PM everyday.
        And rooftop solar has a number of drawbacks…when a few people have them, it is a manageable issue for the power companies to have to run meters backwards.
        But as the number of such installations grows, it will lead to an untenable situation, as people with rooftop installations get to be hooked to the grid for when they need it, sell their extra capacity to offset their bill from when the sun is not shining, and thus basically get a free (or at least a low cost) ride regarding the cost of operating and maintaining the power generation, transmission, and distribution infrastructure.
        I am looking to get a rooftop (or perhaps rack mounted in my yard) solar panel installation, but facts are facts. It is not a simple matter.

      • There is only one power source that can be turned on at a moments notice and that is hydro.
        Even though it is possible to turn on hydro rapidly, from a legal and regulatory standpoint, it is still impossible to do so. This is because the areas below the dams are often used for recreational purposes. The managers have to start sounding sirens anywhere from a half hour to an hour before they can begin flowing water through the generators.
        From a practical standpoint, there are no sources of power that can be turned on at a moments notice.

      • Mark, good point, and poor choice of words on my part.
        On standby means different things in different situations.
        The power companies must constantly calculate expected demand, and adjust generating capacity according to the limitations of the various means of generation. Excess power must often be sold at a loss, and deficits must be made up by purchasing power…again, at a loss (funny how that is…)
        As you are no doubt aware, all electricity is generated at pretty much the same moment it is required and used, and even coal plants take a while to increase output. I believe it can be up to a day for older plants.
        But gas turbines can be brought online in a matter of minutes. There are plants that are used only for peak loads, called, appropriately, peaker plants.

      • Reply to DD Moore at 9:59 am. This may be in the wrong place as my stupid computer did something … or I did …
        Yes indeed. I guess you had to be there. I did work in Inuvik, Fort MacPherson, Tuktoyuktuk and Igloolik back in those days in the late 70’s and early 80’s. Lots of oil co employees and geologists around. Maybe Weepy Bill is younger than he looks and doesn’t remember all the governement discussions on nationalizing energy companies. (Oh wait – the Government of Canada did – Petro-Fina became Petro-Canada. I still won’t buy fuel from them.)

      • Electric Vehicles. They have their place and have been used for over 100 years. Specialty mine cars; fork lifts, golf carts, trains, small delivery vans in Europe in places like Zermatt Switzerland. An electrical vehicle held the vehicular land speed record until around 1900. The first known electric [Railway] car was built in 1837 by chemist Robert Davidson of Aberdeen. (Wiki) The absolutely humungous Bucket Wheel Excavators and shovels in the coal industry are electric powered, dragging a huge electrical umbilical cord behind them. The biggest excavator in the world is electric powered:
        http://www.vincelewis.net/diggers2.html
        http://cleantechnica.com/2009/03/04/dirtytechnica-the-most-destructive-machine-on-the-planet/
        Oh – and CHINA builds all kinds of electric excavators:
        http://www.alibaba.com/showroom/electric-hydraulic-excavator.html
        Remember the Lunar Rover and the Mars Rover. There are lots and lots of applications.
        Trouble is, fossil fuels are still the least expensive alternative for building an automobile and with all the infrastructure to support them.
        That may change. Many stores have preferred parking for electric or hybrid vehicles (marketing) and some even have free plug ins for EV’s.
        I am sure the list of EV applications is long and varied. However, it will be a long time before an EV replaces my diesel tractor …

    • The one percent of electricity that is generated from oil is mostly from residual fuel oil that has limited uses. Better to burn it to make electricity then to dump it in a pit.

  11. Can’t wait until “Weepy” Bill is forced to change the name of his useless organization to ‘450.org’.
    Keep crying buddybecause no one is actually listening.

    • Hmm – someone owns 450.org
      I wonder who?
      I was unable to do a whois because the parking page has a redirect loop.

  12. I would love to hear Mr. McKibben explain to us how exactly he thinks the climate is changing.

  13. CD153 – That is a brilliant point. I’m just a normal guy who reads this blogsite every day to try to understand what’s real, and your comment is the first time I recall reading about the difference of purpose between fossil fuels and wind/solar. People (like the NYT author, and others) throw around casual statements all the time about reducing dependency on fossil fuels by increasing wind/solar sources … and until now it never registered in my brain that one does not supplant the other; at least not currently. Thanks for that bit of knowledge!

      • Now I Get It !
        Actually, the use of wind-powered subsidy farms increases fossil fuel usage. See this.
        Richard

  14. “They will not be satisfied, until they have completely dismantled the modern world, and restored the endless toil, disease and brutal misery of the pre-industrial age.”
    Every once in a while, someone with talent and insight finds the words the rest of us are fumbling for. Many thanks for a very fins post.

  15. To me, it’s not opposition to ‘any industrial activity whatsoever,’ or a desire to dismantle the modern world in the name of toil, disease, and misery. The thought, instead, is that we should increasingly be able to replace older technology with newer. By the time, for instance, that Shell would be pumping Chukchi oil (they estimate two decades) it seems entirely possible that we will have moved on to electric vehicles running off renewable power. That’s where the technological trends seem to be pointing: the rapid fall in the price of solar panels, the rapid fall in the price of battery storage, and so on.
    If one’s not worried about climate change, then it doesn’t matter how long this transition takes; if one is worried about it (as obviously I am) then it is unhappy to watch decisions that lock us into these more antiquated technologies for longer time frames.
    As for being a fuckwit, a tool, a cultist, a fanatic, and so on–well, I guess. But not anti-technological. I’ve become steadily more optimistic about the abilities of the engineers in recent years; they’re coming up with some amazing stuff.

      • Anytime, Bill. I know you’ve seen this question. If you are as worried about climate change as you say you are, it should be an easy question to answer.

    • It’s highly unlikely that we will ever move electric cars to renewable sources, but if we do, then the fields can be shut down.

    • If you are serious about fighting climate change due to man-made CO2, forget solar and wind. Go nuclear, or go home. Nuclear is incredibly low carbon, especially if you power the enrichment process with low-carbon sources like France does. Actually operating a nuclear plant generates carbon mostly from the vehicles on site and the emergency diesel generators.

      • The fact that the warmunists, with the exception of James Hansen, do not promote nuclear power, shows that they are not at all worried about CO2-caused Global Warming. Because, if that were their real concern, they would prefer the lesser risk of a nuke blowing up here and there. Czernobyl shows that it only renders about 600 square km off limits, a small price to pay if one saves the entire planet. And the 600 km^2 exclusion zone could even be called a sort of natural reserve.

      • That 600km^2 exclusion zone isn’t even a total exclusion zone. People are allowed in there, they just can’t stay for long periods.
        They even permit hunting, so long as each animal is tested for radiation before it is eaten.

    • Bill, it appears that BEV’s consume about 0.3 kWhrs per mile. And the US autos drives about 3 trillion miles per year. Assuming my math is correct, if 10% of those miles went to BEV, we’d need about 90,000,000,000 KWhrs of renewable energy.

      • “we’d need about 90,000,000,000 KWhrs of renewable energy”
        Using the production data from my area (~1,500 kWhrs / kWp) we’d have to install about 60,000,000 nameplate kiloWatts. About 187,500,000 panels at 320W per. Talk about a quantity discounts!

    • Batteries falling in price?
      Perhaps you are talking about the recently announced, $15K battery pack, that you would need at least 10 of to power a house overnight?
      Of course if we were to actually build enough batteries to put one in every household, we would have to increase the production of lithium by a factor of at least 100. What do you think that is going to do to the price of lithium?
      And of course let’s not forget having to replace those batteries every 5 to 10 years.
      You aren’t optimistic, you are delusional.

      • I’d imagine that your insurance company would require that any house with these batteries be properly labeled so that firemen would know to let your house burn instead of trying to save it. You can just imagine what would happen if water from the firemen’s houses were to come in contact with the lithium in those batteries.

    • I’ve become steadily more optimistic about the abilities of the engineers in recent years; they’re coming up with some amazing stuff.

      Yeah, how about those GMOs and forth generation nuclear designs? Oh wait. Maybe they’re too expensive.

    • Bill McKibben
      So, why do you demand arbitrary changes and deliberate energy strategies whose only result is the death of millions of innocents, and the continued poverty of billions?
      Why do you kill with your policies and lies? For Big Government, Big Finance, Big Universities and Big Institutions? For 30 trillion a year in Enron-invented carbon credits? For 1.3 trillion a year in US taxes for your democrat sponsors? For 92 billion in three years of “climate research”?
      Not solely, I agree, for your own salary and travel and publicity because your goals and the effort you spend on your “religion” requires more than just salaries and benefits, but those too benefit only you.

      • richardscourtney says: May 13, 2015 at 10:32 am
        I hope this reply helps your understanding.
        ————————-
        Sadly, Richard, I doubt it will. When one (such as our weepy friend) is ruled by emotions, facts and logic fall on deaf ears.

    • Bill McKibben (@billmckibben)
      You say

      The thought, instead, is that we should increasingly be able to replace older technology with newer. By the time, for instance, that Shell would be pumping Chukchi oil (they estimate two decades) it seems entirely possible that we will have moved on to electric vehicles running off renewable power.

      Say what!?
      You are suggesting replacing newer technology with older.
      You are arguing for a return to use of solar power, wind power and muscle power (from animals and slaves). The industrial revolution occurred when solar power, wind power and muscle power were displaced because the greater energy intensity in fossil fuels became available by use of the steam engine.
      Also, electric vehicles predate invention of internal combustion engines.
      It is NOT “entirely possible that we will have moved on to electric vehicles running off renewable power” because if that were viable and economic it would have happened.
      And it is physically impossible for ‘renewable power’ to provide the energy requirements of an industrialised society.
      In summation, if you had given the matter some thought then you would have known reality refutes your assertions.
      Richard

      • What a strange counter argument. “It is NOT “entirely possible that we will have moved on to electric vehicles running off renewable power” because if that were viable and economic it would have happened.”
        So in essence you are ignoring the advances in wind, solar and batteries just because older versions of all 3 existed prior to the widespread deployment of fossil fuel derived electricity and gas.

      • “because older versions of all 3 existed prior to the widespread deployment of fossil fuel derived electricity and gas.”
        Chris, what’s the motive to move to renewables for transporation? Cost, convenience, climate change, status, other?

      • Chris
        You make either an ignorant or a stupid reply to me when you write

        What a strange counter argument. “It is NOT “entirely possible that we will have moved on to electric vehicles running off renewable power” because if that were viable and economic it would have happened.”
        So in essence you are ignoring the advances in wind, solar and batteries just because older versions of all 3 existed prior to the widespread deployment of fossil fuel derived electricity and gas.

        That response ignores my statements in my same post that say

        The industrial revolution occurred when solar power, wind power and muscle power were displaced because the greater energy intensity in fossil fuels became available by use of the steam engine.

        and

        it is physically impossible for ‘renewable power’ to provide the energy requirements of an industrialised society.

        There have been longer opportunities for advances in wind, solar and batteries than for advances in fossil fuel equipment. But the advances in wind and solar are constrained by the limited availability of diffuse wind and solar energies. And that is why “electric vehicles running off renewable power” has not happened and cannot happen economically: it would require magic for it to happen.
        Richard

      • The idea that if electric vehicles running off renewable power were viable they “would have happened” already seems odd to me. Sort of like arguing that in 1900 powered flight was an impossibility because otherwise it “would have happened already.” We get better at building things, and their price comes down, and then things shift–the rapid fall in the price of solar panels seems an important, non-partisan, reality-based fact that is bound to have implications in the real world. Because things were a certain way when you were young doesn’t mean that it will always be so. This seems self-evident to me

        • Bill McKibben

          The idea that if electric vehicles running off renewable power were viable they “would have happened” already seems odd to me. Sort of like arguing that in 1900 powered flight was an impossibility because otherwise it “would have happened already.”

          So, why do you oppose free-market solutions to the electric car problems of batteries, motors, weight, recycling, renewing batteries, the terrible problems YOU are causing in China by pollution and chemical waste and horrible industrial deaths by poisoning the Chinese slaves (er, workers) – all hidden by Oboma’s optimism and false propaganda hyping the future climate dangers from CAGW.
          The only people who can use electric cars are government employees (I dare not call all of them “workers” even) who are on fixed days of predictable traffic patterns and exact known-to-the-minute schedules of absolute certainty. Commercially? Almost none are viable – except for Big Industry favors for Big Government promotions promoting (obviously!) Big Government policies favoring more … more Big Government.
          Let the market provide electric cars with no artificial tax subsidies for the rich to double and triply deduct the Volt. Let Gm (like Solyndra) and the Tesla’s company use their own money – and promoted access to Oboma in fund-raising speeches favoring the companies paying his fund-raisers. The Prius is a good start – stop demanding every body be required to buy it.
          Go clean up China’s polluted lakes and rivers and tanks. Go save Chinese workers from lung disease and cancers and tumors and acid burns. Go save Chinese miners and truckers and farmers.
          But first, stop killing people with artificially high energy prices so YOU can feel better.

      • Bill McKibben (@billmckibben)
        Thankyou for your reply to my comment, but I admit that I am disappointed that it provides a ‘red herring’. You say

        The idea that if electric vehicles running off renewable power were viable they “would have happened” already seems odd to me. Sort of like arguing that in 1900 powered flight was an impossibility because otherwise it “would have happened already.” We get better at building things, and their price comes down, and then things shift–the rapid fall in the price of solar panels seems an important, non-partisan, reality-based fact that is bound to have implications in the real world. Because things were a certain way when you were young doesn’t mean that it will always be so. This seems self-evident to me

        Your analogy with powered flight is plain wrong: in 1900 powered flight did not exist but wind power has been used for centuries.
        Wind energy powered most of the world’s shipping for thousands of years. Vertical-axis windmills to mill corn were first developed by the Persians around 1500 BC, and they were still in use in the 1970’s in the Zahedan region. Primitive wind turbines powered pumps (notably in the Netherlands and England) and mills throughout Europe for centuries. The horizontal-axis wind turbine was invented in Egypt and Greece around 300 BC. During World War I, some American farmers rigged wind turbines to each generate 1 kW of DC current.
        There is nothing new about wind turbine technology although materials developments continue as they do with any technology.
        As I said in my reply to Chris who also responded to my comment

        There have been longer opportunities for advances in wind, solar and batteries than for advances in fossil fuel equipment. But the advances in wind and solar are constrained by the limited availability of diffuse wind and solar energies. And that is why “electric vehicles running off renewable power” has not happened and cannot happen economically: it would require magic for it to happen.

        Today, if wind power were economically competitive with fossil fuels, then oil tankers would be sailing ships. Japan has conducted several studies to ascertain if use of automated sails could assist modern shipping. These studies have demonstrated that available wind power is so small a contribution to the powering of a ship that the systems to obtain it cannot recover their capital costs.
        Hydropower was not displaced by fossil fuels when the steam engine enabled the use of the great energy intensity of fossil fuels, but wind and solar were.
        The reason is the diffuse nature of wind and solar energies.
        All energy is free: it was created at the Big Bang. But collecting energy and concentrating it to do useful work is expensive in time, money and effort.
        Fortunately, nature has concentrated energy for us. The concentrations from ancient stars is in the form of radioative materials, and solar energy collected by photosynthesis over geological ages is available as fossil fuels. Hydropower provides solar energy collected and concentrated by evapouration of water over large areas.
        There is no possibility of wind and solar power providing sufficient economical energy to operate an industrialised society whatever foreseeable technology is developed. That would require magic to concentrate the diffuse energy.
        In other words, what you say seems “self evident” to you is impossible according to the laws of physics. And your only argument is an inappropriate analogy.
        I hope this reply helps your understanding.
        Richard

      • Bill; ” We get better at building things, and their price comes down, and then things shift–the rapid fall in the price of solar panels seems an important, non-partisan, reality-based fact that is bound to have implications in the real world.”
        Okay, then what really stands in the way of PV powered BEV adoption today? The two big ones I see are cost, and potentially a loss of convenience (range, charge time). I agree that a BEV might be a good fit for some commuters, myself included, but paying more to get less isn’t for me. There has to be a motive to move adoption forward, and I don’t feel AGW is it. What is the goal?
        Curious, do you presently own any renewables, or drive a BEV?
        [Please make sure all of your readers know what a BEV actually is. .mod]

      • Chris, regardless of how long these technologies have been available, they still require massive subsidies to create even minor market penetration.
        If your “new” technologies are so good, they should be already capturing market share.
        They aren’t. Deal with it.

      • “Bill; ” We get better at building things, and their price comes down, and then things shift–the rapid fall in the price of solar panels seems an important, non-partisan, reality-based fact that is bound to have implications in the real world.””
        Well, there was a big drop in price in 2009, from I think 0.62 EUR/Wp down to about 0.21 EUR/Wp 2 years later but stagnation since then. Looks like prices had to be reduced to respond to less money available after the Lehman crisis, many insolvencies in panel / cell makers being a consequence.
        Historically price has dropped by half every decade, since the 70ies, looks like this exponential continues to hold. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for energy storage. Price for Lithium for instance continues to rise.

      • Good to see you participating here Bill. EV’s may someday be practical for commuting in the city, maybe even soon but I am guessing I won’t be alive to see it.
        But EV’s have been around for a long time and they have not displaced the internal combustion engine.
        In a reply up thread I noted that Electric Vehicles were “replaced” by the internal combustion engine around 1900 when an EV had the land speed record. Just go to Wiki if you like or another site if you don’t; but EV’s have been around for 150 years. If they were better than diesel, diesel electric or gasoline, then they would have replaced fossil fueled vehicles long ago. Even if they were “better”, our infrastructure isn’t in place to charge all those vehicles. A lot easier to just “charge” up your vehicle with high energy liquid fuels. And for those who have Propane of Natural Gas vehicles, you have to plan your trips carefully because again, the infrastructure isn’t there in many places. But I can almost always find diesel even in the most remote places.

      • Here Bill has done a wonderful job of rebranding his NYT essay from “climate change” to “technology”. Thus diverting the discussion.
        We will dump fossil fuels when something better is developed….and solar and wind are clearly not better.

    • I see what you’ve done there (or attempted to do). You threw in a big fat red herring with your illogical “Appeal to Technology”. The point is that we have plenty of oil, gas and coal, but you people don’t like that because of your idiotic stance against fossil fuels. Technology can and will take care of itself. If renewable energy and fossil fuels ever become competitive price-wise, without government meddling, then the technology will adapt to that situation.

      • Ironic that the US has indeed reduced the amount of CO2 being emitted, and did it by technological means, by increasing natural gas production and lowering costs by way of hydraulic fracking and directional/horizontal drilling. Ironic chiefly because the means by which this is being accomplished is being fought tooth and nail by many of the same people who say we must reduce CO2 emissions.
        And as for that time horizon that the author says Shell has in mind, I recall much of the same sort of talk back when oil prices shot up in the middle of the past decade.
        Funny how time flies, and funny how the future always arrives sooner than anyone thought it would, and things change more slowly than anyone was expecting they might.
        In ten years, we will still need oil.
        And hey, if the arctic is a worse place to drill that the Gulf of Mexico, why not petition for opening up exploration there?
        That Macondo well looked to be spewing out an awful lot of oil and gas for a very long time with no let up.
        There are vast amounts of oil to be found, and close to home.
        That BP was incautious seems like a bad reason to leave a valuable resource untapped.
        And, as well, one of the reasons that BP had such a hard time getting in front of containment and cleanup efforts was some ridiculous law regarding which ships were allowed where. There were skimmer vessels that stood at the ready to help, but were not allowed to be used.. And when waivers to these rules were sought, they were denied…by who? Hmmm…..

      • They only reason why the companies were drilling that deep in the Gulf was that the govt had banned drilling closer to shore.
        I’m wondering how much of the CO2 reduction is from all those LED lights. My house is almost completely switched over. I haven’t done any of the lights that only come on a few times a month.

      • Ditto. I have spent thousands on LED bulbs.
        In fact, I have noticed that the skeptics I know, me included, have done as much as they can to reduced their fuel and power usage, while the most ardent warmists I know do nothing…wearing sweaters inside in summer, and shorts in winter, because they always have the AC or the heat absolutely blasting.

      • I have also installed timer switches and motion sensor switches, bought a new high efficiency heat pump, have rooftop solar hot water heater, and am looking to integrate a geothermal source into my home infrastructure.
        When I had a plant nursery, I devised and built a geothermal heating setup, and only had to burn propane during the coldest nights or most sensitive crops.

      • Yup, me too. As old incandescent lights burn out, I replace them with LED’s. Trouble is, only two have burned out in the last 10 years … I have some LED replacements sitting in a box waiting …

      • I have not waited. I have a giant box of all different sorts of incandescent bulbs, slightly used.
        Waiting for a garage sale, or maybe ebay?

    • “Clean and renewable” is neither.
      Batteries & photovoltaics are environmentally toxic. Wind and solar installations destroy or damage millions of acres of natural habitat. They require enormous amounts of energy to fabricate, install and maintain. They might look OK in a desert (they’re not) but how would they look on the US East Coast? Clear-cut mountaintops…
      Also the issues of intermittency and low power density. There are laws of physics at work that all the clever engineering in the world won’t get around.
      If you’re talking about nuclear (I don’t think you are), that’s a different story.

      • The annihilation of large migratory birds is a huge concern as well, and not getting much press.
        Wildlife organizations are looking the other way while large numbers of birds and bats are being killed.
        If wind power ever did become a major source of capacity, it might cause a mass extinction.

    • Bill,
      My big problem with guys like you is how nobly corrupted you are. You know damn well there’s no way to scientifically connect Sandy for e.g. with anthro Co2. And yet you do it anyway, blithely ignoring the IPCC on this matter…the very belly of the green beast.. The trend is clear over the last decade….Fewer hurricanes, fewer tornados, and I might add a sea level rise that is no more rapid than what we’ve been seeing for centuries now. Meanwhile, the pause that’s killing your cause is now 18+ years.
      And yet you remain so very certain. I can’t help wondering, who the real deniers are. If you truly have the courage of your convictions, agree to debate a leading skeptic and show him/her….and the rest of the world,…how idiotic his arguments are. If you think the world as we know it is being damaged, then that’s the only way forward.

      • I wonder not in the slightest who is the real denier. It’s funny how Bill nor any other ecowacko cares to answer the question I posed to him earlier. “How is the climate supposedly changing that has you so concerned?”

    • Two counterpoints Bill, first is that the only reason for the rapid fall in the price of solar panels was due to the collapse of the global market due to oversupply. Second there is no rapid fall in the price of batteries. I have seen just the opposite. I have been looking at storage battery prices for the last year and a half. The batteries that I have been thinking of buying at some point in time have now gone up in price since then. I wish I had the money to but them last year. These are some of the best lead acid batteries, made by a top rated company. The Tesla batteries are being hyped by CNBC and other stock market news sites, just as they also hype any item where the hype can potential drive stock prices in the associated companies. There is no technological breakthrough with the Tesla battery packs. One would be better off purchasing reliable lead acid batteries, which have a much longer life span and can be readily recycled at the end of their life span.

      • Musk batteries use the same materials as billions of other batteries in common use. The ONLY way they can show such a low price that gets the deluded (or deluding) people at places like CNBC excited is by ‘leaving bits out” like inverters and installation costs.
        AND (one presumes) the use of current investors funds by way of subsidising the actual cost.
        As for a GiggaDiggaBigga battery factory in the ‘good ‘ole”, do you think the Chinese and Indians don’t already have such economies of scale?
        Where do you think the current demand is being met for all the portable electronic devices in the world?
        So all you folk who throw EM money can watch it go to the “early-adopters” (camp followers) until of course the unsustainable pyramid comes crashing down…OR EM gets the USA to subsidise it some other way – Taxpayers Funds?
        COME IN Spinner!

      • Musk needs to find use for a heap of Panasonic cells he bought; he sells fewer cars than he expected.

    • The cost of solar panels is only a part of the cost of solar power. Most other costs are fixed. Further, there is a limit to the percent of solar power the grid can take before it destabilizes. And there are hidden costs, like excess wear on base load generators from running at varying speeds; and the need for spinning reserve backup.

      • Exactly Roger. The current cost of solar and wind is subsidized in hidden ways. They get first right to sell whatever they can produce, [whether] the grid needs it then or not.
        They are like a company hiring a group of workers who show up intermittently and arbitrarily, whenever they want, sometimes not at all. Yet the company has to make dead lines, so they hire steady workers who always show up. Now the company is required to stop using the reliable workers every time one of the internment workers show up, but they must keep the reliable workers there, on the clock, just in case the intermittent worker decides to leave.
        The more random intermittent workers show up, the more inefficient the company becomes. What’s more is the government decides it likes the intermittent unreliable workers best, and pays them extra dividends just to create more of them.

    • McKibben says:
      …we should increasingly be able to replace older technology with newer.
      The market does that very well. The government only gets in the way, and creates market distortions.
      And please define “climate change”. Since that can mean anything to anyone, it is meaningless unless defined. The climate always changes. Readers here know that better than you do.
      Global temperatures have fluctuated by only about 0.7ºC over the past century and a half. That is about as flat a temperature record as anything in the geological record. Prior to human emissions, temperatures have varied by TENS of degrees — within a decade or two!
      Please explain how all this works, Bill. Most readers here are well educated and science-oriented.
      This should be good…

    • Them focus on nuclear power Bill.
      Even if CO2 was an issue, we don’t think renewables work, and we’ve got good reasons for that position.
      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/22/shocker-top-google-engineers-say-renewable-energy-simply-wont-work/
      Many of us on WUWT love nuclear power. We’re not concerned about CO2, but we want to see mankind advance, and that means embracing the future.
      James Hansen has said more than once that nuclear power is the only credible means to decarbonise the economy. He might have a different view on how to make it economical, but to a substantial degree we’re on the same page.
      http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/03/world/nuclear-energy-climate-change-scientists-letter/
      Nuclear power is far more expensive than it needs to be. The main cost of a nuclear power station is the safety systems – safety systems which are only necessary, because of the antiquated design of most nuclear power stations. Newer designs, passive safe systems which can never, under any circumstances, suffer a meltdown, are not seeing the light of day, because – well, can you imagine trying to persuade bureaucrats to try something new?
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety
      If you embrace nuclear power, and stop antagonising us with nonsense about societal transformation – lets just say my next post about you will be a lot more positive.

    • Shell look decades ahead as this is an expensive business to be in and will have come to the conclusion that fossil fuels, luckily for us , will still be used.
      Look on the bright side, Bill, they use nuclear powered ice breakers in the Arctic and Russia is building the next generation of super ice breakers.
      Solar power or indeed windpower don’t really cut the mustard when dealing with ice.

    • Bill McKibben:
      If the stated goal here is to achieve your vision for a rapid transition into a renewable energy future, technology advancement is not by itself a practical means to that end.
      Energy conservation measures which significantly reduce total demand for energy across all sectors of the American economy are the key enablers which will allow these new technologies the breathing room they need to grow and develop. The only way your vision can be achieved is to combine ongoing advancements in renewable technology with a coordinated series of regulatory actions which strongly encourage the adoption of strict energy conservation measures by all energy consumers.
      How can this be done?
      The EPA’s 2009 Endangerment Finding for carbon pollution, written under the authority of the Clean Air Act, has been upheld by the US Supreme Court. The Executive Branch and the EPA now have full legal authority to regulate carbon emissions to the maximum extent possible under the Clean Air Act, and to do so without needing another word of new legislation from the US Congress. The 2009 finding enables the EPA and the Executive Branch to pursue exceptionally aggressive action against carbon emissions, if the EPA and the Executive Branch choose to do so.
      President Obama has said that climate change represents a greater threat to America’s national security than does terrorism. He has set a goal of a 28% reduction in America’s GHG emissions by 2025; and a goal of an 80% reduction in GHG emissions by 2050. And yet, the Obama Administration has not gone nearly as far as it legally could go in taking strong regulatory action against carbon emissions.
      The Obama Administration’s existing climate action plan greatly favors natural gas at the expense of alternative energy resources such as wind, solar, and nuclear. Obama’s current plan guarantees that America will eventually be covered with fracking wells from one end of the country to the other.
      For those of the Progressive Left who now have issues with President Obama’s apparent lack of a sincere commitment to fighting climate change, they must acknowledge that the only practical means of reducing America’s carbon emissions to the extent they claim is necessary is to artificially raise the price of all carbon fuels to levels which will make them uncompetitive with alternative energy technologies, doing so through direct and decisive government intervention in the energy marketplace.
      Here in the United States, this can be done without a legislated carbon tax through an integrated combination of two major anti-carbon measures administered by the EPA. The first measure would be to directly constrain emissions of carbon pollution through a specified series of state, regional, and national emission limits. The second measure would be to impose a corresponding framework of stiff carbon pollution fines which is the functional equivalent of a legislated carbon tax.
      As long as the EPA properly follows its existing and well-tested regulatory rule-making processes and procedures; and as long as the anti-carbon regulations are themselves fair and impartial in their application, then this two-prong regulatory attack on carbon emissions can be made bulletproof against the threat of lawsuits.
      What it all boils down to is this …. if America’s progressive left wants to pursue it, there exists today a clear and unambiguous public policy pathway towards decarbonizing America’s economy. Nothing that right-wing politicians could do short of repealing the Clean Air Act could stop the EPA from legally decarbonizing America’s economy, if the EPA were to be given instructions by the Obama Administration to use its full legal authority in pursuit of that goal.
      So the question naturally arises …… why aren’t the most prominent leaders of America’s progressive left — Robert Kennedy Jr., Al Gore, Elizabeth Warren, Edward Markey, Bernie Sanders, Nancy Pelosi, and you yourself, Bill McKibben — why aren’t these people all publicly demanding that President Obama and the EPA use the full legal authority the Executive Branch already has in its hands to largely decarbonize America’s economy?

      • Beta Blocker

        So the question naturally arises …… why aren’t the most prominent leaders of America’s progressive left — Robert Kennedy Jr., Al Gore, Elizabeth Warren, Edward Markey, Bernie Sanders, Nancy Pelosi, and you yourself, Bill McKibben — why aren’t these people all publicly demanding that President Obama and the EPA use the full legal authority the Executive Branch already has in its hands to largely decarbonize America’s economy?

        1. Because doing that will do NOTHING to slow, stop, or counter-act today’s slow 350-year-long natural warming trend.
        2. Because doing that, continuing his already disastrous economic and energy policies will (continue to) destroy the western economies and harm millions of US and western citizens.
        3. Because doing that will kill millions of innocent poor worldwide, and will condem billions more to perpetual poverty and squalor and disease.
        4. But most of all, because doing that will get these politicians voted out of their safe seats and force them to actually earn money by working, instead of pontificating and lying to progressive audiences paying for their lies and influence with such as yourself.

    • There’s an excellent post about the true cost of wind power at Judith Curry’s blog. Quoting Warren Buffett:

      I will do anything that is basically covered by the law to reduce Berkshire’s tax rate. For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.

      Buffett and other big-money investors are being enriched for inefficient energy production at taxpayer expense. Industrial scale wind and solar are percolate-up economics.

    • Bill, do you remember all those futurologists in the mid-20th century who claimed all sorts of marvels to be had by the year 2k? Remember how we all laughed at there ideas in 2001?

  16. “THE Obama administration’s decision to give Shell Oil the go-ahead to drill in the Arctic shows why we may never win the fight against climate change. ” Do we need the oil for the climate ahead ?.
    I believe that we are headed for another global cool phase like we had 1940-1980 and it seems to start in North America first. That last cool cycle started as follows:
    • Arctic starts to cool after 1938
    • PDO pattern starts to decline from mostly warm( positive ) phase pattern after 1941
    • Cooler temperatures start in western North America after about 1935/1940
    • Contiguous US temperatures start to fall after mid 1930’s
    • Canadian National temperatures start to decline after 1940
    • Cooler temperatures in Eastern North America after 1945/ 1950
    • PDO goes mostly negative 1944 but North Pacific warms
    • AO goes mostly negative 1950
    • Europe and Russia starts to cool by 1950 except a brief cold 1939/1942)
    • Asian temperatures start to fall after 1945
    • Mexico temperatures start to decline after 1950
    • AMO goes negative 1965-1995
    • Cold temperatures trough in the 1970,s
    • No net warming( A PAUSE) between 1940’s and 1980’s
    A similar slightly modified cooling pattern has already started in North America and similar signals are again occurring:
    • Temperature departures in the Canadian Arctic have been dropping since 2010
    • 2014/15 winter was below normal for Canadian Arctic Mountain and Fiords
    • PDO went negative 2007 (temporarily positive currently due to an El Nino) but North Pacific warms up
    • Polar vortex was over Canada much of the past 2 winters
    • Canadian and US Annual and winter temperature anomalies have been dropping since 1998 but noticeably after 2005/2006 and even more after 2010 especially in Canada
    • Not only have annual and winter temperatures been getting colder in North America but fall and spring are also getting colder.
    • Record cold winter temperatures and snowfalls were restricted to Eastern North America due to temporary warm water pool at North West Pacific. This could change in the future
    • AMO has been declining since 2002 and is currently negative. A cold AMO brings colder temperatures to US North East and Canadian Atlantic coast provinces
    It is only a matter of time for the PDO to return to negative mode, signalling a pattern of more colder water in the eastern Pacific than in the central or western Pacific. If when AMO and PDO both go negative at the same time or cool mode, we could have similar cool temperatures like we had 1960/1970 and 1910/1920 when both AMO and PDO were negative simultaneously. This past winter was already similar to those past periods. This latest period of cooler weather could last for 2-3 decades. The last “pause” was from 1940 -1980 or a period of about 40 years when there was no net increase in temperatures. As happened in the past, the climate of Europe and Asia lags North America by 5-10 years, so colder weather will soon arrive there as well in my opinion. These events have very little to do with solar minimums or climate change due to man induced global warming. These are natural climate events that occur on our planet from time to time
    Sounds to me that it is Bill McKibben is the one in denial more than the President

  17. What?!? “… we MAY NEVER win the fight against climate change”? Say it ain’t so Bill, pease say it ain’t so!

  18. “The most fanatical greens, in my opinion, have no intention of accepting any form of industrial activity whatsoever. They will not be satisfied, until they have completely dismantled the modern world, and restored the endless toil, disease and brutal misery of the pre-industrial age.”
    Spot on. That’s the reason the real inner circle of global elitists (royal families, financial dynasties and commercial oligarchs) support the Catastrophists: the Climate Change meme feeds right into extreme shortages and high prices for energy and fuels, leading ultimately to global depopulation. That corresponds to a political order of neo-feudalism. That’s the end-game, really.
    In any case, electric power grids can only be powered by fossil fuels and nuclear reactors. Those are the only two choices. Personally I prefer nuclear and would prefer to avoid drilling for hydrocarbons. But if nuclear won’t fly for political reasons, then we’re stuck with coal, oil and natural gas. Simple as that.

    • Nuclear is good for creating electricity, but we still need something to power our cars (electrics won’t make it until the magical battery is invented), heat our homes, etc.

      • Something to power cars? How about Toyota’s new hydrogen fueled, fuel cell powered Marai. Now on sale in Japan, and scheduled for sale in the U.S (that would be southern California) this fall. There are those that sneer at hydrogen for a fuel, but it can be obtained from sea water using electricity, at the same time producing oxygen and sea salt- both also saleable products.

        • old engineer

          There are those that sneer at hydrogen for a fuel, but it can be obtained from sea water using electricity, at the same time producing oxygen and sea salt- both also saleable products.

          Hydrogen requires a tremendous amount of energy to produce … And does little good overall for almost all of the country. A very-expensive, very difficult to implement “solution” to problems in a single, limited area (like the LA basin’s unique wind and air flow patterns and inversions) is NOT the solution to the country’s future energy needs. Hydrogen production is dangerous, and is NOT justified anywhere else but in Big Government funded to promote Big Government solutions by Big Universities.

      • “There are those that sneer at hydrogen for a fuel…”
        Hydrogen is an energy carrier. It’s no more a fuel than a battery is fuel.
        In practical use a fuel cell hybrid is a BEV with a hydrogen powered range extender. And have you looked at round trip conversion efficiency of electrons->hydrogen (five 9’s purity@700 bar)->electrons? You’d be much better off skipping the last 2 conversion steps and driving a BEV.

      • “How about Toyota’s new hydrogen fueled, fuel cell powered Marai.”
        Or Honda’s hydrogen Clarity. With hydrogen tank pressures at 10,000psi (a little less than 3x CNG), it must be a rather delicate fill up at the hydrogen gas refueling station. Can’t wait for the first booms which should quickly end this fad (oh wait, forgot about the government subsidies which may keep the fad around a bit longer).

      • I sneer at hydrogen for a fuel for two reasons. Energy density and the danger of explosion should an accident rupture the high pressure tank storing the hydrogen.

      • I should also mention that there is also the problem of transporting the hydrogen from where it is produced to the various filling stations. You also need to solve the problem of hydrogen embrittling the metal of the pipelines and storage tanks.

      • You also need a spark plug in the ceiling of your garage to regularly burn off the leaking Hydrogen that accumulates there. Or never park in a closed space.
        Maybe better also a spark plug in the ceiling of the car.

      • Not to mention that when hydrogen burns, like during a leak after a car accident, the flame is invisible, or very nearly so.
        Hydrogen is a fools errand. The hydrogen powered car may be the most inefficient and expensive waste of time and money ever devised.

      • Actually, take that back. As wastes of time and money go, hydrogen cars are very efficient at doing so.

  19. the go-ahead to drill in the Arctic shows why we may never win the fight against climate change
    I think the best course of action for the alarmists is to claim the fight against climate change has been won. Just look at the global temperature records. They could portray themselves as heroes that saved the planet.

    • Don’t give their PR mercenary armies any tips. Maybe they haven’t worked this ploy out yet.

    • Maybe that’s the planned announcement after Paris. Then, on to the next fabricated crisis: Ocean Acidification!

    • Ralph, I think they were planning to do just that, only the warming stopped too early and they hadn’t grabbed control over “evil” oil and banned it. They can’t claim a win before human emissions of CO2 is down to zero (which some have recently demanded), and that would involve getting rid of all existing technology and probably most of the population. They don’t even want to claim a win until people have been tamed and are trained to “think right”, accepting the extreme alarmist world-view that humanity is a curse on the planet and that they (the elite) are our rightful masters.

  20. Go ahead and approve the one token pipeline as part of the infighting of perception among token thinkers.

  21. It’s the NYT. Does anyone pay any attention to that irrelevant fish wrap anymore? By the by doesn’t newspaper come from trees? Why is that hypocrite writing an article on slain trees?

    • “Does anyone pay any attention to that irrelevant fish wrap anymore? ”
      Unfortunately, yes.
      There are droves of people who believe it is the gospel truth, that Paul Krugman is the last word in economic thought, and that quoting a NYT article is authoritative.

  22. In this video starting at around 21:00, McKibben has pictures of people in poor countries posing in 350 formations. At 26:30, the zero is composed of women in burkas. For Christopher Hitchens fans, Bill McKibben is the “Mother Teresa” of climate change.

  23. Only when ALL the aluminum smelting has been moved to China and when the very last factory has been closed, only then will the renewable subsidy junkies realize that you can’t make a wind turbine out of hemp.
    (Correction: Nope, on second thoughts, none of them will ever realize anything.)

    • Wait, there are elk in ANWR? That seems a bit too far north for the Wapiti. Caribou and musk ox certainly, but not elk.

    • But then is will not be the tourist trap it has become.
      <How many people visit the Refuge each year?
      Most visitors to the Arctic Refuge plan their trips for the short summer season of June, July and August. Visitor numbers have remained relatively stable over the past 20 years, ranging between approximately 1,200 and 1,500 each year. In 2008, 87 commercially guided hunters, 259 commercially transported but unguided hunters, 446 commercially guided recreational visitors, and 233 commercially transported but unguided recreational visitors spent time in the Refuge, for a total of 1013
      +
      Because of the vast size of the Refuge and the unlimited number of entry points, it is difficult to estimate the number of independent visitors who come into the Refuge using their own planes, boats, or on foot, but we believe this ranges from approximately 200 to 500 individuals each year.
      More made up numbers to keep a job.

  24. Oh dear. Obama is a moderate compared to McKibben. But that’s viewing the world through a macro lense.

  25. Activists are always on the look-out for any hint of apostasy among their own. It is such fun.

  26. I think our education system needs perhaps to add some basic science and physics related to climate change since it has become such a popular topic. Maybe its too late to find any way to educate the green journalists that are already out there spouting ignorant science, but maybe we can help the next generation of journalists.
    Firstly, it seems there is a basic misconception that ice melts in a direct linear relationship with temperature. Ice begins to melt when it reaches its freezing point, about 32 F. The core of an ice mass that is in a 150 F environment and changes temperature from 10 F to 20 F will not melt. The core of an Ice mass that is in a 40 F environment that changes from 30 F to 32 F will start to melt. Ice masses that were well below the freezing point in the ice age may take thousands of years to get to the point where the bulk of the ice has risen up to the point where it will start to melt. And ice does not need temperatures that are increasing to melt, ice can melt in dropping temperatures. To say that an increasing melt rate of the arctic can only happen if the temperature in the arctic is [rising now] is ignorant or perhaps just propaganda intended for the ignorant.

  27. In his first term, President Obama mostly ignored climate change, and he ran for re-election barely mentioning the subject until Hurricane Sandy made it unavoidable in the closing days of the campaign”
    Yeah right, that cat. 1 hurricane in late Oct. 2012, that merged with a cold pattern -NAO/-AO upper level trough/low(similar to what caused this Winters snowstorms in the Northeast) and stalled out over high population areas.
    Unprecedented?
    Hardly………….except for attention and fraudulently being used as evidence of climate change.
    This is actually a pattern we would see more often during global cooling. Take for instance 1954(during global cooling).
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Atlantic_hurricane_season
    In that same general region, there were 3, cat. 3 hurricanes……………..in 3 months.
    The last one, Hazel was very similar to Sandy…………but it was a cat. 3 when making landfall. Since it was a later season hurricane, in October the pattern allowed it to get picked up by and merge with the northern stream which is much less likely to be a factor earlier in the season.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Hazel
    We had also been hearing about climate change causing the drought of 2012 for numerous months from this president as well as others.
    Unprecedented?
    Hardly………….except for attention and fraudulently being used as evidence of climate change.
    Yes, it was the first widespread, severe drought in the key growing region of the US Cornbelt………since 1988. Somehow, the 24 years in between(a record-in the last century- for consecutive years without a drought of this magnitude for that area), the best growing conditions since we’ve been able to monitor them, did not qualify as climate change but the 1 drought did.

      • Rockefeller – who funds 350.org – currently has more acres licensed for drilling in Russia than in USA.

  28. The Cult of CAWG Bill needs to prepare for how to spin a significant drop in planetary temperature and a significant drop in atmospheric CO2.
    I am curious how the media, public, and politicians will react to in your face evidence that the entire IPCC scientific premise was incorrect and that the green scams are scams.
    1) Logic to Support Dropping Planetary Temperature
    The majority of the warming in the last 100 years was in high latitude regions rather than in the tropics. This does not match the signature of CO2 forcing. If CO2 was the cause of the recent warming the majority of the observed warming would have been in the tropics rather than in high latitude regions.
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/TMI-SST-MEI-adj-vs-CMIP5-20N-20S-thru-2015.png
    There are cycles of high latitude warming in the paleo record, all of which correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes. I can provide peer reviewed evidence to support this assertion and can provide evidence to support the assertion that there was been an active temperature gate campaign and an active solar gate campaign to try to hide that fact.
    The high latitude warming in the past and currently was caused by a reduction in low level clouds and a reduction in cirrus clouds (the high wispy clouds). A reduction in low level clouds causes the planet to warm as there is less short wave radiation reflected off into space and a reduction in the high wispy cirrus clouds also causes the planet to warm, as cirrus clouds warm the planet due to the greenhouse effect.
    Now as there has been a sudden interruption to the solar magnetic cycle there is now significant cooling of the planet both poles (total sea ice is on track to set a 30 year record) which explains why Cryosphere today is no longer providing any data on polar sea ice coverage.
    Based on what has happened before when there was an abrupt change to the sun and what is currently happening to the sun there will be roughly a 0.5C cooling over two to four years.
    2) Logic to Support the assertion the drop in planetary temperature is going to be immediately followed by a drop in atmospheric CO2.
    Salby calculated using two independent calculation methods that no more than 33% of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 is due to anthropogenic emissions. The remaining increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to natural sources. Salby also found that the increase in atmosphere CO2 tracks the integral of the temperature anomaly. There if the temperature anomalies becomes negative and stays negative atmospheric CO2 will drop.
    The following is additional analysis from other scientists that supports Salby’s assertion.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/12/22-very-inconvenient-climate-truths/

    Truth n°3 The amount of CO2 in the air from anthropic emissions is today no more than 6% of the total CO2 in the air (as shown by the isotopic ratios 13C/12C) instead of the 25% to 30% said by IPCC.
    There is no need to fetch glimpses of a distant past from the Vostok ice core. Today’s observations are unambiguous!
    The delta13C is a linear function of the ratio of the number of atoms 13C to 12C; the delta13C of a mixture is the quantity-weighted average of the delta13C of the components of the mixture. The delta13C of the anthropic emissions has been changing with the proportion of coal, oil and natural gas in the energy mix and went from -26 pm (pm= per mil) for the mostly coal and oil economies of the 1950s to -29.5 pm near year 2000 and back to -28.5 pm with the revival of the coal since 2003-2005.
    6% (-28.5 pm ) +94% (-7 pm) = (-8.3 pm) which is the observed value (figure 3-A)
    The 6% are: (lifetime 5 years) x (yearly anthropic emissions 10 Gt-C) /(total CO2 in the air of 850 Gt-C)
    Let’s now take a closer look at the CO2 content of the air on figure 1-A: the slope d[CO2]/dt is roughly constant; this hints to a relation like:
    Slope of the CO2 content of the air = d (CO2)/ dt = k (T(t)- T0) where t is the time.
    Such a relation has been proved by several authors (Beenstock & Reingewertz, Salby, Park[12]) using quite different methods; notice n°17 will come back to this most important topic. The Henry law of degassing is well known to amateurs of sparkling drinks which are tastier when kept cool. The CO2 content of the air is a consequence and a follow-up of the temperatures.

  29. “Vorhees, can you tell what metal that is ?”
    “I’ll need some tools”.
    “Barnes, bring some tools”.

  30. A one world government and as many dead poor people as possible is the UN goal.
    Bill must believe that he and his family will be taken care of when they finally destroy capitalism.

  31. Hi guys… hey I know this is off topic but just looking for information to disprove a warmist. I tried talking to him but I ended up just being called a conspiracy nut. He atleast agreed to look at three areas provided I give him the evidence for my anti global warming stance. So if you could give me the best articles on this site for these three issues it would go a long way to proving we are the actual rational people in this debate. Thanks.
    1st: That global temperatures have been flat or slightly declining since the late 90s. He refuses to believe this is true.
    2nd: That the so called 97% figure is actually not accurate and includes a lot of non scientists and hence science doesn’t exist on consensus but actual evidence.
    3rd: He believes that the warming models have been accurate, I informed him that they haven’t and at best have been accurate at extreme low range estimates. He doesn’t believe me.
    Sorry to ask for this information upfront but he is a graduate scientist, I am not, and is asking me to prove my points quickly and so I am asking for your help. Thanks

    • Actually, it should be he that is proving his point, so when it’s his turn to go, ask him for any and all real scientific evidence that shows any measurable change in ANY global climate parameter that can be definitively shown to have been caused by CO2 levels going from 280 ppm to 400 ppm.
      His answer is right here:
      ermmmm ?
      ooooh err ?
      well
      ermmmm?
      Arrhenius
      Venus, gotcha
      I’m not doing your homework for you.
      Are you a Republican?
      A sentence with 97% in it ….
      Useless link to Skumbagscience.com
      … and so on and so forth
      Oooops, almost forgot:
      Bill McKibben says so, and Bill Nye does too.

    • @ ModernExchange
      “That global temperatures have been flat…He refuses to believe this is true.”
      Then point out the multitude of peer reviewed and published papers on the reasons for the Pause, are they all wrong? But beware, ALL have to pay homage to AGW in the abstract.
      “That the so called 97% figure is actually not accurate”
      As near as I can tell, there are 4 or 5 different “studies” or surveys that show the ole’ 97%er meme.
      My fav is to point out the Doran & Zimmerman. In a nutshell, they asked ~10,000 Earth scientists, they weeded that down to 70 or so climate scientists, and 97% of those thought that human activity was a significant factor. Not much to hang your hat on in my mind.
      “He believes that the warming models have been accurate”
      Then why are there so many of them? Why didn’t they predict the Pause?
      Or, if you’re feeling mean, you can use the skeptical words of Ms. Naomi Oreskes.
      From her peer reviewed and published paper titled “Verification, Validation, and Confirmation of Numerical Models in the Earth Sciences” The abstract starts with; “Verification and validation of numerical models of natural systems is impossible….” Is she wrong?
      “but he is a graduate scientist”
      meh, young? It’s either going to get hotter or colder, state your case and wait it out.

    • I worked up a little review of #2 – the 97% – as foillows.
      As Legates et al., 2013 pointed out, Cook defined the consensus as “most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic.” Cook then relied on three different levels of “endorsement” of that consensus and excluded 67% of the abstracts reviewed because they neither endorsed nor rejected the consensus.
      Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009
      An invitation to participate in the survey was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists. The database was built from Keane and Martinez [2007], which lists all geosciences faculty at reporting academic institutions, along with researchers at state geologic surveys associated with local Universities, and researchers at U.S. federal research facilities (e.g., U.S. Geological Survey, NASA, and NOAA (U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) facilities; U.S. Department of Energy national laboratories; (and so forth).
      This brief report addresses the two primary questions of the survey

      1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
      2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

      With 3146 individuals completing.
      In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes
      to question 2.

      the AMS survey Stenhouse et al., 2014.
      In this survey, global warming was defined as “the premise that the world’s average temperature has been increasing over the past 150 years, may be increasing more in the future, and that the world’s climate may change as a result.” Questions –

      Regardless of the cause, do you think that global warming is happening?
      2a./2b How sure are you that global warming (a. is /b. is not) happening?
      How sure are you? –Extremely –Very sure –Somewhat sure –Not at all sure -Don’t know –Not at all sure –Somewhat not sure – Very not sure – Extremely not sure

      So answering the questions –
      1) most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic?
      2) When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
      3) Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
      4) Regardless of the cause, do you think that global warming is happening?
      5) How sure are you that global warming (a. is /b. is not) happening?
      Answeres and qustions use generalized words of most, think, significant, contriubuting and no values or significance is asked for. No where is proof or dates or amounts or data of +/- estimates required and did you see CO2 anywhere?
      Do these questions really provide the answer that man-made, catastrophizing, CO2 control knob, ever increasing (global warming / climate change / disruption / weirding ) [pick 1 or more] which can only be prevented by higher taxes, more regulations and a loss of personal freedom will keep us all from floating down the River Styx in a handbasket?

    • ModernExchange,
      Unfortunately, you are likely to find that, in spite of his request, he will be inordinately and stubbornly immune to facts.
      Anyone who is a scientist and believes the things you just said has no ability to discern fact fro fancy.

  32. Obama has come a long way from his energy policy speech Tuesday Jun. 25 2013 at Georgetown University when he said he lacked “patience for anyone who denies that this problem is real.”
    “We don’t have time for a meeting of the flat-Earth society,” Obama said. “Sticking your head in the sand might make you feel safer, but it’s not going to protect you from the coming storm.”
    Obama mentioned more than 20 times “Carbon pollution”. In his weekly radio address the following Saturday he mentioned it again, without specifying what he means by “carbon pollution”. He also likened it to Mercury and Arsenic pollution.
    The Flat Earth Society: Still going strong.
    Obama the spokesman, so what can go wrong?
    All his “Carbon pollution”
    is a Marxist collusion.
    It’s food for the hungry, so let’s get along.
    http://lenbilen.com/2013/08/05/obama-the-real-flat-earth-society-spokesman/

  33. This has nothing to do with environmentalism or global warming or anything of the like. President Obama is a politician like all the other politicians. Politicians will be interested in environmentalism or global warming or sea level rise or sea level fall or the ozone layer as long as there is an opportunity and the political justification for more state regulation, more state regulators and more state control of the economy. As long as President Obama or any other politician or bureaucrat has the near panicked backing of a bunch of soccer moms and the lame stream media can use whatever emergency, contrived or not, they’ll be all in. If nobody cares they won’t care.

  34. Even in this most extreme circumstance, no one seems able to stand up to the power of the fossil fuel industry. No one ever says no.

    And where does the fossil fuel industry’s ‘power’ come from?
    Demand for fossil fuels.
    And why is there demand for fossil fuels?
    Because of its unparalleled utility.
    Does anyone believe that the hothouse tomatoes staffing the NYT would ever do without the luxuries provided by fossil fuels? No one ever says no.

    • My son who lives in London thinks only electric vehicles in the City is a good thing. I say but all the industrial garbage is shifted somewhere else unseen. ” Yes, that is good “.

      • “thinks only electric vehicles in the City is a good thing”
        only EV? A mix certainly could be a good thing in a small dense city, as a second car, where the commute is less than 1/2 the battery range. Assuming the power is created in a modern power plant, the pollution levels are acceptable. As for economics, I have no clue about costs over there (I’m US), but figure about 300 Whrs per mile. Also cold & hot weather increase consumption, for cabin comfort.

  35. We are beginning to to see the inevitable LBO Phenomenon (Looking Beyond Obama) that will surge in O’s final months. Whether it is the Afghani government, the Saudi Royalty, the editors at the NY TImes, or green whacko’s all over America, people and organizations will be positioning themselves to thrive in Post-Obama America. This will either be ugly or hilarious to watch, depending on your perspective.

  36. Comment to Bill McKibben:
    ” and now transpose it 40 degrees of latitude north, into some of the harshest seas on the planet).

    Now, having watched the Arctic melt, does Shell take that experience and conclude that it’s in fact time to invest heavily in solar panels and wind turbines ”

    Mr. McKibben,
    Let’s see you build solar panels and wind turbines 40 degrees further north and produce all the energy you need to survive.
    (insert Ad Hominem here)

  37. Obama a denier? Oh, yes.
    He is a denier of Muslim jihad violence and murder, labeling the Fort Hood murders as being ‘workplace violence’. Yeah, riiigght, someone screaming Allahu Akbar is only indulging in ‘worplace violence’.
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Fort_Hood_shooting
    He is a denier of many things that are happening in the wider world, but there are too many to list here. In fact, one gets the impression he is subordinate to and working for, another authority altogether……..
    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/obama-bowed.jpg

  38. “They will not be satisfied, until they have completely dismantled the modern world, and restored the endless toil, disease and brutal misery of the pre-industrial age.”
    Well except those in the “Capital”.
    ” It only stands to reason that where there’s
    sacrifice, there’s someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there’s service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master.”–Ayn Rand

  39. The President denies that the science is not settled. The President denies that talk of climate catastrophe is over hyped. The President denies that skeptics have an excellent case and that self-interest has led many climate fear promoters to over state risk.
    And of course denying Bill McKibben is both a liar and kook is a form of denial as well.
    So I guess he could be a denier.

  40. The sad part is not that Mr. McKibben comes out with such nonsense , but that he is doing on the taxpayers dime . It is like paying someone to punch you in the face , or more accurately having someone pick your pocket to pay someone to punch you in the face and then be expected to say thanks afterwards.

    • Excuse me, but there’s an 8% surtax if you hire someone to pick your pocket, so they can pay the guy to punch you in the face. It’s a necessary cost for proper oversight, we can’t have just any irresponsible person punching you in the face.

  41. Pretty harsh, Weepy Bill calling Shell inept. Good grief, there’s a black pot and kettle for you. BP did a marvellous job (which was criticised at the time) getting dispersants into the oil as it emerged – new approach that worked really well. The cleanup turned out to be a small fraction of what was supposed to have been much worse than the Exxon Valdez. So much for alarmism.
    And why not rather mention PEMEX and their much larger spill in that same Gulf that ran for a year and a half? It was far larger. Nature cleaned it up. Turns out there are oil eating microbes in the oil-rich Caribbean (who’d-a-thought).

    • Yes, sir. There are natural seeps all through the Gulf.
      And stuff that eats them. Not gonna hear that from the lamestream media though, are we?

  42. Once the wheels finally come off the Carbon Cult bandwagon, perhaps the Nobel committee will point back to this NYT article as reason to retroactively issue Obama another Nobel prize for his strong leadership as a scientific realist.

  43. How did these Eco-Loons go from frying their brains at Woodstock to having these high perches from which to squawk?

  44. richardscourtney says:
    “There is no possibility of wind and solar power providing sufficient economical energy to operate an industrialised society whatever foreseeable technology is developed. That would require magic to concentrate the diffuse energy.
    In other words, what you say seems “self evident” to you is impossible according to the laws of physics. And your only argument is an inappropriate analogy.”
    Precisely. I am not a scientist here, but it seems to me that Bill McKibben’s major malfunction seems to be his inability to understand and unwillingness to accept what the physical limitations of renewable energy are (primarily wind and solar) and that physics does not permit the development or technological advancement of renewable energy beyond those physical limitations (diffuse nature, low density, intermittent). THAT is what is evident here to me anyway.
    This what causes the concept of renewables to morph into a fictional belief system and a religion.

  45. Fun fact:
    There is a racehorse named “Climate Change” that has been running at Gulfstream Park this spring.
    It had two races last year, but was well beaten.
    In her first race on 2/26 this year the consensus was that she had no chance, so the consensus let her go at odds of 22 to 1. She proved them wrong by winning the race
    In her second start of the year on 4/22 the consensus made her the favorite to win.
    She proved them right by winning at odds of 1.3 to 1.
    Then about an hour ago the consensus set the odds at 1.6 to 1.
    She didn’t let them down.
    I was torn between betting her to win or betting against her (today)…..seeing as this was the first time I even noticed she was alive.
    I took the chance and made a small (62%) profit on my $2 bet.

    • “Climate Change…Gulfstream Park…consensus…made her the favorite to win”
      Is this a real horse?

      • Mods !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
        I’ve hit the link to the PDF I posted and it won’t let you back out, remove it ?????????

      • Thanks U.K., It had all of the buzzwords of an AGW alarmist press release.
        BTW, your fear have come true, totally clueless.

      • @ Paul,
        It was all true (I bet the horses and the money was added to my betting account).
        That link shows the results of the races, but won’t let you back out of the PDF.
        I just didn’t want to inconvenience anyone.
        I shoulda just stuck to the script.

      • “Here are the results of the races, look at the 4th race.”
        That shows that Climate Change is unstoppable.
        Now we can stop paying the Danegeld. Because it’s pointless.

  46. forget the current price war…the only amazing fact is how McKibben & the CAGW crowd (& some scepics) have been in denial for so long. once u set aside partisan politics there’s such a thing as facts on the ground:
    28 Oct 2014: CNBC: Could shale help US beat Saudi Arabia as top oil producer?
    The fracking revolution could open the way for the U.S. to overtake Saudi Arabia as the world’s number one oil producer, energy research provider Platts said in a report on Tuesday…
    Fracking helped the U.S. to post the largest increase in oil production of any country in 2013, according to Platts. U.S. oil output jumping by over 1 million barrels per day, the largest annual increment in the country’s history…
    “The U.S. oil supply estimate excludes biofuels, which, when added to the total, are widely believed to place the U.S. as the world’s biggest liquids producer above Saudi Arabia and Russia.” …
    ExxonMobil retains pole position for the 10th year running, with its industry-leading return on capital holding off rivals…
    http://www.cnbc.com/id/102127402
    the World Bank (& UN), however, are still pretenders!
    PDF: 180 pages: World Bank: Decarbonizing Development
    EMBARGOED: NOT FOR PUBLICATION, BROADCAST, OR TRANSMISSION UNTIL MONDAY, MAY 11, 2015 AT 4:00 PM EDT (8:00 PM GMT)
    Three Steps to a Zero-Carbon Future
    ***Nothing herein shall constitute or be considered to be a limitation upon
    or waiver of the privileges and immunities of The World Bank, all of which
    are specifi cally reserved.
    http://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/document/Climate/dd/decarbonizing-development-report.pdf

  47. “However, surely by any rational measure, President Obama is the greenest president ever.”
    Load of rubbish. Backing solar panels and windmills – two of the dirtiest technologies. De facto banning USC coal. Blocking a pipeline, forcing oil to be transported by dirty and dangerous trains. Opposing clean natural gas. Trying to transfer economic activity to China. Giving Iran nukes.
    No president in history has adopted less environmentally conscious policies.

    • Dont forget cash for clunkers, which took a bunch of working vehicles off the road in an attempt to replace them with more efficient ones. Ok in theory perhaps, but it takes alot of energy to make a vehicle so it looks like in the end this used more energy then it saved, plus raised the price of used vehicles for those who need to save cash the most.

  48. Anybody else picturing McKibben with tears welling in his eyes, sobbing and sniffleing as he wrote of the disappointment he felt? Not too long before he has his ‘Leave Brittany Alone’ moment in defence of the environment.

  49. “By “extreme” I don’t just mean that Shell will be drilling for oil in places where there’s no hope of cleaning up the inevitable spills (remember the ineptness of BP in the balmy, accessible Gulf of Mexico, and now transpose it 40 degrees of latitude north, into some of the harshest seas on the planet).”
    Is this even true??
    It is my understanding that the BP spill was an issue because it was in such deep water and the drilling in the arctic while in remote spots is in shallow waters so easier to correct if things go wrong.

  50. “Middlebury College is a private liberal arts college located in Middlebury, Vermont”
    Very liberal.

  51. What exactly does Bill McKibben bring to the intellectual table other than advocacy expertise? Is there any engineering perspective, science perspective, energy econ perspective? The trouble with slanted advocacy science and policy recommendations is that the list and cost of unintended consequences is inversely proportional to their knowledge gap. When that is matched by political leadership that is just as blind to consequences or balanced cost benefit evaluation, the middle class falls another notch and the finger pointing follows–later. This is not unlike the frivolous global warming forecast where fact checking comes years later and the cost of the failed prediction is about zero.

  52. Last paragraph of article sums it up perfect. Dismantling the world as it exists and reverting to pre-industrial revolution days is exactly what these new age hippies & old hippies have been longing for. They don’t have the numbers to succeed so they yell the loudest to get attention, belittle and mock opponents to get their way and uses strong arm tactics of the kind that got Mafia heads locked up. Yet these criminals are allowed to run the show, at least for 1 more year anyway.

Comments are closed.