Alice Bows-Larkin's plan for Green Economic Ruin


Dr. Alice Bows-Larkin, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

h/t James DelingpoleAlice Bows-Larkin has given a TED talk, which outlines her plan for “saving” the environment from a 4c temperature rise. The gist of her idea seems to be that developed countries need to dramatically reduce their output, while developing countries raise theirs, so everyone gets a “fair” share of a smaller pie.

How deep a cut are we talking about?


So that poses very significant challenges for wealthy nations. Because according to our research, if you’re in a country where per capita emissions are really high — so North America, Europe, Australia — emissions reductions of the order of 10 percent per year, and starting immediately, will be required for a good chance of avoiding the two-degree target. Let me just put that into context. The economist Nicholas Stern said that emission reductions of more than one percent per year had only ever been associated with economic recession or upheaval. So this poses huge challenges for the issue of economic growth, because if we have our high carbon infrastructure in place, it means that if our economies grow, then so do our emissions. So I’d just like to take a quote from a paper by myself and Kevin Anderson back in 2011 where we said that to avoid the two-degree framing of dangerous climate change, economic growth needs to be exchanged at least temporarily for a period of planned austerity in wealthy nations.

Click here to read the full transcript

Why do I think this plan for aggressive CO2 emission cuts amounts to economic ruin? Lets think about what 10% per year actually means.

Imagine this reduction as slices taken away from a 5 day working week. I’m going to assume for the purpose of this calculation, that emissions are a proxy for economic activity.

In the first year, not so bad – its like leaving work every week on Friday at lunchtime. It might be uncomfortable, but a lot of people in developed countries probably have the spare financial capacity, to absorb a 10% cut in income.

By year 3, things get unpleasant. By now you are only working;

(1 – 0.10)3 years * 5 days = 3.5 days per week.

More than an quarter of your income has gone. Bills are getting tough to pay, you spend long hours in the Supermarket aisles agonising over your grocery basket.

By year 10, things are desperate. By then you are only working;

(1 – 0.10)10 years * 5 days = 1.7 days per week. 66% of your income is gone. Your mortgage if you owe money on your house is in arrears. Debt collectors are calling every other day, demanding money you don’t have. All you have to look forward to is more hopelessness and despair.

OK, so you’ve lost most of your income – but working 1.7 days per week, you would get plenty of time off, right? Wrong. The reality is you would probably still have to work your normal 5 day week. What is being degraded is not the number of hours you have to work, but the economic return those hours generate for you and your employer. Your 5 days of effort now only returns 1.7 days worth of the spending power, in terms of what you earned before the cuts started. Your employer’s profits have also been slashed – they simply can’t pay you any more, even if they wanted to.

Even at 34% of your original income, you probably still have more spending power than many people in the third world. The cuts would have to continue.

Of course, most people would probably be worse off than my simple calculation predicts. I doubt very much whether the green elite would give up their frequent flights to climate conferences, and other perks. So if the national pie in your country is shrinking, and the greens keep the full portion of their slice, your slice gets smaller even faster.

If alarmists are right about the rate of climate change, which by any reasonable evaluation of the skill of climate models is very doubtful, is all this hardship really a price worth paying, to prevent a few extra days of pleasant sunny weather every year?

The video of the TED talk

434 thoughts on “Alice Bows-Larkin's plan for Green Economic Ruin

      • The formula should have been decided before installing the improvements. The hardworking, thrifty one should have put the gate and flowers in front of his house alone. Let the shiftless, lazy one feel the imact of crime and barren surroundings. It may provide an incentive to GET TO WORK! [Sorry for the caps shouting…it is well deserved.]

      • LarryFine,
        Great video and great link to Prager U. I recommend more people see it and the other videos.

      • I can’t work out whether it’s an attempt at sarcasm or the creators are deadly serious that this is the way it should be? I don’t know much about Puger U, but given it’s a university I assume they are deadly serious?

    • reductions of the order of 10 percent per year, and starting immediately, will be required for a good chance of avoiding the two-degree target.
      seriously? so she is OK with a 10% pay reduction every year! How about everyone else where she works? Are they on board with a 10% annual pay cut?
      Try making the interest payments on your student loans, with a 10% pay cut each year.

      • ” so she is OK with a 10% pay reduction every year!”
        Well obviously she’s an academic, so no. Her pay won’t be cut. Yours will. She’s working in a protected environment. And a green to boot.

      • I have no doubt that she actually believes there will be no problems caused by a mere 10% cut per year.

      • Dr. Bows has with her nifty idea, just elevated herself to the same pedestal as that other brainiac, Sheryl Crowe, who can wipe her a*** with one 4 inch square (100 mm for scientists) of one ply recycled toilet paper.
        Maybe they can share their ideas with each other.

    • Let me just put that into context. The economist Nicholas Stern said that emission reductions of more than one percent per year had only ever been associated with economic recession or upheaval.

      Why would anyone listen to the economist Lord Stern??? There would be economic upheaval alright…………his economic upheaval.

      Lord Stern of Brentford
      UK Parliament – Register of Interests
      Category 2: Remunerated employment, office, profession etc.
      IG Patel Professor of Economics & Government, London School of Economics (includes LSE academic posts: Director, India Observatory; Chairman, Asia Research Centre; Chairman, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment; Chairman, Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy) plus internal LSE responsibilities
      Member, International Advisory Panel, Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute (Australia)
      Member, International Advisory Board, Abengoa SA (Spain)
      Remunerated speaking engagements are organised through CSA Celebrity Speakers Ltd, Burnham SL1 7JT; the Member’s speaking engagements form the main activity of NS Economics Limited (see category 1)

      Abengoa is engaged in solar energy and bioenergy devices and other products.
      Stern also runs the NS Economics Limited (sole owner, jointly with wife; the company’s main business is the Member’s speaking engagements. He likes to speak and get paid to talk about climate alarmism. I wonder why he keeps telling us that ‘climate change’ is much worse than he thought while investing in climate schemes. It surely wouldn’t have anything to standing to gain from one’s own alarmism would it?
      Lord Stern:
      “I got it wrong on climate change – it’s far, far worse”
      Of course. Good Lord! You are a failure in economics and climate.

    • I don’t think Teller is going to get any pie at Bill Gate’s place either. He will starve, as will we all if her plan were implemented. In 10 years, you will only have a hunter gatherer society. I don’t think this lady actually understands the consequences of her plan. I would suggest that she be offered a trial run under the conditions that her policy would generate. She might change her mind. If she knows she is spouting nonsense, and knows what the real impacts would be, she would likely decline the offer. If she is as uninformed as she sounds, she just might accept. If her plan were successful, she’d rue the day she put it out to the world.

      • Actually if they tried this climate scientists and greens would be an endangered species. People’s tolerance only goes so far after that that its A La Lanterne.

  1. I wonder how many of the young Eco-Terrorists realize they would have to give up their Iphones,Ipads, laptops,make up, GameBoys and cell phones …etc……??? All are made with evil CO2 contributing products !!!!

    • Eco terrorists, like most liberals, are convinced that it’s the other people who will have to give up stuff.
      Since they care, they are given a free pass.

      • @ MarkW
        “Eco terrorists, like most liberals, are convinced that it’s the other people who will have to give up stuff.
        Since they care, they are given a free pass.”
        Exactly right. As exemplified by the bun fight about to take place in Paris.

    • She and her ilk can greatly help by walking to Paris! but nooooo, flying and staying at high end hotels and scarfing in expensive restaurants will be their “right”

      • I think most people commenting here are far too nice and polite.
        In reality, this is a classic case of SBS, or Silly Bitch Syndrome
        Sometimes, a sensible, but sexist, remark is totally appropriate to describe the shallow utterances of the Amazon leaders of the alarmist cult.

    • Since there’s been no actual warming for 18 years etc., and the CO2 greenhouse theory has essentially been disproven, I don’t see ANYONE altering much for the sake of an academic construct. I DO see them doing it if and when it makes economic sense–and ONLY then. The Smart Money is not losing sleep over “climate change.”

    • My GF is a green left winger and always goes on about how we need to lower the West’s standard of living to accommodate whatever grabs her attention at the time (like AGW). I took her to the movie Les Misérables. After it finished I turned to her and said “How do you like the lower standard of living?” She hasn’t mentioned it again.

    • Trust me. I know some of the young Eco-Terrorists you refer to and believe when I say…they have convinced themselves that everyone else will have to give up their phones, laptops, game boys….etc. Except them.

  2. This has little, if anything, to do with “saving the planet.” It (probably) has everything to do about the alarmists and their political, corporate and elitist rich backers increasing their power and control over the masses.
    Dr. Bows is only a pawn delivering an emotional and perhaps even a strawman argument in support of the above goals.

    • Can’t be the UN playbook. If the wealthy countries deliberately impoverish themselves, they won’t be able to pay the $100 Billion per year that the LDCs want as their pay off for the climate treaty. Better to talk the talk, than give up the money.

      • The UN Isn’t about money, it’s about power. They’d rather be in charge of a world of medieval squalor than nobodies in a high-tech utopia.

      • Walter Sobchak,
        So what if whoever ends up with such power does not pay some promised money? Promised to “the people”, no less. The people will have no way to enforce squat if the folks with real power in this world take it all.
        That’s what I see happening, a well conceived attempt to return to “normal” rule by a few elites, like it was for virtually all of history. It happens all the time, so to speak, just not on this scale.

      • Walter you are assuming the thing has to make sense and be logical. It does not.
        Like all Marxist causes the game of Climate is only a pretext to wrestle power.

  3. The road to Green Economic Ruin is paved with imbecilic notions by those without a clue about either climate or economics.

  4. These sorts of claims illustrate well how little alarmists understand the energy supply and demand and the inter-relationship between energy consumption and economic activity. I don’t know in which field Dr. Bows has her PhD, but it certainly cannot be in economics or any of the physical sciences. It would be simply amusing if claims like hers were just being made by starry-eyed youth who had watched Al Gore’s film too often. The extraordinary thing is that somewhat similar claims are being made by James Hansen and by the “experts” who work for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the European Union. The challenge is to do what Eric Worrall has tried to do here, which is to develop a clear explanation of what emissions reductions of this magnitude would mean in practice for people’s lives.

    • One might suppose she has a PhD in bong-hit smoking, but…no.
      Check it out:
      “Alice is a Reader in Energy and Climate Change as part of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and based within the School of Mechanical, Civil and Aerospace Engineering (MACE), University of Manchester. Alice trained as an astrophysicist at the University of Leeds, did her PhD in climate modelling at Imperial College, joining the interdisciplinary Tyndall Centre to research conflicts between climate change and aviation.”

      • MarkW,
        Not telling lies – playing computer games. There is no reason to assume she is lying. In fact I’m pretty certain she believes everything she says. Which is the sad part. As Peter Miller above so accurately put it, a definite case of SBS.

    • Let us give Hansen certain props. he wants nuclear power, not universal poverty. That doesn’t make his hysteria any better, but at least he understands the problem with his proposals.

  5. Using the climatocracy cry of ‘he/she is not a climate scientist’ I say that as she is not an economist she has no right to any opinion that involves economics.

    • No right to an opinion on economics??? Why should she not be allowed even one, when economists are allowed an unlimited number? Alice and others should all be encouraged to express their opinion, because then it can be analysed to see if it holds water. This one doesn’t because it is based on zero-sum logic, ie that if the developed produce less then the developing can produce more. Well, Alice, the world doesn’t work like that. If the developed cut back then the developing lose their customers.

    • Of course she’s got a right to an opinion (although I can see where you’re coming from on that comment). So let’s hear her plan for how this 10 per cent reduction is to be achieved. Massive tax increases? Huge hikes in interest rates? Big cuts in government expenditure? And how does she plan to achieve 10 per cent? (As opposed to 9 or 11.) How does she know, for example, what tax increases are needed for a ten per cent cut? Is she relying on her climate models to tell her? She also seems a bit coy in telling us how long this ten per cent cut is to go on for. And what is her explanation for saying that after several years of cuts, economic growth can resume? But most of all, can she tell us how much of a cut in her own emissions she is going to make over the next 12 months and exactly how she is going to do it?

      • @MarkW
        I believe bertief is riffing on the theme usually offered by the wamunists that since (most) sceptics aren’t climate scientists we should just shut up.

  6. And the notion of per capita emissions is just assumed to be a sensible metric? Seriously, what ever happened to brain power in this politicly stupefied world. Economies have not yet to be divorced from the individual constraints of their physicality! Only in models of reality could these self satisfied pronouncements make any sense.

    • It is extremely logical to base emissions on per person that way the efficient western model is properly handicaped so communism has a fighting vhance.

  7. Is economic ruin really such a large price to pay for a very tiny chance to prevent some ice from melting in some God-forsaken wasteland where hardly anyone even goes to have a gander before quickly leaving?
    The ice man…think of the ICE!
    We need it.
    We really do.
    All that other stuff, like money, food, clothes, stuff…we can do without most of that, can’t we?
    If it might possibly keep some ice from melting may…someday…perhaps…?
    /sarc off
    [Which is the really twisted part: I was being sarcastic. She is being 100% serious!]

    • Places that are covered in ice for most of the year are death zones and we need less of them, not more.

      • I agree Nigel.
        This is one thing I am actually sure of…warmer is certainly better.
        I would be even if only because it puts the inevitable end of the Holocene further away.

  8. One always wonder why the great civilizations of the world have perished. The ruins are still visible and explanations about environmental ruin are abundant though never proven. Has anybody yet thought about destruction from inside? Once a civilization reaches a point where generations start to live on the fruits created by their forebears the values of building that civilization are lost. Rome is a great example by the way.
    The same thing is happening to us right now. People who contribute zero to our economy are busy destroying it. So sad.

    • If she said these things in an attempt at humor, it would not even be funny.
      To say such things off the cuff would be quite eccentric to say the least.
      To give a talk about it, as a well thought out, actual plan of action is beyond insane, beyond economic illiteracy, beyond even socialist eco-lunacy.
      This woman is certifiably bat-shit crazy and mentally incompetent to opine on any serious subject.
      We just lived through an economic downturn a fraction as bad as what she is proposing we do to ourselves on purpose, for years on end…to solve a 100% imaginary problem.
      I have no idea what is wrong with these people.
      Sometimes, like today, I wake up and read this stuff and wonder if I am on the right planet.
      Consider that this woman, and people who share her mind set, currently comprise most of the people who have been entrusted with educating our children.
      God help us if these people continue to be believed.
      I think even He will not be able to help us if power is not wrested from the grasp of these maniacs, and that very soon.

    • I agree with you there. It seemed a better explanation to me that these civilisations self-destructed from the inside due to some insane idea that the parasite class used to suck the life out of the productive class. Sometimes I wonder wether those huge constructions that last through the ages are part of the cause of why people dont live there any more, in other words the grand edifices (nearly always of no productive use) require the impoverishment and diversion of productive energy into unproductive monuments to the parasites. Wind farms etc and international conferences are some excellent examples.

      • Thanks for that perspective + 1.
        I had to wade through alot of emails to find this gem today. Do you know if WUWT offers a block or filter ?

      • The Moche, in what is now Chile, did no such thing. They self-distructed based on a “religious” hype that war and sacrifice pleased their gods. It did not work.

  9. Why are people like this even given space on the web or in a publication to air their views? This is totally brainless. Even the UN elitists who support such a plan can’t be serious. It destroys the goose that lays the golden eggs that provides them with the wealth that allows them to perpetuate their idiotic ideas.

    • To answer your question “Why are people like this even given space on the web”….it’s the same reason why this blog exists.
      [Reply: and even you can post here. ~mod.]

    • In answer to your good question, the reason is:- other people’s MONEY.
      The so-called university she “works” for in Lancashire, England will have received OPM (other people’s money) in the form of a grant from the British government gravy train.
      [Even St. Andrews university in Fife has been on that particular “payroll”.]
      Worst of all, it appears that Alice acquired her PhD. in so-called “climate modelling” !
      Evidently, modelling is not her strong point but she certainly knows how to rake in the MONEY.

  10. Thanks Eric (and also thanks of course to James Delingpole),
    Your last paragraph: last sentence
    … “is all this hardship really a price worth paying, to prevent a few extra days … ?”
    We have ALREADY paid; many times over.

    • It is not a few sunny days. I think it should rather be polar amplification which means warmer winter days at high latitudes. Warmer days there come with the price of clouds, fog, rain, and snow.
      It is boring, depressing and did I say dull, but luckily at least saves some heating.

  11. A very good analogy. I would like to add though that this process of less hours of work and lower earnings will actually become logarithmic in nature. If farmers cut down their hours, presumably there will be less food which will drive up the prices in the supermarkets. so those whose earnings are cut will have to pay more for food. The same will apply to every consumer item, so inflation rises. At the same time the government will have lower tax revenues, the public service pay bill will be less, but other costs will rise such as the interest rates, making repaying the national debt more expensive so taxes will have to rise.
    It also disregards the fact that there are many people in the third world who either cannot or will not work and/or have corrupt governments that discourage work.
    This woman is absolutely clueless about reality!

  12. Dafuq kind of title is, “Reader in Energy and Climate Change?”
    She seems to realize that 1% is pretty serious stuff…for her to say that 10% is a “challenge” is an understatement.

  13. So who gets to decide the speakers at these TED things? Do you have to buy a lottery ticket?
    Or is it completely random, as now appears to be the case?

    • It is as random as who gets published in Science and Nature nowadays.
      The “cause” gets promoted in all places possible.
      Have read some of the TED comments to her speech, there are so many lemmings out there, whether the “we have destroyed nature by our lifestyle” or hints to “read scepticalscience not to fall for climate denier schemes”.
      It’s sickening.

  14. There should be a restriction that no scientist can travel abroad more than 2 to 3 times a year for the purpose of conferences or scientific meetings. I know a few more scientists who are travelling abroad more than 10 times a year showing the same reason. Surprisingly, they are from the group of ‘Alarming Propaganda of CO2’. They are rewarded with lots of undue advantages of travel fund, not to mention about their sudden upsurge in career.

  15. Some suggestions:
    Every driver is given a card that may be used to obtain gasoline. The number of gallons granted is annually is reduced by 10 percent plus the percentage increase in cards issued. The grant is covered by arbitrarily setting the price at something like $250.00 per gallon. The cards are biometrically locked for social justice. It’s not fair to benefit from a gasoline ration.
    Every abode is issued some number of kWh of electricity and heating/ cooking fuels to be determined solely by the number of residents. The grant decreases 10 percent annually. This grant is paid for by onerous prices for overages. Smart meters are used to disable consumption when limits are reached. Credit card readers are provided at the meter for purchase beyond the ration limit.
    People who have not secured an abode must live with parents or friends to reduce need for new concrete for construction. Annual national lottery to determine who may build a new home.

  16. Thanks for the news, Eric Worral, I will not watch a another TED Talk, after having sat trough one a couple of years ago. It was disgusting. Never more!
    Why does Alice Bows-Larkin hate humanity, in particular the people of the USA, so much?

  17. I suggest she spends 5 years in Zimbabwe first, or better still, living with a tribe with no electricity or drinking water or modern medicine and see if she changes her mind.

    • A couple years without lights, a/c or clean drinking water ought to cure her stupidity! Ya think?

  18. I would give Missy Alice 10 – 1 odds that the planet’s temperature never gets 4º higher. I’d tell her: put up or shut up. But like alarmists everywhere, she would tuck tail and run before putting her own money at risk.

    • But there’s the thing, DB, with people like Lows-Barkin, it’s too easy to take the grants and live a good life while telling those who pay the grants that you’re working on saving mankind (from itself). What we should do is say we are saving the world from 5 deg C, sit back, take the money, and when the temps (of course) get nowhere near the 2 deg C we can claim it was all down to the work we had done.

      • A few years ago, one of our trolls tried to claim that the reason for the pause, was all the reductions in CO2 that had already been made.
        When it was pointed out to him, that there had in fact been no changes to the rate of CO2 increase, he refused to believe it. After all, they had gone to so many demonstrations, it must have made a difference.

  19. hmmm…
    The message from the intelligencia is almost always the same, isn’t it? Tax the wealthy, excuse the poor, give a talk, order croissants and have a nice reception afterward.
    seriously … What’s Up With That?
    There are only four ways to solve global warming:
    [1] Admit we just don’t know if it is even vaguely a system that can be thrown out of balance by changing atmospheric CO₂ by a few parts per million
    [2] Admit that all hopeful talking about the CO₂ emitters suddenly bottling up (or just not producing) CO₂ – even in a “nice sounding’ 10% per year kind of way – is hokum. That there is no country that is willing to put its economic neck on the chopping block voluntarily.
    [3] Realize that there are easy methods to reduce CO₂ that could happen literally “today”, if it weren’t (ironically) for the hue and cry of environmentalists worldwide (oceanic iron fertilization).
    [4] Redirect our (ahem) energies … from fighting all power consumption in those bad old rich countries to simply utilizing the one (and nearly only) form of potent, safe energy that will markedly impact our CO₂ footprint: nuclear & environmental power.
    Oh, go ahead and scoff at that last part “… and environmental …” if you like. Yes, it means “solar” and “wind”. It also means hydroelectric and geothermal. No one (except if it were today, the environmentalists) is scoffing at hydroelectric. Because … it has been totally transformative to our whole blôody economy. Same goes for nuclear and solar: they complement each other well, nuclear having the power to “be the battery” when solar’s output is insufficient to track load. Nuclear has been shown (mostly by France) to be able to generate over 80% of all a nation’s electricity, and follow diurnal demand. Its clearly good enough.
    But I also like utilizing the sun, and when its not rolled-out-to-ridiculous-extremes, wind power. And geothermal. They’re all good: all are (or can be) cost effective power sources where conditions merit their investment.
    And that’s about that! The car, train, truck, bus and other land-based vehicular industries are coming along rapidly to perfect potent, speedy and quite economical electric vehicles. Now, if most of them could be powered “from the grid” which is mostly nuclear, well then … by proxy, they’re nuclear powered cars. Mostly.
    Anyway, if you’re not moved (ahem) by any of this, just go back to the first paragraphs. Croissants and Junkets. This is where academics “get off”.

    • Goat guy,
      I can’t agree that wind power is good in any way. It is extremely inefficient, it couldn’t exist without masssive subsidies, it kills wildlife by the millions, it is unreliable, and by any cost.benefit analysis it’s a total loser.
      That applies to solar power, too, except for killing wildlife. But solar is improving, and it may reach the point that it is able to stand on its own without subsidies. Right now it can’t.
      The best and cheapest answer by far is the use of fossil fuel for power generation. Nothing else compares. (Nuclear could compete, if the gov’t got out of the way. Fat chance of that.)
      As far as EV’s are concerned, electricity will close the cost gap with gasoline. It take electric power to run cars, and that power is not free. When there are millions of EV’s on the roads, the cost of recharging will rise and become comparable with the cost of gasoline powered vehicles. You can’t throw economic laws out the window. In the end, we will all pay the price.
      Finally: what is there to “solve” about global warming? Global warming stopped many years ago, and if it resumed, it would be a net benefit.

      • I partially agree, and disagree too. Wind Power’s quixotic (capricious) character is the bane of electrical distribution operators, to be sure. Ironically though, the larger and more widely implemented, the more wind power ‘self averages’. It becomes subject to prevailing weather, to climate, to season and so on. But less variable minute-to-minute (which just kills its utility).
        Solar power is similarly capricious on a scale of seasons, days and even hours. It too self-averages when implemented more significantly over broader stretches of land and state. Like ICELAND’s not-so-capricious, but very potent geothermal energy surplus, there are other things that can be done with the power other than try to use it on ‘the grid’
        As to fossil fuels being the best-and-cheapest, I completely agree: they are the ultimate in stored solar energy in a way. And geothermal. But they’re not limitless, and especially with coal, they’re also far, far from being innocuous to extract, and to deal with the byproducts of burning. As to their cost being the attractive component? The 1973 Arab Israeli war caused an oil-shock that tripled … to quadrupled the price people – worldwide – were being required to pay for gasoline and diesel. The net result was that in the next 3 years, a whole new car industry lit up. Light and ultra-light small-displacement “economical” cars.
        Point is that when the price of oil was artificially raised by 3× to 5× at the wellhead, the entire fuel consumption opportunity cost changed, downstream.
        And the point of that? Simply to acknowledge that to change demand from cheap, ubiquitous petroleum and coal based energy to something else, will take the fortitude to tax the stuff – at the wellhead and coal mine, to change its economic attractiveness compared to alternatives. Really. Humankind responds to NO OTHER FORCE as strongly and predictably as when taken-for-vantage resources inexorably become way more expensive.

      • Goat guy,
        Although it seems we are pretty much in agreement about the lack of efficiency of ‘alternate’ energy (hydro is mainstream, not alternative power), the conclusions are troublesome.
        You seem to be advocating much higher energy prices. In Obama’s words, energy costs “will necessarily skyrocket”. What’s good about that? I say: nothing.
        For one thing, costly energy condemns much of the world to long term poverty. ‘We’ve got ours, but you don’t get yours’ is the attitude. Nothing eradicates poverty more efficiently than cheap electricity. It is unethical to deny more than a billion people to semi-starvation because of the stupid “sustainable” narrative.
        And as it turns out, more CO2 is entirely beneficial; there is no downside, or global damage, or global harm from having more CO2 in the air. You wouldn’t even know about it unless someone told you. The biosphere clearly responds the way we would want, if we had planned it that way. Ag productivity is rising right along with, and because of the added CO2.
        Next, when you say “wind power ‘self averages”, I say, baloney. There are transmission losses, and even if they’re not figured in, wind power is very inefficient and causes much carnage to wildlife. On that basis alone, other alternatives should be used. And the best alternative by far is fossil fuel power.
        Finally, there is plenty of fossil fuel to be found. Even if the ‘low hanging fruit’ is eventually used up, there is still plenty left. Basic Econ shows that the price point will change, that’s all. But we will never run out of fossil fuels.

      • A substantial fraction of the cost of gasoline goes towards road taxes. Until a means of taxing electrics to support the roads they use, then they will always get a huge operational subsidy.
        PS: Since the battery packs make electrics heavier than comparable IC powered vehicles, they actually do more damage to the roads.

      • GoatGuy, the problem with this fascinating belief in “self-averaging, is that electricity is at best regional in nature. It can’t be transmitted more than a few hundred miles. Once we develop room temperature super conductors, then you can start talking about “self-averaging”, not before then.

    • If they actually wanted to do something about energy use, they could subsidize those new LED light bulbs.
      Replacing all the incandescent and fluorescent bulbs with those things would cut energy use by or two percent.
      (I’m against subsidizing anything. I just put this forward as a “if you have to do something, try this”, type of suggestion.)

      • “False” isn’t an argument, it is an opinion. A baseless opinion, at that. Please try to support your assertions with verifiable facts. Thanks.

      • It takes hours for nuclear to ramp up, clouds can cut in, in mere minutes.
        Hydro is the only power source that can ramp up and down quickly enough to handle the vagaries of wind and solar.
        The problem with hydro is that people like to recreate in the areas below the dams and it takes time to get them out of the way.

      • @MarkW
        We finished our small portion of work at a power plant not that long ago that was basically a collection of four 50 Mw gas-fired generators; really just honkin’ big jet engines. Their ramp up time is between 10 and 20 minutes. Definitely as fast or faster than hydro, and you can put them anywhere you can run gas.

  20. “Environmental power” and cost effective power are mutually exclusive. What is needed is cost effective power, not chasing rainbows and butterflies with the goal of “reducing carbon”.

    • Sorry, but that’s not true: Environmental power can be cost effective. The problem is that it is often utilized as a government tax relief harbor for the wealthy to invest in … when it would otherwise make no sense. Thus we are littered with impotent environmental power projects that eventually are abandoned as pointless. Yet, had they never been built, instead of EP having a black eye, it’d be just fine. And smaller.
      ICELAND, for instance, creates so much excess environmental power (geothermal) that it uses it to power greenhouses that produce bananas(!!!) for export to Europe in the winter time. And gobs of aluminum (one of the most energy-intense produces humankind produces).
      The same could (but doesn’t normally) go for solar: home to deserts, its power could be used not just to push electrons to the grid (which for similarly parallel environmental conditions is far away from “markets”), but to purify water. Every square meter of solar panel can nominally produce 1 m³ of potable fresh water per day from seawater-strength brine. That’d change some of the more arid deserts!
      Seriously … between environmental power sources such as hydroelectric (nice and peaky tracking), geothermal (nearly continuous / ‘nuclear like’ 95% producing duty-cycle), solar (more or less tracking human daily activity), and wind (capricious, but potent when “on”) … they all complement addressing the whole of demand. And … lest we forget even demand is redirect-able on metropolitan-scales.
      Clearly … there is no way to “turn on a switch” to effect the kind of edge-to-edge systematic investments needed to make this transformation overnight. But with fortitude and monetary carrot-and-stick guidance, civilizations themselves can make the changes. Its just a matter of carrot-and-stick taxation. Really.

      • I think you’re discounting the cost of constructing and maintaining transmission lines transformers and automated switchgear which serve these remotely located environmental sources. The source must be dense and reliable enough to justify the expense, as it is in iceland and probably would be in Yellowstone park. Large dams are sources of dense power. Pumped-up reservoirs are a way to turn solar farms into 24 hr power sources, but take up way too much space compared to denser sources.
        The concrete that should be going into hydro dams is being wasted on anchoring the environmentally unfriendly wind generators, which can’t even produce enough power in their lifetime to self-replicate.
        ‘Naturalists’ of the future will probably by pushing to eliminate the wires, towers and windmills spoiling the landscapes, and the solar farms playing havoc on the desert ecosystems.
        The only place that is at all practical for solar panels is integrated into buildings, thereby reducing the load on the grid during the periods of peak commercial usage, and if used properly, reducing the solar heat load on the bldg HVAC systems

      • Tax, like the cigarette tax a decade or two ago that was supposed to cover medical costs after the lawyers got their huge cut. All the governments borrowed against it and squandered it on other foolish government ideas. Same for the environmental clean up funds, all the money went to lawyers arguing about where to spend it leaving most sites not cleaned.
        Really, when will some people learn how the Government actually works versus what they promise when they increase taxes (you can keep your doctor and insurance company)
        Can you tell me one significant form of energy breakthrough the DOE has provided with all those tax dollars?
        14th Century wind mills?

      • When you propose to dictate my behaviour, do you imagine i don’t recognize a power lusting petty tyrant?
        When you propose to dispose of my property, do you imagine i don’t recognize robber?
        When you propose to guide my thinking, do you imagine i don’t recognize a con artist? Let me tell you where to stick your carrot.
        Don’t touch what’s not yours – didn’t anybody ever teach you about ownership and rights and why stealing is wrong?

      • You first have to either pump the salt water to the desert, or send the electricity to the coast.
        Both options more than eliminate any savings in your grand scheme.

      • Goat guy says:
        …with fortitude and monetary carrot-and-stick guidance, civilizations themselves can make the changes. Its just a matter of carrot-and-stick taxation. Really.
        Read what gnomish wrote above. “Carrot and stick taxation” is only in your dreams. Taxation is all stick. Any subsidies reward a small minority at the expense of everyone else.
        You should take your great new ideas and try them out yourself — at your own expense. But you don’t have the “fortitude” to do it yourself. So please leave the rest of us out of it, we don’t want to have our earnings confiscated by people who can’t or won’t do things on their own. If you can’t afford a windmill, form a corporations and solicit share buyers. We’ll see how far you get.
        What you’re missing is the fact that your “alternative energy” schemes are a bad idea. They have to be shoved down the throats of taxpayers, and even then they don’t work.
        Here’s a quick Econ course for you:
        1. Government is force

        2. Good ideas do not have to be forced on others

        3. Bad ideas should not be forced on others
4. Liberty is necessary for the difference between good ideas and bad ideas to be revealed

        You could pay $100K for an Econ education and never learn that. Here, it’s free. A gift. Try to make use of that valuable knowledge.

      • ” Every square meter of solar panel can nominally produce 1 m³ of potable fresh water per day from seawater-strength brine. ”
        If no one has already, I call BS on this.
        One cubic meter is a very large amount of water, and removing the salt from seawater is energy intensive.
        A solar still can produce perhaps one gallon of water (3-4 liters) per day.
        Photovoltaics used to run reverse osmosis plants can produce about 50 gallons per day under optimal conditions, but the required input of capital is enormous, as one must built a desalination plant and enough photovoltaic capacity to run it. Plus, one must have considerable excess capacity, it seems to me, in order to store water for sunless periods, or risk a catastrophe if people are depending on this water supply.
        No mater how you slice it, that figure you cite is way high by a factor of at least five, and that only after spending an enormous amount of capital on the initial build and upkeep.

      • Above should specify that those amounts of water produced are per one square meter of collection area.

      • I didn’t say anything about subsidies.

        I’m just showing you how far THEY got by forming a corporations and selling shares to buyers.

        • Alan Penn,
          Fine, then you go and invest your own money in that subsidized company. But there’s no way a windmill company can turn a profit without being propped up by government loot. No way.
          So thanx for making my point for me. The whole wind power scam is a burden on taxpayers. It is a subsidy-based hoax.

      • The Sahara Desert has a huge, small ocean-sized underground reservoir of groundwater, left over from the periodic greening that takes place there during every complete Milankovich Cycle.
        May solar to power pumps to extract it.
        That may be cost effective, but only if no cheaper source of power is available.
        Not much coal in Africa, unfortunately…but there seems to be a lot of nat gas here and there.

      • “there’s no way a windmill company can turn a profit without being propped up by government loot. No way.”
        Vestas is a manufacturer of wind turbines.

        They make a profit without government subsidies.

        • Alan Penn,
          Oh, please, stop with your baseless assertions. Your link says nothing about zero subsidies.
          Much of the subsidies are in the form of tax credits for buyers of bird choppers. Those subsidies artificially distort the market. But make no mistake, they are real subsidies paid for by taxpayers.
          Unless you can provide some kind of solid evidence showing that GE and other companies are not receiving these or any other subsidies, your argument is based only on your belief, not on reality.

      • GoatGuy, you make some decent points about “environmental” electricity production. However, the fact is that, where I live, the wind may not blow for days, and the sun is long below the horizon when peak electricity demand is reached on winter nights that may be -40 degrees Celsius. What that means is that, no matter how much wind and solar you build, you still have to build enough conventional generation to meet peak demand. If you live in an area with lots of hydro dams, great, but if not, thermal or nuclear generation is the answer. As an example, in week 4 of 2014 in Germany, which has about 38 GW of installed wind and 35 GW of installed solar (almost enough combined to meet its total peak demand), more than 95% of the electricity had to be provided by conventional generation, the vast majority of which was coal and nuclear.
        While it is often stated that “green” generation is nearing cost parity with conventional generation, such statements ignore the fact that wind and solar generation has a negligible impact on the capacity of conventional generation that must be built. In addition, widespread wind resources (to get the averaging you speak of) require very large investments in poorly utilized transmission facilities. Essentially what you trade off is the entire capital cost of the renewable generation against the fuel savings created by those resources. That is, the capital cost of the conventional generation is still required. Any fair economic assessment of renewable resources will consider this fact.
        With respect to the “averaging” effect, sometimes that works. But weather systems of many thousands of square kilometres exist and can cause thousands of widely spread wind turbines to sit still, or thousands of solar panels to sit in deep shade. And it is important to know that power systems must be designed to handle extreme conditions (such as minimum renewable generation at times of peak demand). Power systems that are designed to handle “average” conditions would suffer from frequent blackouts.
        Finally, on the subject of fossil fuels, the 3 kilometre thick layer of ice that existed roughly 20,000 years ago where I am sitting right now melted with, to the best of my knowledge, no help from fossil fuel combustion. And if you check the April issue of Discover Magazine, you will find that Ellesmere Island in Canada’s Arctic was covered with a boreal forest populated by beavers, hares, and even camels 3.3 million years ago. The temperature at the time was 15 degrees C warmer than today, and there was no Arctic ice cap.
        So much for catastrophic, fossil-fuel-induced global warming. .

        • Alan Penn,
          As usual, you cherry-pick the subsidies you want to argue.
          Windmill purchases are heavily subsidized for buyers, just like solar power is. Take away the subsidies for windmills, and they would promptly stop being produced. Subsidies distort the market, at the expense of taxpayers. Maybe you missed, or didn’t understand, what I posted before:
          1. Government is force

          2. Good ideas do not have to be forced on others

          3. Bad ideas should not be forced on others
4. Liberty is necessary for the difference between good ideas and bad ideas to be revealed

          Either you are in favor of Big Government bureaucrats “guiding” the market, or you are in favor of the free market providing what consumers want — not what the gov’t wants.
          But you can’t be both.
          Freedom? Or coercion? Which?

      • You posted “there’s no way a windmill company can turn a profit without being propped up by government loot. No way.”

        I gave you an example of a windmill company that recieves NO government subsidies.
        You post “you cherry-pick the subsidies” ………no, I am not cherry picking any subsidy, I’m showing you that Vestas makes a profit without subsidies……do you understand the meaning of the word WITHOUT????
        PS, GE makes a profit on the wind turbines that it makes to…..again WITHOUT a government subsidy.

      • Without taxpayer’s money Vestas would not exist and neither would GE wind turbines. However, GE buils turbines for other fuels. Vestas doecn’t

      • Alan Penn, dbstealey is correct. IF the company buying the product from a vender which is subsidized then it too is subsidized. For example Sikorsky Aircraft makes civilian and military aircraft. Because the government subsidizes the sale to the military, the civilian side is both directly and indirectly subsidized. If anywhere in the chain government monies enter then both up and down the chain the entirety as a result is subsidized. Because if you remove the government funds the entire chain collapses

      • Mike the Morlock, if the government did not buy the Sikorsky military product, Sikorsky would still make the civilian models, right? Your example doesn’t hold water because the government is not buying wind turbines. I think you are confusing PTC’s with direct purchases. According to your logic, every person driving an automobile is subsided by the oil depletion allowance giving to crude oil producers, right?

        • Alan Penn,
          To define the issue, I am not talking about a small water pump windmill, just like I’m not discussing a 1.5 volt solar fold-up battery charger.
          I am referring to the thousands of gigantic “alternative energy” windmills that plague the countryside, with their 200 foot+ diameter blades. In July my wife and I drove across the country both ways, from California to New York and back again. We saw hundreds, if not thousands of giant windmills. That was just from Interstates 80 and 90. Presumably windmills cover the rest of the land that we couldn’t see; a thousand miles in each direction. A quarter of the new ones weren’t even working, and when we got back to California, at the Altamont Pass there were many hundreds of older windmills. Fully 90%+ of them were not turning, indicating that they were only built to collect the subsidies.
          There have always been specialized windmills. Here is an example of a current model. Those are not the issue.
          The problem is that a few benefit at the expense of everyone else, and that is due to the massive taxpayer subsidies attached. None of those giant new GE windmills we saw all across the country wouldn’t even exist if it were not for the massive tax subsidies, and whether those subsidies are collected by the purchaser, or by the builder doesn’t matter. They distort the market by re-directing limited resources into very inefficient power generation. Wind power costs more than 25¢ per kwh. By comparison, coal power is around 6¢ – 8 ¢/kwh. Even nuclear power is less expensive than wind power.
          Finally, it muddies the waters to mix in military expenditures with what’s happening in the free market. Youu say:
          …if the government did not buy the Sikorsky military product, Sikorsky would still make the civilian models, right?
          Maybe, maybe not, but that’s avoiding the issue. As Mike points out:
          …if you remove the government funds the entire chain collapses.
          This is about government subsidized windmills. The market doesn’t want or need giant windmills, and the only way they exist is because of lush subsidies for the lucky few who either own the land they’re on, or for those who build them. Those folks collect money from the rest of us, for something that is uneeded and unwanted. Explain how that makes any economic sense.

      • PS…..when you post “Those folks collect money from the rest of us” it shows all of us that you don’t understand anything at all about PTC’s.

        They don’t “collect money”
        Learn how it works first before posting nonsense.

        • Alan Penn,
          I guess my minor in Econ makes it hard to explain things to the alarmist contingent. But I’ll try:
          People who agree to lease their land for windmill installation, and companies like GE, certainly do “collect money” for those things.
          Just because you don’t understand, doesn’t make it “nonsense”. I recommend reading the WUWT archives fro a few months before commenting here. Do a keyword search for “windmills”. You really do need to get up to speed on the subject.

        • Of course I have a source. But your own link doesn’t show anything like what you claim. What do you do, just search until you find something that posits energy costs in 2020 – 2040?
          Really, you’re not up to speed enough to be arguing on this science site. May I suggest Hotwhopper?

      • “Of course I have a source. ”

        Very funny.
        From your “source” ….. “per KWh for All Sectors of Consumers by State, 2004”


        too funny
        FYI, it’s 2015…..your “source” is………….not very current.
        [Reply: “Alan Penn” is a fake sockpuppet name for a repeatedly banned commenter. ~mod.]

        • Alan Penn,
          Your link guessed at prices in 2020 – 2040. So that’s completely bogus.
          But you criticize my link because it has real world prices? Of course you do, because that’s all you can do. You certainly haven’t been able to refute anything I’ve posted.

        • You asked for a source. I gave you exactly what you requested.
          But you wouldn’t accept any source that contradicts your greenie eco-religion.
          If you could show that the link I posted was wrong, you would have. Instead, you proselytize your religious faith. This is a science site, not a religious blog. You’re in the wrong place… buddy.

      • @Alan Penn:
        As I wrote just above:
        To define the issue, I am not talking about a small water pump windmill, just like I’m not discussing a 1.5 volt solar fold-up battery charger.
        Sorry you didn’t read that. Really, your arguments are getting increasingly pathetic.

        • @Alan Penn:
          Nice try, eco-boy. I clearly defined exactly what I was, and what I was not referring to. Therefore, it’s you who is moving the goal posts. Projection, me boi, you got it.
          And have you noticed that no one agrees with you? When everyone else is telling you you’re wrong, you might listen up, and try to understand what they’re saying. That’s what most folks would do. They would step back and try to understand why no one agrees with them.
          But not you, you’re not able to understand anything. You have a closed mind. That’s what religious faith does to a person.

      • Lol, Vestas is loaded with “Government Relations” staff.
        Not sure why it’s a big deal if Vestas gets subsidies directly or not. The power companies buying their turbines do.
        Here’s a US example from a few years ago… . Seems to intertwine Vestas and tax credits for wind power.
        And even within Vestas’ annual report itself for 2014…!grid_0_content_21_Container
        “…The UK market is showing increased signs of activity, which is partly driven by developers seeking to qualify for the existing support scheme that requires projects to be operational by the end of March 2017…”
        Sure sounds like financial support incentives for wind projects to me.

      • Ahem Alen Penn.
        “…In addition to subsidies, Vestas, the company cited by Udall that employs nearly 2,000 people on its four wind farms in Colorado, received more than $50 million from the federal government to build two plants in 2010, taking advantage of a Treasury Department program that reimburses for costs associated with starting renewable energy properties…”
        Spin the end of the sentence as much as you want, but a 2014 article explicitly stating Vestas received subsidies seems to be the nail-in-the-coffin regarding your made-up BS.
        Hell, Vestas even got subsidies just to revamp a building for use as their HQ
        And back to turbines, let’s go back to recent 2012…
        “…Rising costs for the V112 turbine development program combined with dropping government subsidy levels have been major problems for Vestas recently…”
        Lots of subsidies for a company that doesn’t receive subsidies.

      • Alan Penn October 25, 2015 at 2:20 pm
        “Mike the Morlock, if the government did not buy the Sikorsky military product, Sikorsky would still make the civilian models, right? “
        Wrong. All the equipment to build the civilian models was purchased by the navy in the 1950s& 1960s. To make call we say it.. the military aircraft. That is why I referred to a “chain” It does not matter who is the customer, or the manufacturer or the middleman, if the government is paying to help the economic activity, it is subsidized.
        Oh and the government subsidized the hard points for the Spirit 76s for foreign sale back in 1984.
        As I said, wrong, if no government subsidizes somewhere in the chain, no wind turbines.

      • For GoatGuy and Alan Penn et al
        Of course wind farm investments are heavily subsidized and wind generator manufacturers are subsidized by this in turn. If you don’t think so, then consider the words of an actual investor.
        “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.”
        – Warren Buffet.
        [Reply: “Alan Penn” is a fake sockpuppet name for a repeatedly banned commenter. ~mod.]

        • Alan Penn says:
          Don’t have to show it was wrong, just showed you that pricing information from 2004 is not applicable today
          Wrong, as always.
          In fact, you do have to show the numbers are wrong, otherwise you lose this argument.
          You asked for a source. I produced one. Then you asserted that the numbers are wrong. If that’s your only response, you fail.
          I showed that my statement that coal power costs 6¢ – 8¢ per kwh. If you want to falsify that, you need to produce proof that the current cost of coal power exceeds 8¢/kwh. Merely asserting your baseless opinion loses the argument.
          But you should be used to that by now.

          • DB
            I admire your disciplined approach to honoring critical thinking skills. This weekend, I saw my email que explode with what my cartoon mind saw as a red meat fest. A pack of frothing skeptics ripping away at easy prey. A human trait much like a rhesus monkey pack that torments the lesser in the tribe. Not pretty.
            Again, that being said, you have top notch skills at zeroing in on weak arguments. I’m far from perfect and indeed flawed beyond measure in the eyes of many so take my observation accordingly.
            In my Monday morning rush of exchanges with talking heads, I noticed too much attention draw to the feeding frenzy on WUWT and very little attention to some of the better critical reviews.
            I think that hurts this webpage’s effectiveness.
            I also think it gets in the way of digesting your (and probably others) very articulate critical reviews.
            Yup, free countries. Free to express ourselves as we wish. And I know debate can be rowdy, but it doesn’t mean we don’t also recognize that the rowdiness can undermine the very thing we seek.
            Just an observation from one person in a planet of billions.

      • Alan Penn
        What of the corporation that buys them, or the power company that purchases the power from them?
        I pointed out to you that a subsidize anywhere in the chain means the enterprise can not be sustain on its own economic value. A company buys a machine makes product, as the equipment ages taxes are adjusted to reflect its value. Just like the taxes on your car. That is not a subsidy. The government pays funds to purchase equipment, or tax write offs for a purchase, or the purchase by preference of one source of product to another is a subsidy. For example if the government pays a steel company to sell you steel at the same price as a foreign import, they are receiving a subsidy. If you then advertise your product as made with local steel as a selling point against your competitor you also are benefiting from the subsidy.
        It can get complicated.
        [Reply: “Alan Penn” is a fake sockpuppet name for a repeatedly banned commenter. ~mod.]

      • “Menicholas
        October 25, 2015 at 11:47 am
        Not much coal in Africa, unfortunately…”
        Plenty of coal in Africa. Plenty of pretty much every thing in Africa, just not much infrastructure to extract it. What is more valuable though is gold and diamonds. Plenty of that there, sadly none of the locals benefit from it.

      • You cannot conflate geothermal with wind/solar, very different beasts. Geothermal is 24/7 and uses very basic existing technology.

      • Interesting graphic. It relates to known reserves. Australia alone can supply the coal burnt by the world for 500 years, on known reserves and at current consumption rates. Given Africa is little explored regarding coal/gas/oil etc…I would say that figure in your graphic is reasonable. Knowing China is in Africa (2006 – Ethiopia) now looking at extracting resources and having spoken to resource geologists there at the time, I would say a resource little tapped and just waiting for the right time. Look at the location of the Horn of Africa in relation to Saudi Arabia. The US have, I think, at least 2 carrier fleets in that region. I would say in 50 years time…oil will be coming from Africa and not Arabia.

      • “carrot and stick guidance”
        Isn’t it fascinating how fascists of all stripes seek to use the deadly power of govt to perfect the lives of others, whether they want to be perfected or not.

      • “I gave you an example of a windmill company that recieves NO government subsidies.”
        You did no such thing. You gave an example of a company that has no direct subsidies of the form that show up on balance sheets.
        The fact remains that the govt still mandates that X% of power must be produced by renewables.
        That is a direct subsidy for the entire industry.
        The fact remains that the construction and purchasing of said power is directly subsidized, so even if the manufacturer doesn’t receive subsidies, his customers wouldn’t exist in the first place without those same subsidies.
        I don’t know if you actually are that dense, or if you are just corrupt. But just go away, you aren’t impressing anyone.

      • You first have to either pump the salt water to the desert, or send the electricity to the coast.
        Both options more than eliminate any savings in your grand scheme.

        How many miles from sea you find desert in Oz or Sahara?
        You need to pump the water anyway somewhere, it ain’t good at the sea. The scheme works only because potable water production doesn’t need to run 24/7/365. Sunny days is enough.

      • Alan Penn,
        Their financial reports make a number of references to gov’t support. Why do you expect to see it as a line item?
        Maybe the subsidies Udall pushed for didn’t get renewed, but Vestes apparently took advantage of it in previous years, and the layoffs were attributed in part to uncertainty in subsidy renewal.
        I posted other links of Vestes getting subsidies, too. They aren’t listed as line items in their financials. Are you accusing them of tax or SEC fraud now? Lol.
        [Reply: “Alan Penn” is a fake sockpuppet name for a repeatedly banned commenter. ~mod.]

    • I love the way activists go about claiming that they can make “environmental power” cost effective, but do it by taxing all competitors out of business.
      That is both insane and highly dishonest. But when you are trying to save the world, you can justify any amount of perfidy.

      • Taxing and regulating out of business.
        Coal is cheap enough that taxes alone would not do it…without crippling the economy as a whole.
        Here in the US, I believe it is illegal to create a law aimed at one entity or person.
        IOW, they cannot tax only coal, but they can regulated it to death…so that s what has been done.

    • Alan, don’t be dense. If their customers only exist because of subsidies, then by definition they only exist because of the subsidies.

  21. A few thoughts:
    It was refreshing to hear her confirm that the heat island effect is real, even if she used it to make small global temperature changes sound worse for city dwellers.
    There is exactly zero chance that industrialized nations will reduce their emissions by 10% next year, and by 10% in each succeeding year, so I’m not sure why anyone is listening to her. She might as well say that we need to implement fusion power immediately. If it’s not going to happen, why bother talking about it?
    She talks about “well being and equity” and how poor countries should be free to increase their emissions while we reduce ours. This grossly oversimplifies what the industrialized world has accomplished over the last century. We didn’t just light a bunch of coal on fire and chant, while factories and laboratories magically sprang out of the Earth. Forcing the advanced nations of the world to do less doesn’t mean that African nations will suddenly fill the gap. The world’s poorest people have experienced a 30% increase in life expectancy and greatly reduced infant mortality rates over the last 50 years thanks largely to technology provided by carbon emitters. I doubt you can imagine a more valuable contribution to “well being and equity” than that which we’ve already given.

    • Just another wealth distribution scheme. Won’t work because the west isn’t wealthy because the 3rd world countries are poor.

    • “There is exactly zero chance that industrialized nations will reduce their emissions by 10% next year, and by 10% in each succeeding year, so I’m not sure why anyone is listening to her. ”
      Have you seen how many comments there have been on this issue from the leading skeptics site ? She’s floating the balloon. When the conman floats 10% a year, he throws out the red meat. It’s obvious you guys love red meat.
      It does a few things right off the bat.
      1. They get to introduce the idea with a bit player (a sacrificial lamb).
      2. They then get to watch fenceriders see otherwise smart skeptics go all frothy.
      3. They then get to seduce the core heartstrings of people buy sliding in a much more modest reduced growth proposal. They also do it in a way that doesn’t look a obvious as Ms Polly and then look like the side of reasonableness.
      Your opponent really understands how to worm into the emotional brain and they’ve gotten so good at it that they know how to scare the fenceriders by proding skeptics into a frenzy.
      What surprises me about the above is that most of you folks know this is a common baiting technique.

  22. When one remembers what the central banks of the world need to prevent the collapse of the developed economies and political structures, the conclusion that the green loonies will be sent packing is obvious but wrong. The Solutions for saving the world have been revealed to some and it is for them to save the world. These people are crazy, and they will destroy the West to save the planet.

      • For many of them, “saving the planet” is merely a justification for destroying the West. Destroying the West is their goal, not an unintended consequence.
        Fortunately, much of Europe seems to be suddenly figuring this out, now they’re facing an existential threat from ‘migrants’ imported by anti-Western fanatics. Most Westerners will kowtow to the Narrative when it doesn’t affect them, but their behaviour can change almost overnight when disaster is staring them in the face.

  23. these de-growth proponents should live by example, and give evidence that they have been following their own recommendations for now and into the foreseeable future.
    iron brian

    • Iron brain, e right.
      The only thing that would give them a shred of credibility would be to first practice what they preach.
      But do as the say other should do is exactly the one thing none of them ever does or has any intention of doing.
      Leading by example is a concept as alien to them as thinking before they talk.

      • Liberals have been taught that as long as they talk the talk, it doesn’t matter what they do.
        By pushing to “correct” ideas, they are given dispensation to cover any energy usage in their own lives.

  24. EW
    A fine rubber hammer to the forehead EW.
    Miss Potty is the balloon floater. She’s on TED to float this increased clarity on the agenda so the movement can test its readiness.
    You can see this balloon floating technique on more radical parts of the agenda. Common technique in the game.
    Your approach zeros in on the cost to the common man. Would suggest expanding the idea to include real life historical examples such as the Great Depression noted by another commenter.
    The opposition will counter fiercely because it’s the soft underbelly as it gets closer to the real prize. Fortunately, you’ll be able to see counter attacks coming because they’ve exposed tactics from constant sparing.
    Soon enough, an alternative mass movement will have to present itelf to replace the void created by being successful in the above. If you really take the long term view, you end up with a successful replacement and things plod along nicely for the next 100 years and then, of course …. we cycle again.

    • Yes, we are going through another cycle of victorianism. Reminds one of the scientific prediction that man could not survive the speeds that the steam locomotive could attain.
      This current political paradigm and the tactics of the leftist leadership mimic the events in Germany during the years before WW2.

      • D
        Extremists (of any side) alter reality to attract followers. It’s a staple of propoganda. After reading Hoffer again, what stuck me more clearly was the fatted cow effect (my phrase).
        Unlike post WWI Germany, where the German nation was depressed, what I think we have is a fatted elite generation or two that are disillusioned with what success has brought.
        The disillusionment makes a mind susceptible to pseudoscience and psuedotruths.
        My current 2 cent theory.

  25. Didn’t Forbes do a reply to this inanity?
    As in greenies and righteous do-gooders first.
    Time these culls are separated from the herd, allowed to show us all how it is to be done.
    I can’t wait to see the drone pictures sent back from Enviro-World.
    What would you bet they could not last a month in the wilderness, with full supplies.
    This Academic is the rot every successful society spawns.

  26. to demonstrate feasibility, pilot their own ideas before going full-scale, like a real engineer.
    de-growth proponents shrink their own job hours
    de-growth proponents shrink their own departments budgets
    de-growth proponents shrink their own travel miles and frequencies

  27. Her would-be world reminds me of a short story by Vonnegut called “Harrison Bergeron” (from the “Welcome to the Monkey House” collection of stories). Society is living under enforced egalitarianism: beautiful people must wear hideous masks, graceful people must wear encumbering weights, people of above average intelligence must wear headphones that periodically produce noises to disrupt coherent thought.
    Bows-Larkin would be happy with such a nightmare world (as long as she was among the controlling elite). Instead of raising the bottom, she wants to lower the top until we are all equal.
    …equally miserable that is.

    • Mark,
      You’re describing the deliberate perversion of ‘equality’.
      “Equal opportunity” was a good thing, but it has been replaced with “equality of results”. We see that everywhere: ‘everyone must get a prize!’
      We see it in quotas, and we see it everywhere in economics, starting with minumum wage laws.
      When you view what’s happening through the lens of “equality of results rather than equal opportunity”, you see the agenda. You see what’s wrong with society.
      America and the West was built on fair competition. Equal results is the antithesis of that. We’re going down the wrong road, led by the corrupt UN, and almost all current politicians.

      • but db, procrustes is the very icon of equality.
        maybe it’s ‘liberal’ version of the term ‘equality’ that is the perversion, unnatural and coerced.

      • One young socialist that I debated in college declared that not only was the minimum wage law a good thing, but a maximum wage law would be equally good.
        And ideally, they should both be set to the same number.

      • “You’re describing the deliberate perversion of ‘equality’.”
        No, it’s the inevitable consequence of kowtowing to ‘equality’. The left will keep pushing for more and more ‘equality’ until the competent are forced to become as inept as the incompetent.
        I remember reading a book a few years ago by a Chinese lady who spent some time in the army under Mao. She said that anyone who could shoot well on the firing range was penalised until they started shooting as badly as the others. Because equality.
        As good as it may be in theory, that’s what government-enforced ‘equality’ becomes in the real world.

      • Menicholas,
        Procrustes was an old-timey do-gooder (☭) who altered the height of the people he robbed by stretching them or cuttting them to size, so they were all equal.
        MarkW describes a modern Procrustes in his debate example above. I trust he won that debate easily. ☺

      • Ditto, Thanks DB. I thought it was a typo, and could not figure out what was meant…so I never bothered to look it up.

      • dbstealey, you can only win debates with people who are capable of recognizing reality.
        Some people are so wedded to their glorious visions, that they won’t let anything interfere with their dreams.

    • Maybe Alice Bows-Larkin-Moon-Glampers is campaigning to become the world’s first Handicapper General.

      • Perhaps ‘Minister of Global Austerity’ would be a more succinct position.
        I’m sure the present UN hierarchy could find a use for her.

  28. I like to tell her and Obama: You go first, take Gore and all your believers with you and let me know how that works out for you. Then I’ll decide if it looks OK for me

  29. I loved this from the Delingpole piece:”This is a really difficult message to take because what it suggests is that we really need to do things differently. This is not about just incremental change. This is about doing things differently, about whole system change, and sometimes it’s about doing less things….”
    [Actually, Bows-Larkins means “fewer”]Lazy with language, lazy with physics? (And completely nutty with socialism)

  30. Missed something in the blockquote in my previous comment – even after re-readng it…..huh?

  31. Even the alarmists have admitted that the 2C limit was just made up. There is no science behind it.
    There is no reason to believe that a world that is 2C warmer than today would be a worse world, much less the catastrophe that the alarmists have been trying to paint it.

    • There is every reason to believe that the opposite is true…warmer is better, within the scope of any reasonable estimate of how much warmer it may get, from whatever cause.
      Warmer has always been better, colder has always been an unfortunate disaster for people.
      How the meme has stuck in so many heads that warming of a half-frozen ice-box of a planet is a bad thing for heat loving humans and the plants we depend on for food, is simply stunning and a deep mystery.

      • The only real issue is UHI effect and how to minimize it in hot weather or gain from it in the cold. They are playing its effect to make people believe the illusion that the world is warming out of control.

      • For most of the last few hundred million years, the average temperature has been between 5 and 10C warmer than today.
        Yet they want us to believe that a warming of 2C will practically end life on the planet.

  32. They say they want equity across the globe, but the reality is that the biggest shift in the last few centuries has not been life of relative ease enjoyed by the rich and powerful. They had it pretty well back then, they have it pretty well now. The big difference is that the masses have gone from scratching out a brutal and meager existence to lives of relative ease and comfort, made possible by fossil fuels.
    If we only went back, the earth could sustain the elites consuming all the energy they need to live as they desire. It just can’t sustain the masses doing so as well, they must be cut off again and go back to the meager existence that is necessary of the low class they were born into.

    • Here in the US many who live in what the Government calls “poverty” have cell phones and AC.
      There will always be those who have less than others. But today that “less” is more than it used to be.
      She’s out to stop that.

      • The “poor” in the US would be middle class in most of the developed world. And would be amongst the 1% in much of the developing world.

    • >>They say they want equity across the globe.
      If they wanted equality, they should not have opposed the British Empire. The Empire brought more prosperity across Africa than in the previous few thousand years. But following the Greeny-types opposition and ending of the Empire, the entire continent went down the tubes.
      Africa should be the richest nation-continent on the Earth, with all its many resources, but it it not. Corruption, greed and mismanagement has destroyed Africa. So now these Greeny-types want to hobble the West in order to try and solve the Third World mess that they created in the first place? Monstrous.

      • The British Empire collapsed under its own weight. It simply was too expensive to maintain it, and there was much opposition to it from various countries. There was also much turmoil internally, did the Brits have any concept of Islam and Hinduism? I don’t think so!

  33. She is just another filthy, self-important and self-appointed libcult Fairmonger
    Convinced of her own personal superiority and supremely “enlightened” understanding she, like all true believing libcultists, seek to insert themselves into everyones lives and courageously make all of our important decisions for us, since, as far as she is concerned, we hapless Muppets are soooo stupid and soooo helpless and in desperate need of their superior understanding in all things.
    So enlightened!
    Soooo corageous!
    These kinds of vacuous, utterly self-serving premises permeate every dark corner and recess of the modern libcult. Like the Ruling Class Monsters whom they ultimately serve, true-believer libcultists both fear and despise the little peeps and regard them as their inferiors in every way. The little peep untermenchen are therefore nothing more than the property of the “enlightened”, to do with as they, the enlightened, see fit, as one might rightfully expect to do with their chattel
    Every facet and Crusade of the libcult rests squarely on this same bit of silly rhetorical fluff. BlackLiesMatter, Glo-Bull Warming, “Heroic” immigrant invaders, ad nauseum.
    This is government of the self-annointed, by the self-annointed, for the self-annointed.

    • Oh, hell no.
      They are too silly to even think through the notion of going back to “preindustrial levels”.
      if they did, they would understand that what they are wishing for is a return to Little Ice Age conditions.
      And who the hell thinks that was some wondrous time of plenty?
      (Although the predicate that reducing CO2 will cool the planet to where it was has no basis in fact, or evidence to support it.)

      • How much higher?….that question is a strawman. Karl has shown, with concrete evidence that lowering emissions does not lower GDP.

        • Not a strawman at all; it is directly relevant to the claim.
          What Karl has not shown is how much economic activity those new regulations have cost the economy.
          Maybe you know. If so, post the numbers for us.

      • ” Karl has shown, with concrete evidence that lowering emissions does not lower GDP.”
        Having one example of one place and one time period for which this is true is not at all the same as demonstrating that one will not more generally lead to the other.
        There is a specific reason why US emissions went down over this interval, and the reason is that a lot of coal generation was converted to natural gas generations, which emits less CO2 per unit of electricity.
        The fact that this was done in largely due to the fracking revolution means that this change came about in spite of rather that due to liberal economic policies, should give you a pause in your thinking.
        If the eco-loons had their way, there would be no fracking, and no plentiful and inexpensive nat gas t have made this possible.
        Likewise, if nuclear is blocked, in favor of wind and solar which will necessitate fossil fuels based back up capacity, their may well wind up being no further reductions at all.
        Then too their is the economic dislocations that occurred during this time period, and the illusion of prosperity and growth.
        Gains in GDP which are due to borrowing ever greater sums is not the same as more traditional economic gains in which the labor force is expanding, rather than contracting.
        In 2004 the labor force was expanding, as were wages. The opposite was occurring in 2011.
        Federal deficit spending and QE infinity have distorted the GDP numbers beyond recognition…basically comparing 2004 GDP with 2011 GDP is an apples to oranges comparison.

      • BTW, I actually do know the difference between there and their…and they’re for that matter.
        But apparently the spelling program does not.
        Gwine to have to start writing comments on another program and copying them here.
        Apologies to all and esp. to the aforementioned pedants, as well as any school marms that may be present.

    • You might of thought, in that real world of drag racing they might fit you into something sexy, you know a craft that goes from 0 to 300 mph in 4-5 seconds flat, but looks good.
      I guess not, its all business.

    • A lot of that drop in emissions was from the change from coal to gas. The same effect could have been gained just by updating coal fired power stations to the newest processes.

    • Thank you Karl for pointing out that in the real , as opposed to the virtual or modelled world , emissions can be reduced by normal economic evolution without the imposition of crippling green or carbon taxes and the need to send $100billion / year to 3rd world military despots as demanded by the UN .
      When you have a moment could you convey this same insight to Obama, Hillary , Al Gore , John Kerry , Nancy and whomever you think is currently in charge of the CAGW juggernaut.

      • I don’t subscribe to AGW, I do however ascribe to lowering emissions – through more efficient energy generation and more appropriately more efficient use.
        A nice byproduct of implementing (and yes mandating the use of) better technologies is increased GDP
        Replacing 10-11 SEER AC units with 15+SEER, and oil fired furnaces with state of the art high efficiency gas
        Replace incandescent bulbs with LED
        (One can purchase a 5000-7500 hour 40 watt equivalent LED bulb that uses 7 watts for $2 per.)
        Electric or Hybrid Electric Vehicles — regardless of where the electricity comes from, an electric motor is more than twice as efficient as any IC engine. If you are going to burn fossil fuels for energy — at least burn them in the most efficient way possible — that’s not in a car. Range as an argument against is quickly becoming obsolete — anyhow, one could always just engineer the vehicles to allow the battery packs to be easily swapped out for a fully charged pack
        AS far as carbon tax — I didn’t see that mentioned — simply a knee-jerk reaction that 10% reduction in emissions is inherently BAD

      • Karl,
        Ms. Anita Bonghit up there is calling for self inflicted and long term austerity, not just reductions in emissions. That is what is deemed to be bad.
        Who thinks 10% per year can be achieved? The kind of changes you are suggesting are each capital intensive. She was not saying innovate and infrastruct our way to a better tomorrow…she is saying the prescription needed is harsh pain…which will in fact prevent the kind of capital investments that you are advocating.
        Considering that her plan would give a pass to developing countries, it would not even achieve what she thinks needs to be achieved…a net reduction in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

      • “Karl
        October 25, 2015 at 2:33 pm
        I don’t subscribe to AGW, I do however ascribe to lowering emissions…”
        Emissions of CO2, right? Why?

    • US GDP 2004-2011 +27%, US CO2 Emissions 2004-2011 -7.4% Karl @10:55 am.
      US GDP per capita PPP has hardly moved since 2004 after a steady rise for the previous 15 years …
      … while government debt to GDP has risen from 61% (2004) to 102% (2014), the steepest rise since WW2:

      • SO WHAT — overall GDP has increased while emissions and even energy use has dropped falsifying the ridiculous argument in the article

      • Energy use has dropped. Just look at the Detroit area where all the manufacturing jobs were lost.
        Losing heavy energy users sure drops the demand for electric power!
        Maybe Jeffery Sachs should go back to the Detroit area where came from and try his economic ideas there before pushing them onto the whole world. Maybe he can fix Detroit? Plenty of poverty there.

      • Karl: The emissions have decreased in large part because the emitting industries have mostly moved to China, or shut down. Our manufacturing base has shrunk. And GDP is a funny number. Wages paid to government employees are counted in it, for instance.

  34. Pink cheeks, a beatific yet nearsighed gaze and a hyphenated last name–Alice is beginning to master the art of spewing many dangerous greenhouse adjectives and adverbs into the atmosphere.

  35. Enforced “fairness” is called Communism.
    Such plans never work, always cause misery and poverty, get loads of people killed, waste resources and cause more pollution than any other form of government.

  36. As a first step, in the name of equity &. social justice, her salary should be decreased to £966 ($1,480) per month to match the world average. It would also decrease her carbon footprint tremendously, so there is no downside of the business whatsoever, right?

    • With all other expenses she would not be able to afford glasses on a wage like that. I have seen what women have to endure with regards to sanitation etc in poor countries, glasses were not a priority.

      • I reckon she can neither read nor write without her glasses. Which would actually serve the public well. Even she herself would be better off, because this way she would have plenty of opportunity to do her laundry. With no washer/dryer, neither tap water nor artificial detergents it takes some time &. effort indeed at the creek. especially in winter, barefoot. However, no true champion of austerity is supposed to get intimidated by such paltriness.
        If people happen to urinate into the water a bit farther upstream for the general lack of sewers, hey, don’t worry! it’s all natural.

  37. Its amazing to me that people can claim action on climate change is necessary for future generations, yet their solutions leave future generations in devastation that is far worse than what they are trying to prevent. No one who lived through the great depression would suggest intentionally devastating the economy is something we should do to prevent future generations from having to deal with a warmer planet. How can you even compare living homeless on the streets with needing to run your air conditioner more?

    • SJWs always lie.
      But, yeah, it’s sad that the left, which used to claim to be on the side of ‘progress’, is now continually pushing for regress back to some pre-industrial utopia. They changed their tune over the last few decades when we proved to just about everyone that free people progress much faster than communists… OK, they can’t create progress, but one thing they’ve proven they can do really, really well is destroy things.

      • Just out of curiosity and laziness, what does SJW stand for ?
        It feels like four letter word reduced to three.
        If its intention escapes me, ya might wanna just spell it out.

      • Social Justice Warrior.
        The leftist Twitterati invented the name for themselves so they could pretend they were doing something more important than posting funny cat pictures. Now they’ve started claiming it’s an insult, because everyone laughs at them when they claim to be ‘warriors’.

    • “No one who lived through the great depression would suggest intentionally devastating the economy …”
      Unfortunately, those who lived through the great depression are leaving us at increasing rates. Most of today’s libs don’t know anything about the depression and don’t care because it happened before they were born and, therefore, isn’t real.

  38. Has she figured out that only wealthy countries can afford the luxury of keeping third-rate academics in gainful employment?

  39. Liberal socialists like her just want everyone to be equally poor, except of course, socialist elites like her !!

  40. My thoughts for “Alice” No thank you. I’m not going to begrudge developing nations their chance to gain a decent standard of livening nor myself. It is time to put her and similar thinkers on notice, their solution as unexceptionable. Either work at a means of mitigation that will recognize above projected increases, in CO2 Or get out of the way and allow wiser minds to address the issues. In sum its time to point out that these people are unfit to change a litter box.

  41. Well, I guess it all comes down to whether there can be meaningful economic activity without carbon outputs, doesn’t it? I think most of us agree that reducing economic activity per se is fairly insane, so the question comes as to whether there can be ‘better economic activity’ using decarbonised value-added activity.
    So how long would it take to turn modern agricultural systems into decarbonised permaculture systems without loss of output?? I’m not the guy to answer that one, but my best guess hunch would be a few decades rather than a few years. It’s easy small-scale, but I remain to be convinced that permaculture is yet scalable without a huge return of labour to the land and out of the cities, which of course has significant implications for housing stock……
    How long would it take to make renewable energy sources reliable enough, cheap enough and storable enough to power city offices? I consider this as that’s where the energy uses aren’t so great as to cause impossible challenges in the near term. Well, there’s a few factors at play: supplying renewable energy to existing buildings; reducing energy requirements of existing building through retrofits; and building new energy-neutral buildings using modern technology.
    How long would it take to take domestic housing off grid through the use of solar panels, heat pumps, biogas etc etc? Again, different for different housing stock, since modern stock can be energy neutral now, whereas old stock may need rather more heating. I’m minded to say that in 50 years, you can replace the whole housing stock at which point the job is done.
    Where things get more difficult are transportation, supplying construction materials like steel, eliminating all the chemicals used for all kinds of things (almost all of which require high energy inputs to be made) etc etc. The implication is that you replace cars with electric ones, which begs the question ‘how do you generate the electricity to charge them at affordable prices?’ The implication is that you stop manufacturing steel, since the energy required to produce that is far greater than renewables will ever generate (unless we finally get fusion working properly), which says that 21st century construction is a step-change revolution, not the sort of evolution we are all used to. Ditto for chemicals.
    I simply can’t see any of the latter happening.
    I think the danger of all these arguments are twofold:
    1. Assuming that dangerous warming is actually happening and man-made.
    2. Assuming on the other side that you can’t continue economically whilst eliminating carbon usage.
    I’d like climate alarmists to be sacked and I’d like proactive planning for renewable energy worlds to take place too. I’ve said before that I think the world will use renewables primarily in the 22nd century, not the 21st, but that doesn’t mean that a framework of how to get there shouldn’t be put in place. One with milestones and tollgates, not a Soviet-style plan. You can’t ever do the latter, as unexpected discoveries, unexpected blocks etc etc will inevitably arise. But you can set an overall course to steer toward……..

  42. I’m struggling to grasp the merits of this proposed “scheme”.
    As we all know by now, countries that have experienced the benefits of modern prosperity, high productivity and cheap energy, have also seen a decline in birth rates.
    In many countries, birth rates of the natural population have fallen below replication level, i.e. the population is numerically in decline.
    That’s it -some may say – the problem has solved itself. Less people surely equates to less consumption.
    Except that low birth rates are seen to be a massive problem for the countries concerned.
    Because we need more young people entering the economy to work and tax – to fund our massive national debt and pension obligations, amongst other reasons.
    And we need for those young people to be productive and to buy lots of taxable stuff.
    So, where does the eco-left stand on this topic?
    They would be at war with their own thoughts. If only they actually had thoughts of their own.
    Prosperity -> low reproduction rates -> lower consumption -> sustainability.
    Poverty -> higher reproduction rates -> higher consumption -> planet over-run by swarms of evil CO2 producing humans.
    Of course, all of this has nothing to do with the “logic” of the eco-left, because in fact they use no logic at all. They are simply sock-puppets and “useful idiots”.
    The grand scheme at the heart of this is the political, social and economic destabilization of the west.
    Which is to be brought about by engendering, social division and unrest, unsustainable immigration, resistance to all forms of productive industry, including energy production, and resistance to all forms of military assets and defence spending.
    The same “useful idiots” who are now explaining that we must immediately destroy our baseload electricity generating capacity – are the same “useful idiots” who, back in the 1970’s and 1980’s were out protesting in support of the miners, and thereby in support of coal mining!! Whilst campaigning against nuclear – the only low CO2 option in the UK at the time.
    They are the same “useful idiots”. The Socialist/Communist leftie loonies.
    People who do not seem to know who or what is planting their ideas into their heads – or why.

  43. When I was an innocent young child, new to this world; my sister, my older sister, viewed me as a human sacrifice to the gods. Each new wart, pimple, or crawling hair lice that appeared on my tender, young body was another evidence of another sacrifice impressed upon me. Each intestinal worm, bout of acid reflux, or uncontrollable flatulence that harbored within me was also evidence of the sacrifice she imposed on me. Nor, was this torture perpetrated against my tender being done to appease the gods. No, it was done to curry favor.
    So, when I first started reading about the prescriptions that Dr. Alice Bows-Larkin seeks to impose on, dictate to, pester, needle, second guess, subjugate, encumber, throttle, incapacitate, and torture us with, the first thought that came to mind is that she must be my sister, my older sister’s twin.
    But, then I thought, no, she can’t be. Even though, my sister, my older sister left me irreparably damaged she did at least leave me semi-functional (don’t laugh); a state of being I’m absolutely certain Dr. Larkin would not have left anyone in.
    But, more to the point: my sister, my older sister did exhibit wisdom in perpetrating her torment. In fact, it’s the same wisdom exhibited by the ancients when they sought human sacrifices. You see, their human sacrifices were nubile, young virgins who either didn’t have a prayer of being able to fight back, or they thought such superstitious nonsense was genuine, and actually felt privileged to be immolated for absolutely no good reason at all. Or, barring any available virgins, the ancients turned conquered and captured neighboring tribes into human sacrifices. And, of course, those tribes couldn’t fight back either; otherwise they wouldn’t have been conquered in the first place. And, my sister, my older sister did the same, chose a sacrificial victim; an innocent, sweet, helpless, unblemished child – me – who couldn’t fight back any more than they could.
    But, Dr. Larkin has chosen; not gullible helpless virgins, innocent children, or captives to sacrifice. Heck no! She’s chosen; well, all of us. Every single one of us: young, old; nice, nasty; innocent, worldly; weak, strong; small, big, really big; 90 pound weaklings and musclemen. Good luck with your sacrifices, Doctor!

  44. There are layers and layers to the cult of CAGW horror story, the descent, the race into chaos/madness.
    While the developed countries are racing to mutually assured economic collapse, the cult of CAGW village idiots are shouting that we need to spend trillions of dollars (there are no surplus dollars to spend which is a fact not a theory) on green scams that do not work (regardless if there was surplus money to spend on green scams, the green scams do not significantly reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions, a complete change to nuclear power and draconian measures such as banning all air travel is the only ‘solution’ if the objective is to significantly reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions) and do triple the cost of electrical power.
    The general public has no idea concerning their country’s balance sheet crisis. What will happen next is as certain as the fact that bridges will collapse when there are absurdity overloaded above there design limit.
    The developed countries have all run out of ‘public’ money to spend on everything and have managed to hide this in your face crisis by borrowing money, year after year.
    The end of that road is what is currently happening to Greece. Forced public spending cuts. Spending more and more deficit money on ‘infrastructure’ does not and did not create permanent jobs (big surprise jobs disappear when the public spending ends).
    Japan has won the race to the end of the road. There are now charts in economic specialty magazines that show how much room is left before the cliff is reached, country by country. Japan has the highest accumulated debt of any country on the earth and faces an eminent economic collapse which is why this linked to book has written by an inner circle economic specialist.

    Horror story: A gloomy, but convincing, account of the developed world’s problems
    When the Money Runs Out: The End of Western Affluence. By Stephen King. Yale University Press; 304 pages

    More layers. The entire basis scientific basis of the IPCC reports were incorrect.
    If I understand how the sun is currently changing and how the sun has caused Heinrich events in the past, it appears we are going to experience a Heinrich event. There are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleo record. Inter-glacial periods end abruptly not gradually. Big surprise the past cyclic abrupt climate change events, the glacial/inter-glacial cycle has a cause.
    It just gets better, comically absurd.
    The majority of the atmospheric increase in CO2 was due to the increase in ocean temperatures and an increase in natural CH4 emission from the deep earth which is caused by solar cycle changes. Atmospheric CH4 has increased step wise with plateaus of five to six years that match the step wise decreases of the C13/C12 ratio in the atmosphere (If anthropogenic CO2 has the cause of the increase in atmospheric CO2 the decrease in the C13/C12 ratio would have matched the anthropogenic emissions and would have changed gradually, continuously with time, that is not observed)
    Sources and sinks of CO2 Tom Quirk

    … The results suggest that El Nino and the Southern Oscillation events produce major changes in the carbon isotope ratio in the atmosphere. This does not favour the continuous increase of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels as the source of isotope ratio changes. The constancy of seasonal variations in CO2 and the lack of time delays between the hemispheres suggest that fossil fuel derived CO2 is almost totally absorbed locally in the year it is emitted. This implies that natural variability of the climate is the prime cause of increasing CO2, not the emissions of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels. ….

    Figure 3. Monthly variations in 13C at the South Pole from SIO14
    The correlation of changes in δ13C with ENSO events and the comparison with a simple model of a series of cascades suggest that the changes in δ13C in the atmosphere have little to do with the input of CO2 emissions from the continuous use of fossil fuels.

    • Thanks for the work WA.
      I’m very curious about the accounting that is being done concerning CO2. I saved this email. Ferdinand Engelbeen claims that accounting for man made CO2 is possible. I’m still asking questions trying to understand how that’s possible considering the multiple sources. He’s been very patient, but I’m just not seeing it.
      Meanwhile, I also know that CO2 is rather meaningless in the complexity of climate or should I recouch that it hasn’t been proven to me that it is meaningful. I feel baited in even perusing the understanding but it has become necessary because the US has codified it as a pollutant and attainment criteria will be the law of the land soon enough.
      Indeed many layers. The amount of work you’ve done in your post indicates you’ve likely already read about SDRs from the IMF. In a diabolical winner take all move, they are set up to issue new currency when/if the current fiats fail.
      The skeptics/realists movement is still young compared to the CAGW/Social Justice movement. There is time to still sway the insane wastefulness, but not with the limited tools the skeptics/realists are using. Many valuable lessons can be learned from the opposition concerning a mass information campaign. Not the least of which are feeder ngos and broader audience tools such as a WUWT Talks.

  45. The climate change that we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. The 33 degrees C that the Earth’s surface is warmer because of the Earth’s atmosphere is all attributed to the convective greenhouse effect. 0.0 degrees C is left to be attributed to the conjectured radiant greenhouse effect. Therefor the climate sensitivity of CO2 is 0.0 degrees C for a doubling of CO2. The proposed plan cannot possible have an effect on climate.

    • I would pay good money to be standing there watching when this woman is told her plan will be put into effect, and that she and everyone who she knows or is related to will be the first subjected to forced austerity, just to see how it works for a few years before being imposed on anyone else.

  46. You might observe that Dr. Bows is no nuttier than Paul Erlich, who has had a long and distinguished career, in spite of always being wrong. What counts is not being on target with your forecasts, it seems. Her TED presentation was an interesting milestone in the march toward Paris. The frenzy builds. By the time the conference actually arrives, she is likely to be superseded by the REAL nutcases.

  47. If we were, at this time, contemplating the colonization of Mars, she is the type of person who would argue that Mars must be preserved in its “pristine” condition, saved from environmental destruction by humans.

    • I would agree with this plan, but not for the stated reason.
      Mars should be left alone because going there would be a waste of money.
      If the goal is the stars, we need to learn how to live and survive in space first, and how to find and mine the resources needed to survive.
      The obvious first target is asteroid based colonies.
      Travelling as far as Mars and winding up deep in a gravity well is a suicidal plan at best…the most expensive suicides in history.
      Before even trying, lets see some people land a ship on Earth, and fix and restock and relaunch it themselves, using only what they can scrounge from a cold dry valley in Antarctica.
      Good luck wit’ dat.
      I will not even get into the part about being outside of the Earth’s magnetic field for a few years, and then a solar storm or CME heads their way…

  48. Anyway, in spite of the fact that she is talking complete shit, she has read the mood of the times quite accurately and is acting perfectly in accord with her own self-interest.
    I expect that she will be presenting a documentary series on the BBC, before the end of 2016.
    The BBC loves this sort of anti-growth environmental saviour fare.
    Importantly, she is not just a pretty face. She is also an imbecile.
    Expect to see her filmed from a helicopter, standing on the rim of a volcano, or up a tree in the rainforest, or inside a Chilean astronomical observatory, within the year.
    Actually, that’s not a hard prediction, it’s a projection.
    Nobody knows what the difference is – but I just thought that I’d cover myself in case I am wrong!!

    • Alan Penn,
      What’s your point?
      I recall someone eating DDT many years ago in order to demonstrate that it was harmless to humans.
      Would I eat DDT even though I know it’s probably harmless? No, I wouldn’t. But the fact that your arguments have devolved to this point simply shows you’ve lost the debate.
      Because you can’t credibly argue Ms. Bows-Larkins’ case… can you?

    • Alan Penn says:
      The video goes to Moore’s credibility.
      No, it doesn’t. It’s merely a failed ad hominem attack that has nothing to do with the article.
      I wouldn’t ingest lots of things that are probably harmless. So what? Is that the best you’ve got?

      • Only a fool could fail to undersatnd that the ’roundup’ video is not only debunked, it was a logical fallacy that has nothing to do with the article.
        But it’s the best you’ve got, so I guess you have to use it.
        And you don’t mind if I didn’t view your video. Stuff that excites you doesn’t excite me.
        There are probably lots of things Dr. Moore wouldn’t drink, and for sure there are lots of things I won’t drink.
        But by all means, Alan Penn, bottoms up! To each his own.
        [Reply: “Alan Penn” is a fake sockpuppet name for a repeatedly banned commenter. ~mod.]

    • The LD-50 for glyphosate is greater than 5000 mg/kg.
      It is listed this way because they never succeeded in poisoning any animals to death with it.
      this is in stark contrast to such everyday items as aspirin (LD-50 of 200mg/kg), salt (LD50 3000mg/kg), bleach (LD50 850 mg/kg), cola (caffeine LD50 for dogs, 150mg/kg), vitamin A (LD50 2000mg/kg), or even ethanol (7060mg/kg)

      • …Moore responded. “I’m not stupid.”
        That makes Dr. Moore and Alan Penn polar opposites.
        [Reply: “Alan Penn” is a fake sockpuppet name for a repeatedly banned commenter. ~mod.]

    • I remember seeing Ted Talks when it was new, and there were many interesting and thoughtful presentations. I watched (what the hell’s her name-I had to scroll to the top to find out) Alice Bows-Larkin’s talk and it was so boring that I bet half the people in the congregation fell asleep. Who knows what she was talking about. Not a very inspiring speech to say the least…

    • “Long Term Toxicity Tests
      Long-term toxicological studies have been conducted to determine the effects of prolonged exposure to glyphosate. High doses of glyphosate were administered on a daily basis for the average lifetime (two years) of rats and mice and for one year for dogs. Few effects were observed in rats and mice in these studies, and when effects were observed, they were present only at very high levels. No treatment-related effects were seen at any dose in the dog study.”
      Few substances have been studied for proof of toxicity as much as Roundup(Glyphosate), and yet no one has ever found any harm of note to any animals or insects. In any amount. Over any interval. Ever.
      Even in the concentrated form which is highly corrosive, people have drank it in large amounts and suffered little harm…although a some died when they did try to kill themselves with…but again…this was with the concentrate, which is corrosive.
      I think it was far more problematic to ingest a fatal dose of this concentrate than it would be to eat a fatal bottle of aspirin, or container of table salt, or handful of rock salt.

      • Menicholas,
        Now that we’ve both debunked Alan Penn, I have to side with Dr. Moore. He’s not stupid. I wouldn’t drink something not intended for human consumption, either.
        But I guess some folks will drink anything.

    • Alan, do you understand the difference between knowing something is safe to do, and being willing to actually do it?

    • Dissolving a persons morning vitamins or any other sort of pill or medication is a glass of water is safe to do, but only a jackass would do it, if only because it tastes really very awful.

    • We use Roundup extensively, along with many GMO crops, on my farm. Now, drink a glass is not recommended. Come in from spraying a bit drenched, happens all the time depending on wind direction. Our field contours go every which way. You know not of which you speak. Glyphosate is much more benign than the herbicides we used to use. Blocks a single enzyme. Moore’s credibility is very high. Unless you show up with some real science, yours is not.
      Just a farmer who calls BS on a non-farmer know-nothing.

    • Alan Penn October 25, 2015 at 3:30 pm
      “What’s your point?”
      Well what is it. In some situations people must drink urine to survive. Must someone drink some now just to prove to you that under the certain circumstances they would do so? Or take for an example the flight of soccer players that crashed in the Andes years ago. If someone where to say they would make the same choices that the soccer players made would you insist that they demonstrative it for you? If so be careful what you ask for you may get it!! (Grin and Laugh!)

    • DB and Michael.
      Wading through waste deep raw sewage will not kill anyone. And if there are no open cuts or sores on the person’s body, you may not have any harmful effects from it at all.
      Ditto for falling face first into a fresh cow flop.
      You will not die.
      Will I do it to prove it is so?
      “I am not stupid”.

    • BTW, if you ever need to drink urine to survive a bad situation…drink it right away…right away.
      Still hot.
      Because fresh urine is generally almost sterile, having been filtered through the nephrons which are very small and selective.
      But it will not stay sterile for long, and can be quite toxic after a time.

      “When asked by a reporter if it was dangerous to spill the chemical on one’s hands, Midgely dramatically instructed an attendant to bring him some pure tetraethyl lead, in which he proceeded to wash his hands. “I’m not taking any chance whatever,” he announced to reporters who were present. “Nor would I take any chance doing that every day.”
      That didn’t stop the environmentalists from getting leaded gasoline banned, eventually. Strangely, since we were all saved from leaded gasoline, standardized test scores of high school students in the US have continued a decades-long decline, with no indication that they will spike back up to where they were during the era of leaded gasoline.
      Kind of like how the CFC ban saved us all from the ozone hole…
      The environmentalists are always quick to declare victory, but never follow up to show that their new regulations provided any of the claimed benefits.

  49. This woman appears well
    nourished and expensively
    dressed, not in rags.
    Not exhausted by ongoing hard labour –
    Doesn’t follow her own instructions.
    Nonetheless the loaded audience applauds their criminal intentions – for
    ‘Climate Change’ is stagnant, while madness accelerates.

    • audience applauds their criminal intentions
      audience applauds her
      criminal intents.
      Thx – Hans

  50. I love people like this woman. She paints a picture of something that is so obviously impossible that only the most naïve among us would fail to throw up their hands and say “Why bother?”
    Me…I’m just going to enjoy myself.

  51. I used to watch a lot of TED talks – they were short and informative back then. But now they are a parade of left leaning apologist trying out-wacky each other with their ideas! (There are a few exceptions of course). So I have given up watching them most of the time.
    Has anyone else noticed this trend?

    • I’d listen to more if they were longer, my attention span this late in life, is greater than 15 minutes.
      I love any story well told.

    • TED talks have been co-opted by the same clique that has co-opted most scientific journals.
      When dozens of journals emit the exact same talking points — repeating the Narrative that ‘dangerous man-made global warming’ is a big problem — rational folks understand that it’s just a tactic.
      In honest science, there is always pretty heated disagreement. So when these journal Boards (typically six Board members) take exactly the same public position, we know they’ve been bought and paid for.
      It’s easy when you know how, and when you have the resources. It’s an effective tactic, too, since the gov’t .edu factories have dumbed down two generations of students, to the point that critical thinking is never used, or even understood.

      • DB
        I saw this word in the above post. It’s a pet peeve of mine because it shows how far the conmen have come. It bothers me when I see it in much the same way Carlin ranted about downsizing replacing being fired. We don’t tell stories anymore, we tell natratives. Ugh, can’t get used it. Makes me feel like I need to wash up.
        It’s not a big deal in the wide wide world of issues. Just thought I’d get it off my chest.

      • DB
        “TED talks have been co-opted by the same clique that has co-opted most scientific journals.”
        The market is ripe for WUWT Talks.
        Sunny TV is fun, but in all seriousness, WUWT should produce a few gems.
        As I’ve learned from watching this site, the best work is when you show critical thinking skills without falling into “ism” traps.
        Oh, and be nice. You don’t have to be creepy like Mr Rodgers, but be nice. You’ll inspire those fenceriders to think instead of being scared.

      • Knute writes : “We don’t tell stories anymore, we tell natratives.”
        I have this theory about the difference between a story and a narrative that goes like this: A story is something you can relate to, it echoes and affirms personal experience. It carries a meaning you can already relate to and clarifies it. Robert Pirsig got that.
        A narrative on the other hand is still folksy, but it’s marketing. It’s an attempt to cast an unfamiliar message or experience in common terminology, but it doesn’t always work. It’s carefully concealed propaganda. Some people call it “spin”.

        • S
          “A narrative on the other hand is still folksy, but it’s marketing. It’s an attempt to cast an unfamiliar message or experience in common terminology, but it doesn’t always work. It’s carefully concealed propaganda. Some people call it “spin”.
          Agreed annnd I suggest that genuine folks try to avoid using it. It’s a bit of a sign that you’ve been co-opted in your thinking. Not a big one, mind you, but a clue … an erosion.

      • In a nutshell, I think the difference between a story and a narrative is a story is about something you saw, did or had happen to you while a narrative is what you thought about it. A story is a chronology or history, a narrative is an interpretation. Both have their place but narratives get abused when they’re presented as stories. They’re often more amusing though! 🙂

    • Margaret asks: “Has anyone else noticed this trend?”
      Yes. Very much and I don’t like it unless I’m deliberately watching a humorist like Maher or Colbert. I do enjoy spin when it’s obvious and funny. I don’t like it in news reports and it’s really started to get obscene.

  52. TED appears to now be the medium of choice for purveyors of scam pseudo-innovation.
    Here is such a heap of nonsense. Another Betz limit defying wind turbine!!
    Currently sucking in millions of dollars from the rich and gullible, no doubt…

  53. I wonder how much do taxpayers spend on this fine lady, and what is a Return On Investment for the enlightened Tyndall Centre?

  54. “I’m going to assume for the purpose of this calculation, that emissions are a proxy for economic activity.”

      • Only folks that don’t take the time to think and/or understand that economic activity CAN and DOES increase without an increase in emissions.
        In fact, continual process improvement strives to increase production while decreasing energy use.

      • There are some fairly strong limitations on how “efficient” many key processes can be.
        For example, consider Aluminium. Aluminium is ubiquitous – everything from the corrosion resistant frames of your double glazing, the flashing which stops your roof leaking, soda cans, TV dinners, foil you use for cooking, lightweight car components – Aluminium is everywhere.
        Yet Aluminium smelting is incredibly energy intensive. Yet hasn’t been any real improvement in efficiency for decades, though not for lack of trying.
        High energy prices have forced a lot of first world Aluminium smelters to close, and a lot of smelting is now done in places like China, which values cheap energy. But we still use Aluminium, just as much, if not more than we ever did. Offshoring our energy use is not the same as finding a way to reduce our energy use.

      • Karl,
        Emissions are an indicator of economic activity. They may not track it in lockstep, but they are an indicator, and a pretty good one. Just compare emissions and economic activity between N. Korea with S. Korea.
        There is no economy that doesn’t produce CO2 emissions. None anywhere.
        The U.S. has reduced its CO2 emissions, mainly due to fracking and natural gas use. And you cannot tell us how much better the economy would be doing without restrictions due to the stupidly-named “carbon” scare. Because you don’t know. All you see is one side of the issue.

      • No only Aluminium, cement too is a high consumer of energy and producer of CO2. I have yet to see a solar powered Bessemer converter. Most I have seen are in the region of 90MW.

      • Companies are already trying to make their processes as efficient as possible. It’s their money they are wasting when the processes aren’t.
        There is a limit to how efficient a process can be made, and for most processes, we are getting pretty close to those limits.
        Sure we can make cars even smaller, however you have to force those cars onto people. Most people would rather have a life, than be a little bit more efficient.
        However people such as yourself can’t tolerate others not living up to the standards of the do gooders, so they use govt to force others to live how the do gooders want them to live.

    • A proxy? Yes of course, just as inspiration and expiration are proxies for life. If you disbelieve, check with NASA and the trace gasses they search for when evaluating the atmosphere of exo-planets for signs of life; in our experience life equates to carbon and the presence of CO2 in an atmosphere is a sign of life, as is methane. There’s not much getting around it, we’re carbon based and it’s the only example of life we have to work with. It’s possible we may encounter life that isn’t carbon based in the future and if we do we’ll need to re-write the book. In the present though all we know is carbon based life.
      Did you have a competing example that shows empirical evidence of life on a planet absent carbon dioxide? I haven’t seen it myself but I would be very interested? I don’t get around that much anymore so please excuse me for my ignorance.
      It’s reasonable that growth in atmospheric CO2 is synonymous with growth of life, so CO2 makes a very good proxy for gauging it, at least our kind of life. I don’t think it’s “wrong” to use it. If you have an alternative, more accurate, indicator this would appear to be a good forum to present it in. It seems there are quite a few very knowledgeable people who read it and respond politely and in detail. I personally have come to value this forum highly for those reasons.

      • S
        “It seems there are quite a few very knowledgeable people who read it and respond politely and in detail. I personally have come to value this forum highly for those reasons”
        Well put Scott. I too have arrived at the same place.

  55. I would encourage this imbecile to return all her research money and practice what she preaches. Also, she should forsake all products that depend on fossil fuel for any part of putting it to market. I trust said imbecile understands that includes what she eats and what makes her toilet flush. It is also what allows her to publish rubbish. People like this who hate poor people and wish to heap even greater misery on them by driving a wedge between them and prosperity need to be examined under RICO laws.

  56. Menicolas on October 25, 2015 at 7:55 am, gives that Alice Bows-Larkin’s CV like this:
    ” …Alice is a Reader in Energy and Climate Change as part of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and based within the School of Mechanical, Civil and Aerospace Engineering (MACE), University of Manchester. Alice trained as an astrophysicist at the University of Leeds, did her PhD in climate modelling at Imperial College, joining the interdisciplinary Tyndall Centre to research conflicts between climate change and aviation.”
    What can I say to this? First, stupidity annoys me. Second, it takes both stupidity and irresponsibility to create such “higher education” specimens. It looks like the green inquisition is gradually destroying our higher education institutions and academic societies, starting with the Royal Society and NAS, and going down the ladder to lesser known associations and schools. What this does to me is to start suspecting that our “academic leadership,” if it deserves to be called that, is nothing more than commoners dressed up in the emperor’s new clothes. I used to look up to my professors but with this gang in charge I cannot do that any more.
    This still leaves me with having to settle some scientific issues. First of all, that hand wringing about 2 degrees or 4 degrees by 2100 has nothing to do with reality. The warmists have a superstition that future warming can be determined if you know what happens when you double the amount of carbon dioxide in the air. Carbon dioxide sensitivity they like to call that. For your information, carbon dioxide sensitivity is exactly zero. How do I know this? From actual observations of nature. You must have heard that we are living through a period of so-called ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’ of warming. At the same time, atmospheric carbon dioxide keeps increasing as shown by the Keeling curve. You may even know that IPCC uses the Arrhenius greenhouse theory to tell us what future temperature to expect. It is built into their climate models. That is why their climate model predictions, starting with the very first one that Hansen himself introduced, have predicted more warming than actually happened. Such an unbroken string of failures in private industry would lead to a quick shutdown of the system. But the warmists seem happy to accept the false predictions and pass them on to politicians. The systemic fault of these models is that the Arrhenius greenhouse theory is incorrect. There are a number of greenhouse gases in air besides carbon dioxide, but that one is the only one Arrhenius can handle. The most important GHG left out of it is water vapor and that makes all the difference. The only greenhouse theory that can actually handle water vapor is MGT, Miskolczi greenhouse theory. According to MGT, carbon dioxide and water vapor, both greenhouse gases, form a joint optimum absorption window in the infrared whose optical thickness is 1,87. Miskolczi showed in 2010 that the optical thickness of the Earth’s atmosphere remains invariant when the amount of carbon dioxide is varied. If you now add carbon dioxide to air this will increase its optical thickness. But when this happens water vapor steps in. Its amount in air begins to diminish, rain out, and the original optical thickness is restored. The added carbon dioxide will of course keep absorbing, but reduction of water vapor in the joint absorption window has reduced its absorptivity to the point where no greenhouse warming predicted by Arrhenius can take place. An outside observer will note that carbon dioxide keeps rising but there is no parallel warming that Arrhenius theory predicts. As a matter of fact, there has been no warming at all for the last 18 years, sufficient to send the Arrhenius theory into the waste basket of history. Lack of this warming means that addition of more carbon dioxide will have no influence on global temperature. Even if you double the added CO2 you still get no warming, the reason I told you that sensitivity is zero. There have been numerous papers published trying to prove that the hiatus does not exist, to no avail. They are looking for that “lost heat” everywhere, even in the ocean bottom. Somehow they missed the fact that it had absconded into outer space before they even got started. Several papers have used falsified temperature curves to prove the non-existence of the hiatus. But the biggest falsification of all is to wipe out an entire hiatus that existed in the eighties and nineties. I discovered it accidentally in 2008 while doing research for my book “What Warming?” using satellites. It lasted from 1979 to 1997, 18 years like the present one. But when I went to cross check with official data I discovered that they had disappeared it and were showing a false warming called “late twentieth century warming” in its place. That fake warming is still part of the official IPCC temperature curve, eighteen years later. There is no chance that this fake warming was put in accidentally because I have proof that NASA knew about lack of warming in 1997. The boss at NASA then was James Hansen himself. As to future warming, the anti-hiatus people have dreamed up an El Nino warming for this winter to save them from that hiatus. I can tell you right now that they don’t know what they are doing. It isn’t going to happen.

    • Arno, good rant. 🙂
      One thing that gets me (this is pure politics) is the media have lately pilloried Christoper Horner for his oblique but professional relationship with Alpha Naturals, who apparently paid him about $19,000 for legal council before going bankrupt under existing and proposed federal regulation. He’s accused of “corruption” for representing an oil company against warmist claims they were evil and needed to be shut down. Needless to say the warmists won that argument and Alpha Naturals no longer exists.
      What intrigues me is no one seems to beef about the association of James Hansen and Al Gore. Gore was Hansen’s boss for eight years while Gore was VP of the US and the amounts of money transferred to Hansen under Gore’s direction exceeded $19,000 by several orders of magnitude, though the media seems uninterested in that fact. Instead they focus attention on the “corrupt” practices of a lowly corporate attorney in his legal representation of a bankrupt oil company. As if Mr. Gore wasn’t an attorney using tax money to pay Dr. Hansen to promote the theory of AGW? Where will this nonsense stop?
      May I suggest a more liberal use of paragraphing in your future writing? No criticism of content intended, but it’s easier to read if you separate major themes with paragraphs. Just a suggestion, keep the home fires burning, good work and all that!
      Thanks for your effort!

  57. I have, at last, read all the posts here and am astounded at how many posters refer to Professor Alice Bows-Larkin as “Alice”. I find this very disrespectful as I am sure that these same posters have never been formally introduced to Professor Bows-Larkin and so most certainly has either not been invited to “Please call me Alice” or developed an intimacy that allows them to assume that they can address her as such!

    • I actually referred to her as “Ms. Anita Bonghit” at one point.
      So what?
      What is your point, Jimmy boy?

    • Calling her Prof. or Dr. would demean real Dr.s and Prof’s. It’s intentional and deserved for someone like her who is either pure evil or seriously deluded.

    • What you demand we say what we really think?
      Alice in the diminutive is at least polite.
      Mindless do-gooder encouraging death for all poor people in colder climes is a bit longwinded.
      Dear Alice clearly displays the malice of her ignorance and arrogance.

    • She is Alice Bows-Larkin. She may be a PhD, or whatever, but she is still Alice Bows-Larkin regardless of any study.

      • Mocking ang chiding are not exactly the same as name calling.
        Besides, the arguments above are over…you lost.( Or else, go back and make your next comment.)
        This is more along the lines of telling jokes while walking home after the game.

    • How very British of you to defend the Lady’s honor James, most especially the part where you imply some of the commentators have slept with her. Good show!

    • James Fosser but you can all call me James Fosser
      Okay you call it disrespectful. For you. Not me. Respect is earned ever hear that?
      In this world with the technical and scientific training required for many of of the merely entry level positions, Alice’s degrees aren’t worth a cup of coffee.
      Jimmy, its not the education in any field that entitles you to respect, but rather what you do with that education that sets you apart.

    • Respect has to be earned. By making the idiotic pronouncements that she has made, she has lost all claim on other people’s respect.
      So take your false piety and shove it where the sun don’t shine.

    • Where I live and where I come from, except for in certain formalized situations, people are called by their name, and no one complains about it.
      After reading Jimmie-boy’s comment again, I am wondering where the hell he is from, or why he thinks some honorific is called for in this here setting?
      His comment seems too snotty to be sarcasm, which is the only way I can see his comment making any sense.

      • M
        Sarcasm/ribbing/jousting among friends who have a solid relationship is a great joy. It is often best between brothers.
        It is a high risk form of communication between strangers. In some cultures it’s considered an act of cowardice.
        32 Strategies of Warfare by Greene does a much better job of explaining. Essentially, Greene describes how competition has evolved to be subtle vs overt. If I remember correctly, he calls it the feminization of warfare.

  58. Karl
    October 25, 2015 at 2:33 pm
    I don’t subscribe to AGW, I do however ascribe to lowering emissions – through more efficient energy generation and more appropriately more efficient use. ….

    Wot? If you don’t subscribe to AGW (or CAGW?), then for what purpose do you ascribe to lowering emissions, and maybe the better question is, which emissions? IOW, why would you care about emissions then (as distinct from pollutants)? Or are you simplistically using emissions as a measure of efficiency…?

    • Emissions are waste and inefficiency — lowering emissions by more efficient use of energy, and/or by more efficient production of energy means less waste.

  59. Zealot meets unintended consequences.
    Let’s suppose for a moment that the 1st world instantly cuts their economies by 10%. What happens?
    One of the first things to happen is that millions upon millions of people in 3rd world countries lose their jobs. They are the low cost, high labour producers of consumer goods. A 10% reduction in purchase of consumer goods in the 1st world would result in several times the job losses of competing manufacturers in the first world (who are highly mechanized and have a much lower labour component in their goods).
    The next thing that happens is that a reduction of 10% food production by the 1st world causes a massive spike in food prices world wide. 1st world countries can tough it out, but 3rd world countries (the ones where millions of people just lost their jobs) would be facing starvation.
    I could go on, but these two examples should point out the obvious. A 10% reduction in 1st world economic activity would be a freaking disaster for the 3rd world which is already destitute and unstable. Whoever would inflict such a calamity on the teaming billions of poor in the 3rd world is either hopelessly naive or evil incarnate.

      • But how can you really tell the difference between “bat-shit crazy” and “drugged to the gills and under the influence of supreme evil”? Can we blame Ms. Bows-Larkin, who is, after all, a PhD? Is it possible she’s been compromised by SMURSH? Maybe ISIS? COBRA? Perhaps one of those other cartoon evil doers we all came to know and love as children? Maybe she was once attracted to Unicorn pharts and went wrong somewhere? Could she be rehabilitated? Too much fluoride in her water? Not enough carrots on her diet?
        We could build a model of her…

      • Drugged to the gills shows up in the eyes.
        I can spot it from a mile away.
        The commenter up top who blames her nincompoopery on SBS may have a point.
        Bit on further reflection, I have concluded that it is difficult for me to imagine how anyone can say what she said.
        She wants to take money out of my pocket, and out of the pockets of my children, and of my family.
        She wants to take food from our mouths, and from the mouth of my neighbors children, and my friends children, and the children if everyone in my town, and all of the kids in yor town, and all of the kids in every other town…and she wants to take the clothes from our backs, and remove the means to support our selves, and the means to heat our homes, and of society to progress.
        She wants to steal the future from our children and hers alike.
        If she has enough brains to think about what she is suggesting on any realistic way, she knows she is advocating death, misery and a life of destitute penury for us all.
        So, I was wrong…she is either incredibly stupid or completely evil.
        Plus she is 100% wrong about the danger.

    • Exactly David…. if the rich would cuts it’s economic growth…..the third world has no chance of increasing theirs

      • This is quite so. If the US were to lose it all in some crazy Obama dream-come-true it would benefit nobody and it would not go unnoticed by those nations whose palm is ever turned up but now and forever empty. It is sad that what was once a gift of the people of (Your country’s name here) is now seen as a UN entitlement to be paid by those nations that created the most comfortable generation in the history of mankind. And because the infrastructure was in place long before they were born, their idle time can be spent not making ends meet at home, inventing solutions for sewage, safe water delivered to the home, affordable energy, transportation for personal and distribution of goods, basic health care, and feeding a nation – nay, a world, but to feel the opiate of that greatest of luxuries – guilt over their inherited comfort. None but the most comfortable by least effort can feel this empty pleasure. And by this they personally give nothing but their approval and bleached toothed smiles because that is all that is expected of limousine liberals.
        I read recently that the school lunch program is now 70 years on. Clearly a failure, it should have died long ago from success. Same with the war on poverty so eloquently argued by Hubert H. Humphrey and his lapdog Lyndon Johnson, late of the failed Great Society. Failure is success in this crazy world, and that we’re feeding more at the public trough than ever before is a line item of accomplishment on the resume’s of the incompetent.

  60. Look, there’s too many dizzy dames over their heads spouting nonsense, like this one. Not sure how to put that more nicely. Women in the workplace is an overrated concept. I didn’t used to think that.

    • Oh, methinks your chimp is out of control here, NZ willy…what about the stupid guys spouting nonsense? Plenty of those types around, sadly. Oh, and before you accuse me of being a ‘feminist’. I’m a guy.

  61. Nearly 500,000 people have watched the disturbing Ted Talk. Young voters feeding on the anti-capitalist claptrap. What are we realists doing? Do we have suitable people doing Ted Talks? We urgently need up to date, easy to understand and irrefutable material available to use where we can before the Paris talks. There are avenues to use but a “one stop shop ” source of data would be ideal. The material is out there – it needs cataloguing. Could this be done via WUWT?

    • Agree. And if not via WUWT alone, then a stand alone reference center. All you would have to do is refer reference posts sans comments. There are several blogs from which solid such posts could be extracted, archived, and indexed. I am game to contribute if you and others are. Sort of like my last ebook, only in pure blogosphere cyberspace. Would have to be locked against hacks/modifications. Unlike an ebook, which once published can be annotated but is indelible.

  62. IPCC observed that it is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. At the same time IPCC also says it is a settled science. However, it is clear from IPCC’s observation that the increased global temperature since 1951 has two parts, namely (1) one caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gases and (2) the other caused by non-anthropogenic greenhouse gases component. Also, at the same time the anthropogenic greenhouse component has two components, namely (a) the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and (1b) the other anthropogenic forcings. However, IPCC is not sure of the quantitative contribution of these three groups on the global temperature.
    Unless these three parts are quantified, we cannot say it is settled science as in this three parts, one is part is not global in character but it is only either local and or regional in character. Thus, this has no role at global scale except going in to the global averaging of temperature. With such qualitative groupings how can, IPCC argues it is a settled science? IPCC is arguing on 2 oC by the end of the century. The question is, is this relates to all the three parts or only one part that relates to the anthropogenic greenhouse gases concentration (1a)? IPCC needs to clarify this before asking individual governments to bring down anthropogenic greenhouses or some governments imposing taxes on emissions. Also, unless this is clarified IPCC, how can we say on the impacts on nature? First let us get clear idea on the subject. IPCC was cautious to refer 1a to global warming and instead uses climate change part of 1a!!!
    The basic question is what is the contribution of 1a since 1951 to date. Is it less than 0.1 oC???
    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

  63. CAGW + AGENDA 21 is the end game for Statists.
    The Green’s ideal future is an oppressive centrally-controlled Statist dystopia, where the top 10% government and business elites live affluently, and the bottom 90% live subsistence lives in mega-cities in 500 square-foot/2-bedroom apartments (“parasitic humans” family units will only be allowed one child, until an “optimal” world population is obtained) with only allotted public transportation available to them.
    Huge Green Zones surround the mega-cities, with gigantic “wildlife sanctuaries” and agricultural zones established, where most “parasitic humans” are prohibited entry….
    Sound Good!?…
    Not so much…

  64. One would think that “Critical Thinking 101” would be a prerequisite for any doctoral program. I see no evidence of that in this speech.

    • Perhaps she earned her shingle on line at where critical thinking is considered a fool’s errand.

  65. dbstealey,
    Thank you so much for this:
    1. Government is force

    2. Good ideas do not have to be forced on others

    3. Bad ideas should not be forced on others
4. Liberty is necessary for the difference between good ideas and bad ideas to be revealed
    This needs far wider dissemination.
    And you need a Blue Max for troll slaying on this thread.

  66. It is typical of what to expect from academics like Alice Bows-Larkin. Naive, simplistic, Utopian nonsense that simply reflects how academia really is not living in the real world!

  67. We are already solving the problems posited by Alice Bows-Larkin (and her ilk) and have been for quite a while.

    Studies on material use and economic growth show instead that society is gaining the same economic growth with much less physical material required. Between 1977 and 2001, the amount of material required to meet all needs of Americans fell from 1.18 trillion pounds to 1.08 trillion pounds, even though the country’s population increased by 55 million people. Al Gore similarly noted in 1999 that since 1949, while the economy tripled, the weight of goods produced did not change. wiki

    We use no more material than we did in 1949 in spite of the fact that:
    1 – The economy tripled between 1949 and 1999.
    2 – The population increased a lot.
    We are going in the right direction, and will continue doing so, as long as we can keep the eco-crazies away from the levers of power. As the amount of material needed to enjoy our standard of living decreases, the benefits will spread to every corner of the globe (as is currently happening).

  68. Of course, this is all based on the hypothetical that reducing CO2 emissions will make things cooler.
    Wouldn’t it just be easier to eject a large amount of particulate matter or some surfer dioxide into the atmosphere. We know that would work.

    • So we can all starve to death when the interglacial ends suddenly?
      No thinks.
      Turn up the heat, and pass the tanning butter.

    • Neo wrote –

      […] eject a large amount of particulate matter or some surfer dioxide into the atmosphere.

      We all know it’s just a typo for sulfur dioxide, Neo, but I like it!
      It’s those dang surfers getting slammed into the reefs and getting turned into surfer dioxide (chemical symbol SUrO2) that’s the real threat to coral reefs. CO2, not so much.

      • I thought he wanted to shoot a lot of that white cream that surfers put on their noses up into the atmosphere.

  69. Relax everyone!
    Even in Germany, where the conservatives are somehow green, such things will never happen. The government has made some attempts for carbon and enrgy reduction, but they are always caught by reality, more efficient cars are now more powerful, consuming more fuel, together with the greater amount of cars. more household gadgets are averaging the better efficiency.
    Solar and wind power are fluctuatiing, so lignite powerplants (still the cleanest and most efficient) must be kept running. The renewable energy allowance went up too high, so they cut it to a margin, and nobody is interestet in RE investmen .any more,
    Still they are trying hard, but in realiy no carbon reduction. As soon as people feel it intheir purse or in their comfort, they will rebel – and they already do. Politicians are very sensitive about opinions of the people, so they will adjust former plan even to the opposite if necessary.
    media and other gatekepper can have som influence,for a short time, but in a democratic country reality will win in the long run.

  70. Do they understand that if we contract economically, there won’t be money for yo-yos like this to have the sinecures they currently do?
    Does she really think that when we’re reduced to brown outs and even black outs that some in the rural areas won’t start to use wood and coal for heat regardless of the rules? Thus nullifying efforts in other places. And also what about non complying nations? How do they plan to deal with them?
    Have they really decided that we can afford to do this AND that their plan will work? How do they know that what they propose will reduce “warming”? They can’t possibly know that because their models can’t predict what happens NOW let alone what will happen in a year or ten years.
    And what about the possibility raised by the currrent decline in sunspot activity and the correlation between the Maunder minimum we’re experiencing NOW and the beginning of much colder winters and eventually all seasons as it has happened in the past?
    But then this isn’t about saving a damn thing it’s about putting certain people in charge of government and the attempt at control and subjugation of the world’s population.
    That’s always worked out well whenever it’s been tried before.

  71. I just realised. One of the greatest inventions of mankind was glass and glass making, in particular lenses. She advocates, in effect, a return to a post-lens world. What sort of BS lenses is she looking through?

    • She has special glasses.
      They create a short-sighted, blinkered view of the world.
      One in which you are blind-sided by the unintended consequences of your own action.
      Ultimately – she will end up making a spectacle of herself.

  72. I’ve always loved this sort of stuff. Well, not *always*, there was a time when I took it seriously. A lot of the folks I used to work for had this kind of attitude (dare I call it a “complex”?), they’d set the goal with no idea at all how it might be accomplished. They considered themselves “leaders” and it was up to the troops to figure out how to take the hill, they were above that kind of thing.
    In truth, they weren’t qualified to figure out how to take the hill and they hoped with all the power at their disposal no one would figure that out. My guess is they spent long nights shivering under the sheets in absolute panic.
    For a long time it irritated me, then I understood it for what it was and started to ignore it. I never got so desperate I emulated it though and that’s something I’m proud of. But in the spirit of Ms. Bows-Larkin I’m going to break my rule and offer my solution to the problem:
    All we need to do is move the planet another 10 million miles from the Sun. Problem solved.
    Get on it folks. Times a wastin’. We’re burnin’ daylight here! Shake off the stink! Daylight in the swamp! Get movn’!

    • S
      They are counting on people not caring and/or being distracted as they execute. The goal has very little to do with CAGW and mostly to do with shifting wealth. They may be empty suits, but they are executing for other empty suits.
      The current and most damaging effect is that capital that should be directed towards more pressing problems is being diverted to fake ones. And, at a time when the record long economic cycle is petering out, we may be waltzing towards a time when we will hear ourselves say … I wish we hadn’t wasted our capital on unicorns and fairies.

  73. “Bills are getting tough to pay” … they are already at this point since the green ‘useful idiots’ have ensured our electricity prices are increasing due to renewable energy targets (taxes). such taxes cascade through the economy and multiply in every single product and service produced and delivered. It’s now time for revolt. We cannot let these morons have any more say. I was prepared to let them have their say but now I reckon we turn the censorship tables on the green leftist communist twits and arrest them all and stick them in jail to prevent further destruction of the western world.

  74. I have just noticed an interesting post on the JoNova site with details of a report by the French Society of Mathematicians which is very scathing about the current IPCC policy recommendations .
    Since the society is involved with modelling their report
    (in English) may be an antidote to some of the opinions expressed by the modeller Dr Bows-Larkin.
    I have only just down loaded it so have not had time to read it in detail (and almost certainly not the competence to judge it) but the pictures look interesting , especially when concerned with adjustments, or corrections, to temperature data.

  75. The problem with self-declared debate wins like settled climate catastrophe science is that it leads further off the rails and further from any fact checking.

  76. Alan Penn on October 25, 2015 at 11:25 am
    ” If you can’t afford a windmill, form a corporations and solicit share buyers. We’ll see how far you get.”

    Do you mean something like this?….

    LOL. When I first read the post above by Alan Penn I thought he was a sceptic because the wind company he referenced is a loser. It has helped a load of investors divest themselves of cash. They would have been better off keeping it under the mattress. It is one of those “someday” companies. IKEA bought out one of their projects. Guess they can make furniture out of recycled turbine blades. 😉
    [Reply: “Alan Penn” is a fake sockpuppet name for a repeatedly banned commenter. ~mod.]

  77. Oh dear, how sad. There’s nothing for it, Europe and the UK will have to round up all those middle eastern migrants and ship them home quickly if they’re going to have to reduce their “emissions” by the “required” extent..

  78. Curious about her credentials. Her bio posted above somewhere says she is a Dr. She did her PhD in climate modeling at Imperial College, trained in astrophysics. When I click on PhD researchers on the right, she is not listed there. On a linked-in site she is listed as a PhD in Philosophy, Atmospheric Physics (no degree?). Physics with Astrophysics, First Class. Is there anything there that really qualifies her for anything?

Comments are closed.