Open Thread Saturday – "What Could We do Better"?

On providing simple summaries:
Here is my (our) predictive track record, from an article that Dr. Sallie Baliunas, Dr. Tim Patterson and I published in 2002 in the PEGG. It is now available at:
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/KyotoAPEGA2002REV1.pdf
Our eight-point Rebuttal includes predictions that have all materialized in those countries in Western Europe that have adopted the full measure of global warming mania. My country, Canada, was foolish enough to sign the Kyoto Protocol, but then was wise enough to ignore it.
[Our 2002 article is in “quotation marks”, followed by current commentary.]
1. “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
NO net global warming has occurred for more than 18 years despite increasing atmospheric CO2.
2. “Kyoto focuses primarily on reducing CO2, a relatively harmless gas, and does nothing to control real air pollution like NOx, SOx, and particulates, or serious pollutants in water and soil.”
Note the extreme pollution of air, water and soil that still occurs in China and the Former Soviet Union.
3. “Kyoto wastes enormous resources that are urgently needed to solve real environmental and social problems that exist today. For example, the money spent on Kyoto in one year would provide clean drinking water and sanitation for all the people of the developing world in perpetuity.”
Since the start of global warming mania, about 50 million children below the age of five have died from contaminated water.
4. “Kyoto will destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs and damage the Canadian economy – the U.S., Canada’s biggest trading partner, will not ratify Kyoto, and developing countries are exempt.”
Canada signed Kyoto but then most provinces wisely ignored it – the exception being now-depressed Ontario, where government adopted ineffective “green energy” schemes, drove up energy costs, and drove out manufacturing jobs.
5. “Kyoto will actually hurt the global environment – it will cause energy-intensive industries to move to exempted developing countries that do not control even the worst forms of pollution.”
Note the huge manufacturing growth and extremely polluted air in industrial regions of China.
6. “Kyoto’s CO2 credit trading scheme punishes the most energy efficient countries and rewards the most wasteful. Due to the strange rules of Kyoto, Canada will pay the Former Soviet Union billions of dollars per year for CO2 credits.”
Our government did not pay the FSU, but other governments did, bribing them to sign Kyoto.
7. “Kyoto will be ineffective – even assuming the overstated pro-Kyoto science is correct, Kyoto will reduce projected warming insignificantly, and it would take as many as 40 such treaties to stop alleged global warming.”
If one believed the false climate models, one would conclude that we must cease using fossil fuels.
8. “The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”
Governments that adopted “green energy” schemes such as wind and solar power are finding these schemes are not green and produce little useful energy. Their energy costs are soaring and these governments are in retreat, dropping their green energy subsidies as fast as they politically can.
IN SUMMARY:
All the above predictions that we made in 2002 have proven correct in those states that fully adopted the Kyoto Accord, whereas none of the global warming alarmists’ scary warming projections have materialized.
HOWEVER, THAT SIMPLE SUMMARY WAS TOO COMPLICATED FOR OUR POLITICIANS, WHO CONTINUED TO OBSESS ABOUT THE GLOBAL WARMING BOGEYMAN, AND SQUANDERED MANY TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON GREEN ENERGY SCAMS.
So I wrote about the intermittency problems of grid-connected wind and solar power, and the need for almost 100% backup from conventional power generation like fossil fuels, hydro and nuclear. I also wrote about the excessively high cost of green energy and its risk of destabilizing the entire electrical grid.
Again, this was too completed for our politicians, who continued to obsess about global warming even though it was NOT HAPPENING, and continued to squander trillions on green energy scams.
Finally, I decided to dumb it down so our politicians might actually understand.
I wrote:
Wind power – it doesn’t just blow – it sucks!
Solar power – stick it where the Sun don’t shine!
Finally, the European politicians seem to be getting the message. However, in North America, the obsession of politicians with (fictitious) global warming sails on, like a ghost ship with its long-dead crew, searching for redemption.
Best to all, Allan 🙂

An excellent clear paper. Well done. And great comments above. And if it was not for Anthony this would not have happened. I hope that he is properly recognised for his services to the world one day.
I think that, as others have said, we need a concise clear argument.
It is possible that the paper has already been written- https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/21/does-the-leader-of-the-free-world-really-know-so-little-about-climate/
And http://www.truthrevolt.org/commentary/sayet-why-im-denier-hint-because-its-crap
I think it would be great to continue this discussion for some time.

Why not dump the photo thumbnails?
– They usually don’t add anything, being just filler images to make the site look more cheerful. As such they add nothing. This cheerfulness comes at a cost.
– I am pretty sure that Anthony et al spend more time searching for and processing such pointless images than they do on more important web tasks. Because I realize how much effort has gone into these images I find their pointlessness really quite irritating. Don’t believe me? Scroll down the WUWT home page and ask yourself how many of these images have any function other than adding a splodge of color.
– If someone no longer comes to WUWT because there aren’t pointless pretty pictures on the front page then perhaps they shouldn’t be here.
– If for occasional posts a thumbnail is really relevant, you can still use it. I am just arguing that the norm should be no images unless necessary.