Good news for the New Year! Salon explains that the global climate emergency is over.

By Larry Kummer. From the Fabius Maximus website.

Summary: A solid leftist writing at a well-known leftist publication has declared an end to the planetary climate emergency! Solar and wind are replacing fossil fuels at an astonishing pace, sooner even than optimists expected when James Hansen began the climate crusade in 1988. This is good news to start the New Year. If others follow his lead, we can more easily turn the public policy debate to more serious issues.

An “admission against interest” is the legal term, broadly speaking, for a statement admissible because it is made by someone with knowledge of the subject and is against that person’s own interests.

Donald Trump’s “carbon bubble” economy is bound to pop
— the only question is how bad it will be

“Trump’s economic policies are built on many flawed assumptions, especially a fossil-fuel boom that won’t end well.”

By Paul Rosenberg at Salon, 2 January 2017.

Let’s go directly to the money paragraphs that give us the good news, notable because it is made by a leftist against one of their major campaigns of the past two decades.

“The carbon bubble does exactly the same thing. It’s not just fossil fuel reserves that are overvalued by the bubble, but everything associated with the sector — pipelines, power plants, refineries, etc. …

“The carbon bubble risk is only made worse by the fact that renewable energy costs have dropped dramatically in recent years, and become increasingly competitive. Thus, even if those reserves were not unburnable because of their potential impact on climate change, they will become so for economic reasons in the next few decades. For example, the World Economic Forum’s recently released “Renewable Infrastructure Investment Handbook: A Guide for Institutional Investors” reported:

‘[T]he unsubsidized, levellized cost of electricity (LCOE) for utility scale solar photovoltaic, which was highly uncompetitive only five years ago, has declined at a 20% compounded annual rate, making it not only viable but also more attractive than coal in a wide range of countries. By 2020, solar photovoltaic is projected to have a lower LCOE than coal or natural gas-fired generation throughout the world.’

“Add to this the fact that renewable energy — particularly solar and wind — is a new technology sector, in which large efficiency gains are to be expected. That’s quite unlike the fossil fuel industry, whose costs are increasing because the cheap, easy-to-get fuel has already been burned. By 2030, renewables could well leave fossil fuels in the dust. …

“Paul Rosenberg is a California-based writer/activist, senior editor for Random Lengths News, and a columnist for Al Jazeera English.”

This is the good news of the decade (even if bad news for fossil fuel investors)! For a decade climate activists have warned about the coming apocalypse from RCP8.5, the worst-case scenario in the IPCC’s AR5 report (often misrepresented as “business as usual” despite its unlikely assumptions). Almost all the articles you have read about the horrific effects of climate change assume the RCP8.5 scenario.

To learn about this possible future see “RCP 8.5: A scenario of comparatively high greenhouse gas emissions” by Keywan Riahi et al in Climate Change, November 2011. It describes a hot dirty 21st century, in which coal use increases 5-fold to become the world’s major source of power (it’s a back to the 19thC future) — with the steepest increase coming after 2030. This graph shows energy use by fuel in 2100 for each of the four scenarios in AR5.


Figure 5 from Riahi et al: “Development of global primary energy supply in RCP8.5 (left-hand panel) and global primary energy supply in 2100 in the associated mitigation cases stabilizing radiative forcing at levels of 6, 4.5, and 2.6 W/m2 (right-hand bars).” Click to enlarge.

Rosenberg’s prediction makes sense, which is why so many people have said it is likely. (Climate activists’ rebuttal to mention of likely tech progress during the 21st C was to scream “denier!”). Coal production probably has already peaked. Fossil fuel use peaking in 2030 (followed by a slow decline as power infrastructure is replaced) plus continued technological progress would put us on track to reach the emission levels of RCP2.6 (the most favorable of the four scenarios) by the late 21st century.

For details about these futures turn to “The representative concentration pathways: an overview” by Detlef P. van Vuuren et al, Climatic Change, Nov 2011. See the large difference between annual emissions in the low- and high-end scenarios. They are world-changing differences.


Green: RCP2.6, Red: RCP4.5, Black: RCP6.0, Blue: RCP8.5.


Does Rosenberg’s article show a shifting of priorities by the Left? Yesterday climate change was our greatest threat, warranting spending trillions of dollars — or even making drastic revisions to our economic system (as urged by Naomi Kleinclip_image005 and Pope Francis). Today their top priority is opposing all things Trump.

Rosenberg’s prediction negates the nightmares that climate activists have bombarded us with during the past decade. If correct, then seas will not cover cities by 2100 (although the seas will continue their millennia-long rise). Agriculture will not crash. The tropics will remain habitable.

But CO2 will continue to warm the world — and contribute to our always changing climate — for several more decades, although I doubt models can accurately predict the magnitude of this effect. Combine this with the environmental damage from a population growing to ten billion (perhaps 12B) and the pollution from a more crowded and industrialized world: the result is tough times ahead. But we can work through it.

Look ahead to the second half of the 21st century. Combine a shrinking population, falling CO2 emissions, and better technology — we could repair the damage and make this world into a garden.

This is good news to start the New Year!

For More Information

For more information about this vital issue see the keys to understanding climate change and these posts about the politics of climate change…

1. Important: climate scientists can restart the climate change debate – & win.

2. How we broke the climate change debates. Lessons learned for the future.

3. A story of the climate change debate. How it ran; why it failed.

4. Science into agitprop: “Climate Change Is Strangling Our Oceans”.

5. Ignoring science to convince the public that we’re doomed by climate change.

6. The 5 stages of grief for the failure of the climate change campaign.

7. A status report on global warming. Much depends on the next few years.

206 thoughts on “Good news for the New Year! Salon explains that the global climate emergency is over.

    • That is the obvious answer, of course, but the green energy producers (privately) tell every government that they can’t possibly take on this very risky project without a 100% premium guarantee even though (publicly) they say the production costs are competitive.

      You cannot convince the green energy supporters about this fact so you have to get to the government decision-makers. Wouldn’t they like to say “I love your solar project especially since it won’t need any public subsidized support and our contract even guarantees that will NEVER, EVER be the case.” Well, we have to convince them that this is the ONLY way to go. They can be as upfront as needed with the public about this. It is the backroom deals with no transparency that is the problem.

    • Bingo, no subsidies should be needed and all research in other areas should cease because all of the easy-to-get results have been.

      • …especially when both solar and wind combined contribute only 4% of our energy needs. And since neither are considered “base load”, they have to be covered by base load capacity.

    • As we find more ways to make fossil fuels from very large, known or renewable resources the production price continues to go down, see solvent extraction, etc. Its actually falling at a faster rate than solar panels, wind turbines and battery costs. The known Earth’s recoverable resource suitable for solvent extraction exceeds 30,000 Billion BOE before growing anything eg algae, etc. Solvent extraction often leads to useful residues.

      Then there are discoveries to be made in anti-matter production, fusion reactors. gravity pooling etc. Great for electricity grids and off planet propulsion.

      Can’t see a great future in solar and wind. The power density and efficiency is too low for anything useful.

    • It drives me crazy when I see “green energy is competitive” headlines. Even if the levelized cost of wind and solar energy was competitive with conventional sources, and it is not, the conventional sources still have to be built for all the times when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing. Despite having installed wind + solar capacity that exceeds its peak demand (IIRC from 2014 data), there are weeks in Germany when wind + solar together make up a single-digit percentage of total energy.

      In the conventional world you build conventional generation and burn fuel. In the green world you build wind + solar + most of the conventional generation you would have built anyway + extra transmission to distant wind. To pay the capital cost of all the extra green infrastructure, you use the cost savings on the conventional fuel you didn’t need. The fuel savings do not even come close to covering the extra capital cost, and solar is still a net energy sink over its lifetime.

      • Shocked: what I find when checking the claims about levelised cost of electricity is that renewables are given credit for the installed capacity, not the power delivered. It is a simple but effective fiddle for PR announcements.

        Ontario wind turbines produce about 14% of nameplate capacity. So seven wind turbines installed deliver the nameplate kWh of one.

        In short it is not the levelised cost of electricity, it is the levelised cost of a kw of generating capacity.

        Going one step further: energy invested in the wind turbine. It takes about 15 years for an Ontario wind turbine to generate enough electricity to power a social and industrial system that produces a new wind turbine. That means if it lasts, with maintenance, 20 years, only five of those years are ‘available electricity’, ie a power profit.

        The bottom line is that the capital cost of a setup that delivers a net 1 kw of continuous electric power is $70,000. That is nine times the cost of nuclear. The rest of the power is needed to run the society that can replace the generating hardware.

        Currently, cheap Chinese solar panels and wind turbines are coal powered. Change that, and the economics changes. A lot.

      • The green world is one of lies and deceit. The biggest fraud ever. Why could this happen? Because of the morally high objectives far above all reasoning: the saving of the planet. The real problem however is not the planet but how to save mankind from this madness.

      • And what about the huge ugly physical foot print that is required for even a basic level of power production, say wind and solar reaching even 20% of our total needs? Isn’t that an environmental concern for all of us? It is for me.


    • This does not make wind or solar any more reliable than it is now. Add to that the fact that these technologies have effective half-lives that are much shorter than coal or nuclear plants. Soon we will be spending most of our money replacing failing machines and structures and finding no way to recycle the broken older messes. Denmark is up to its ears in dead wind turbine parts, with the only option being to bury them forever. Not good. The geographic and ecological foot print and the extensive infrastructures that they require should not be forgotten. Nuclear power ends up being the greenest energy on the planet with the smallest footprint for a relatively low price and high reliability.

      Unless the future includes a human world that does not rely on a stable energy supply, it still stands that

      • The lie that other energy source are subsidized has been refuted so many times, that only the willfully deceitful still try to push it.

      • MarkW, the biggest subsidy out there goes to nuclear energy. If you doubt me, lookup the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act.

      • clipe: The government of Canada backstops the liability of NIAC

        The operator must purchase appropriate insurance coverage to cover this liability. When this limit is exhausted, it is presumed that supplementary compensation will be provided by the jurisdiction’s government from public funds.

    • Also need to roll back all of the new EPA regulations on coal and fracking. The only reason electricity from coal costs more than 8c/kwhr is because of all the recent new EPA regulations designed to massively drive up the cost. The new regulations have made coal so expensive that electricity from solar at 24c/kwhr is starting to look competitive.

  1. Solar and wind are replacing fossil fuels …. sooner even than optimists expected …. This is good news ….

    Only one grossly ignorant about the ROI and EROEI of solar and wind could write such nonsense.

    CO2 will continue to warm the world …

    Then, how do you explain:



    Anthony — This is just a pile of junk. Thanks for the laugh, but, it’s really kind of pathetic.

    • Janice,

      “This is just a pile of junk.”

      Rule one: never — never ever — get in the way of allowing your opponents to surrender.

      That is what this Salon article is doing in the climate wars. How Leftists rationalize doing so is their own affair. Whatever makes them happy is fine with me.

      Let’s hope others follow this lead. Without their daily climate doomsterism cluttering the media, we can more easily address other issues.

      • You, Mr. Kummer, made the two assertions I called “nonsense” above. That is the “junk” to which I am referring. You, by those two statements, firmly advocated for AGW and the negative ROI but for subsidies solar and wind sc@ms. AGW is junk science. Solar and Wind are sc@ms. You applauded both of them.

        And that (your applause of the above) is pitiful.


        You also, by the way, completely twist the implications of the Salon article into what you wish they were — misrepresenting what they actually signify.

      • Rosenberg isn’t surrendering. He’s living in another universe. A triumphalist one, where every fatuous green fairy tale has a radiant immanence.

        Solar and wind are not competitive in an open market. As low-energy-density sources, they’ll never, ever, be competitive with fossil fuels, including coal. Until those fuels are almost unobtainable; a scenario we’ll probably never reach.

        Trump’s “carbon bubble” isn’t about carbon and isn’t a bubble. It’s economically sound energy policy.

        Rosenberg’s entire thesis is nonsense. RCP 8.5 is a scare fantasy. Climate models are not truth machines. They’re not even possibility machines. They’re just We need another $10 million for a supercomputer machines.

        The only economically viable energy option is fossil fuels until some sort of fission comes on line. Fusion much less likely, unless one of the mini-fusion ideas works out.

      • Pat Frank says: ” Solar and wind are not competitive in an open market.”

        ” recent analyses show that even without those subsidies, alternative energies can often compete with traditional sources.”

        Sorry Mr. Frank, but you are not paying attention to the economics of alternatives.

      • Janice,

        Thanks for the explanation! I misinterpreted what your wrote.

        The first statement is simple fact — the growth rates for installed solar and wind are far faster than even optimists expected in 1988. Do you seriously disagree? Wow. Beyond comment. Moving on…

        Second, do you disagree that CO2 is warming the world? You believe all those climate scientists — including “skeptics” like Curry and Pielke Sr — are wrong. Well OK then.

      • Richard,

        Thanks for the reminder. Providing electricity is like real estate: location is a big factor. In some places hydropower is the cheapest, in some places coal is the cheapest, and in some places wind or solar is the cheapest. Many factors go into these calculations.

        People tend to adopt absurdly broad dogmatic statements about these complex matters.

      • Great, the globalists have saved us after all!!

        Hey, let’s agree that it’s best to do away with national sovereignty, so the hyper-wealthy psychopathic elites can play God without so much irksome trouble from us wee folk of the West . . we might get some extra cornbread and molasses ; )

      • “Second, do you disagree that CO2 is warming the world? You believe all those climate scientists — including “skeptics” like Curry and Pielke Sr — are wrong. Well OK then.”

        I’m not Janice, but let me give my answer to the question.

        Is there any evidence CO2 is warming the world? Not that I can see.

        CO2 can theoretically warm the world, but it might also cause negative feedbacks which negate the warming. Or it might warm the world so little it makes no difference at all to the climate or the world.

        There is no evidence that the climate we are experiencing now is any different from climates in the past, and there is definitely no evidence that human CO2 has *anything* to do with changing how the Earth’s climate behaves.

        Someone who claims CO2 is warming the world, should show some evidence of such. I’ve been eagerly awaiting such evidence since the middle 1970’s or thereabouts. Haven’t seen any yet.

        Skeptics don’t have to prove CO2 is not warming the world. The onus is on those who make such claims, not on those who are skeptical of such claims.

        Sorry for answering for you, Janice. I just had to weigh in. And I figured you were probably busy helping people in one way or another. I love how you give people links to information and then go to the trouble of reading those links yourself and posting the pertinent paragraphs in addition to the links. You’re a house on fire, Janice! :)

      • Mr. Baguley:

        You have obviously not been giving serious attention to expert analysis of the economics of PERMANENTLY NEGATIVE (given currently known or likely to be known soon tech) ROI wind power:

        Electricity Costs: The Folly of Windpower by Ruth Lea

        (Discussed in this WUWT post:; also see accompanying comment thread for much helpful information).


        You could also stand to learn more about solar’s PERMANENTLY NEGATIVE ROI — there are NO tech discoveries even on the most distant known horizon making that likely to change anytime soon.

        “Solar Cells and Other Fairy Tales” — Ozzie Zehner


        Ozzie Zehner — “Green Illusions” {from about 6:55 – 11:00}


        The NYT article you cited was concocted not from data and facts, but from the imagination of its author and useful ONLY as propaganda to keep the wind and solar sc@ms going.

      • Mr. Kummer,

        Do you know that while I took a break to eat my dinner, I felt so bad about harshly castigating someone so genuinely enthusiastic (though gravely in error) about his assertions, so likely to be more naive than anything else that I planned a letter to you in which I was going to honor you and, while remaining hard on the issue, refrain from being hard on the person. People matter. More than anything (which is why I so vehemently oppose AGW — it ultimately causes great misery, poverty, and death to millions of human beings).

        Then, I read your comment to me of 6:24PM in which you mischaracterize what I wrote. I am going to assume it was intentional. Your arrogant tone makes me wonder if you are more to be pitied than to be rebuked, but, when I am misrepresented, I respond strongly.


        1. You changed what I quoted from your article, ” Solar and wind are replacing fossil fuels …. sooner even than optimists expected …. This is good news ….,”

        to: the growth rates for installed solar and wind are far faster than even optimists expected in 1988.

        Assuming you are not psychotic, but did this intentionally, you are:
        1) contemptibly dishonest; and
        2) a poor debater (you don’t win points by refusing to address the other’s quote and instead substituting something completely different — in case you have not heard of it: it’s called “the strawperson fallacy.”)


        2. There is no evidence that CO2 is “warming” the world. There is evidence (from laboratory experiments in a controlled setting) that it helps to maintain climate homeostasis. There is no evidence, i.e., not one piece of data, which proves causation by CO2 of “warming” (a.k.a. a significant shift in the climate of the earth).

        The lower troposphere data strongly indicate that CO2 does NOT drive warmth. Rather, H2O is the driver.

        Further, there is now anti-correlation evidence vis a vis human CO2 emissions.

        What Dr. Curry and Dr. Pielke think or guess about the issue does not change the above facts.

        btw: Your appeal to “all those climate scientists” (I assume that is the 97%, long ago exposed as a grossly exaggerated figure) and or to Curry and Pielke and other lukewarmers is not a good argument. It is simply an appeal to authority, another failed debate tactic, a fallacy.


        Well. At least, now, I do not feel at all sorry for so bluntly responding to you above. You had that and more coming.

        Finally, you may fool a few, but, most of us here can see right through your attempts to promote AGW via the backdoor using half-truths, tortured logic, and mischaracterization of your opponents’ statements.

        You have nothing but my contempt until you make it clear that you are either:

        1. truly psychotic; or
        2. truly reformed (i.e., repenting of your vile tactics and admitting you were in error as to the conjecture you now so breathlessly assert with no real substance).

        I would not EVER waste my time talking to you, but, you are highly likely to deceive the uninformed. Thus, I wrote.

        I’m really disappointed that a TR011 is allowed to post articles on WUWT. It’s one thing to have the comment threads polluted, but, a whole article (and you have posted several!) is really over the top.

        Your Enemy (with a faint hope that you will one day change),


      • Dear TA,

        Oh, boy, was that generous, gracious, comment (to me) a welcome antidote to the poison I’ve encountered here, this evening. Thank you, oh, THANK YOU.

        Well, I wish I could say that I WAS helping someone, lol. I did help my dog to his dinner! :)

        Thanks for the encouragement about the quote/source commenting. I’ll try to keep it up and do even better!

        VERY glad you answered above and SO WELL. Any time someone does that for me (back-up) I am so grateful. I don’t always acknowledge it. But, I am so thankful. Usually, as with you, here, the highly scientists/engineers who help me out with my initial, feeble, attempt are (((KER — POW!!))) much more powerful and effective with their wonderful technical expertise and super-bright minds.

        And I’m glad I got to say that — both to you and to all!

        Take care — see you around! :)


      • Richard Baguley, those sorts of articles usually include the so-called social cost of carbon in estimating the economics. It’s utter BS.

        See here, for a renewables-friendly story at Here are the money quotes, “If levelized costs continue to decline as solar and wind technology improves, both will catch up to coal in terms of cost-competitiveness in the coming decades. The effect is even more staggering if a carbon price is implemented. (bold added).”

        Got that? Let’s repeat it: “in the coming decades.”

        That story is dated June 2016. There’s been no revolution in solar/wind in the last 6 months.

        It’s utter BS.

      • Just to add a little salt to the would here is the website of the new Salem Harbor, MA, gas-fired power plant. The Salem plant will deliver 674 megawatts on a 23 acre footprint.

        Being as pessimistic as possible (power generation takes the whole 23 acres), that works out to 7,241 W/m^2, 21 times more W/m^2 than the 341 W/m^2 of solar power entering the upper atmosphere (after reflection of ~1000 W/m^2 of incoming solar by the upper atmosphere).

        Surface solar will never ever compete with fossil fuels in any honest economic estimate.

      • Janice,
        I’ve pummeled Mr. Kummer a few times in other threads. I was going to again in this one, but, uhm…. I can’t find any pieces of him you left that are big enough to pummel ;-). So I shall not bother this time.

      • Editor of the Fabius Maximus website
        There’s ZERO evidence that CO2 is warming the planet. That is expertly explained in this 4 minute video:

        Funny you point to your version of “all the climate scientists agree” that CO2 is warming the planet. Possibly there’s some minimal warming from CO2, but more likely there’s near none as any warming is fully countered by the negative feedback of low cloud formation. That’s consistent also with the recent temperature data.

        Regardless, it shouldn't be our job to carry water for the leftists. 
        Let them work to prove that CO2 is causing warming. We should do  NOTHING to  help them along with that goal, and that starts with saying what it unarguably true: there is no evidence that CO2 causes warming.
      • Tagging error on the last paragraph. Here it is again:

        Regardless, it shouldn’t be our job to carry water for the leftists.

        Let them work to prove that CO2 is causing warming. We should do NOTHING to help them along with that goal, and that starts with saying what it unarguably true: there is no evidence that CO2 causes warming

      • I agree with Pat Frank too. Greens consistently exhibit bipolar personality disorder at a policy level [bipolar policy disorder?]. On the one hand, subsidy withdrawal will devastate renewable energy industries leading to loss of zillions of green jobs. On the other hand: renewable energy slays all before it (e.g.); leading to unsurpassed riches because it’s free and green. The same author often uses these two arguments in articles published only weeks, or days, apart.

      • Fair point: What is probably going on, is that the Left at the more cynical level have acknowledged that Anthropogenic climate change is nonsense, and that renewable energy is increasingly indefensible, and so its announcing that the battle is won, when in fact it’s lost*, to save face, and of course to allow them to claim that the cold temperatures coming in the next two decades were after all, because we threw away our light bulbs and threw up a few windmills.

        *Iraqi ministry of information?

      • From the NYT: “Both industries have managed to bring down costs through a combination of new technologies and approaches to financing and operations. Still, the industries are not ready to give up on their government supports just yet.

        “Already, solar executives are looking to extend a 30 percent federal tax credit that is set to fall to 10 percent at the end of 2016. Wind professionals are seeking renewal of a production tax credit that Congress has allowed to lapse and then reinstated several times over the last few decades.”

        Financial engineering and generous government subsidies and voila I could make cow farts profitable and competitive. Sounds like Obamacare to me, mandates and government backstopped re-insurance because Swiss Re won’t take that facultative risk for a single year.

        They’re all crony capitalists.

      • Richard, you’re quite right that we’re not paying attention to any claims made in the NYT. If they’re right, discontinue subsidies immediately but moreover it’s a TRUE open market. Coal and gas contract to supply reliable power to whoever wants to pay for certainty. Wind and solar presumably can’t make any promises more than a couple of minutes ahead so they sell into the spot market. No preference, no forcing out contracted coal supply. Oh, and no palming off the cost of the grid. You want to build a power plant in the Mojave desert, knock yourself out. But if you want clients, don’t forget to include a grid.

        As people have shown, the NYT propaganda is trivially shown as Fake News.

      • … in some places coal is the cheapest, and in some places wind or solar is the cheapest. Many factors go into these calculations.

        In the absence of viable and cheap energy storage, wind and solar can never be the cheapest because they are intermittent and non despatchable.

        You cannot have a power grid consisting of entirely wind and solar. Wind and solar are built on the back of coal and gas. Hence when considering the cost of wind and solar, one has to take account of the cost of back up (including the building of back up).

        Unfortunately, some people live in a fantasy land.

      • Janice , Carlton Tucker had Dr. Curry on his FOX show tonight, repeated at 11 pm PST tonight. The interview was about her leaving Academia and pursuing her ” free of restraints ” career. In it it she mentions the 98% issue and other topics, Well worth a watch and I am sure it will be on FOX video by tomorrow.

      • Thanks for the tip, Sybot. :) How about, if you find the video link, putting it on WUWT’s Tips and Notes thread? It sounds like a good one to feature on WUWT. Take care, up there. Brrr — keep warm!

      • As soon as I can. Good advice about the keeping warm, we have been cold for going on 6 weeks now but hey as they say it is a “dry cold” ;) )

      • @asybot… I just barely got to Fox News as the interview with Dr. Curry was beginning. It was a good conversation generally, but, as there seems to be a constant lack of time for anything substantial to be discussed in any ‘interview’ on Fox News, it was devoid of much of the reason and basis for the interview to begin with by not giving Dr. Curry the time necessary for her to make much of an impression.

        I was happy that Mr. Carlson invited her back for a ‘Sort of’ series with her, discussing the “global warming” and “BS in academia and science” issue, but, dammit, give that very smart woman the time for a decent conversation. She was very considerate of her answers to the questions she was asked, as she should be, but in the strict time limits Fox News allows, I was squirming for her to answer Tuckers questions faster. He needs to push Fox for a much longer conversation with her because she is a very reasonable, intelligent, person with whom people from all sides of the issue can easily listen to without them shutting down because of any political BS. You can tell that she is strictly business and without bias.

        Maybe Trump can make use of her in some productive way, such as dispelling much of the BS in current climate “science” and getting people educated in what science really means… Without the politics.

    • Providing electricity is like real estate: location is a big factor. In some places hydropower is the cheapest, in some places coal is the cheapest, and in some places wind or solar is the cheapest.
      Those statements are misleading. Nowhere are alternative energy sources and their infrastructure cheaper than fossil fueled generators.

    • Pat,

      “We need another $10 million for a supercomputer machines.”

      Make that another $10 billion, maybe $50 billion. $10 million won’t buy you the building and facilities needed to house a modern day super computer.

  2. Solar is useful at small scale, but at large scale destabilizes the grid. Variable loads and batteries can only help to a degree:

  3. The Salon author’s declining solar costs probably refer only to the cost of the panels, which are just 25% or so of solar’s total costs, which include hidden costs. And anyway,hasn’t the cost of solar panels leveled off in the last year or two?

    As for his idea that all the efficiency has been wrung out of fossil fuels, he probably hasn’t heard of the in-the-pipeline, semi-revolutionary auto engine backed by Bill Gates. It is what Obama et al. have been relying on to make their proposed much-higher MPG requirements achievable.

    • Roger,

      He refers to the market price of solar electricity, most obviously set in auctions of solar power to feed grids. Big money on the table. It’s been closely followed by the business media. Google “solar auctions”.

      This is a market price, including all factors. So these prices show the effect of subsidies. I have glanced at these reports about these. I assume they call for providing interruptible power, but have not been able to verify that. If correct, these prices do not include the cost of providing back-up power.

      What is the cost of solar and wind excluding subsidies and back-up coverage? I have looked (briefly) but have not found anything. What the auction prices show conclusively is that solar prices are falling fast — while subsidies and back-up costs probably remain flat.

      • Let’s say you can build a coal fired plant for 1 billion dollars to supply 500 megawatts of power. Reliably. Let’s also say you can build a solar array for .9 billion dollars to produce 500 megawatts of power. This is what the headlines will say in the idiot run media and this is what the idiot politicians will crow from the rooftops as they explain how borrowing .9 billion dollars is a great deal for the poor, tired taxpayers. The following is what they don’t say:
        The solar array will only produce that amount of power less than 20% of the time.
        The Coal plant will still have to be built to supply power during the 80% period when the solar array power is inadequate- therefore, the project cost will be 1.9 billion dollars.
        When the voters listen to the media and show support for this spending and borrowing, less than half understand the overall economics, only half vote and fewer than half actually pay any taxes to support the whole mess.
        Don’t bother arguing because this is the underlying truth of virtually every lefty-loony-eco-goofball plan that’s trotted out. Also, feel free to substitute wind power for solar and breezes for sunshine!
        So, if you think that is a sustainable way to run a society, country or economy- please stay the hell away from me!!

      • It’s not just about Return on Investment (which would be negative without *major* subsidies), but rather it’s also about the cost to consumers. In Germany electricity is 38 cents a kilowatt hour. Insanity.

      • I work in Euro power. The wholesale “market” price does not reflect the true cost of renewables. In Germany, the hidden costs of subsidising solar and wind is absorbed by both the consumers high bills and govt high taxation.

        In the UK, they are one cold snap away from blackouts this winter because they susidized renewables so much that the “wholesale market” price was too low and therefore made fossil fuel power stations unviable. Net result was they closed down leaving dangerously low Spinning Reserve power. Govt solution to this? Pay more subsidies to keep fossil fuel stations on standby. Double subsidies and much higher power costs than need to be to follow this ludicrous folly of renewables.

  4. Old narrative: Climate change is the greatest danger the planet faces.

    New narrative: Donald Trump is the greatest danger the planet faces.

      • Donald Trump will force scientists to return to the evidence based sceptical science that existed before political correctness arrived.

        Donald Trump will change aspects of the economy. Conventional economic theory has delivered; 0.1% of the people own as much as the bottom 90%, half the US is on benefits, millions have run out of benefit allowance and are not even counted in official statistics, a $20 trillion national debt, very much larger unfunded debts such as pensions, etc etc.

        The system is broken and will implode one day. Things have to change.

    • Storage is a big deal.

      Every month I google for new stories about ammonia fuel. It’s not fading away; new things keep happening. It has the advantage that it can be used as transportation fuel. Work is progressing on being able to make it economically by electrolysis. IF that pans out, it could be the answer to the battery problem. link

      My favourite use of ammonia as a ‘transportation’ fuel was the XLR99 engine for the X-15 space plane. link

      • Ammonia is used as a refrigerant in large industrial and commercial facilities, because the material is cheap and the refrigeration cycle that uses it is very economical, from an energy point of view. Early home refrigerators even used it. However, there is a reason that no one sells them any more for home use – if they leak and empty the contents of the loop into the house, everyone will die. A very nasty death. Not quite as bad as Bhopal, but the people who get gassed would not be able to tell the difference.

        So, anyone who wants to replace the current gasoline infrastructure with ammonia has to deal with the possibility of failure of the containers. The containers in the cars, the storage tanks, the pipelines. When gasoline tanks in cars fail, all you usually get is dripping gasoline on the ground (Hollywood movies notwithstanding). When a storage tank fails, usually it is is just leakage into a containment vault or into the ground (expensive to clean up, but no one is killed). When an ammonia storage tank fails, you will get an enormous cloud of toxic vapor spreading over the neighborhood. Pipeline failures will be catastrophes. No one will be able to approach a car crash without self-contained breathing apparatus to rescue the people inside, who will probably already be dead from the gases.

        That is what you have to deal with when you use ammonia as a fuel.

    • commieBob:
      “Every month I google for new stories about ammonia fuel.”

      You can set up Google so it automatically does those searches for you and reports its results after a specific period, like a day, a week, a month, etc.

  5. What a Leftist writes is not relevant other than there has to be a posture shift away from climate as the predictions fail and the public walks away from alarmist claims. What is most interesting is the idea that opposing Trump in so many arenas of public policy will be so costly to the Left, they have to prioritize, and may very well decide internally or by fiat that climate is not worth arguing. Regardless, the number of topics to fight over is so vast, there is not enough capital to fight a huge climate campaign, which by momentum loss alone, is a huge shift. The public will pick up on the loss of momentum and interpret it as a failure of the movement and all that their goals entail. However, driving coal electrical prices through the roof through EPA Clean Coal and other initiatives is not an increasing competitiveness of solar.

  6. This is a clear case of a manic psychosis, no doubt brought on by TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome). We need only wait a while to observe the more familiar depressive form of the psychosis to reassert itself.

      • Sometimes the loudest squeaky wheel gets oiled, but sometimes it just gets replaced. (as an erstwhile boss of mine used to say when pay rise requests were made :)

      • The normal post election process is for the loosing party to drift their ideology towards the winning party thus preparing for the next election.
        This is what the electorate has requested and it allows an improved opportunity for future success.

        Here in NZ and the UK and now in the US we are seeing the left all running harder left post electoral failure.

        My theory is that the echo chamber effect in social media tends to reinforce the outrage post failure.

      • The Left *is* hysterical about Trump’s election, and many heads are exploding, but there is also the political calculation: The Left has started their campaing to try to destroy Trump’s credibilty, not only as a means to hamper Trump putting his policies into effect, but also to harm Trump for the 2020 elections.

        The Left is always thinking ahead. They don’t have any good policies to offer to sway voters to their side, so the only thing left to them to regain power is to assasinate the character of their political opponents, and that’s the effort you see going on now, even before Trump takes Office.

        With this last election and its aftermath, the Loony Left is showing the world their true ugly, vindictive, violent, lying, dangerous self (if you don’t have those characteristics, then I don’t consider you a member of the Loony Left, even if you are a Lefty). They lost bigtime at the polls this last election, and maybe the American people will make that permanent in the future.

        I saw a poll the other day that showed the U.S. had 38 percent of respondents claiming they were conservative and 25 percent claiming they were liberal. That’s a new high for conservatives as far as I know. Would be good if it’s true.

      • TA writes: “The Left has started their campaing to try to destroy Trump’s credibilty, not only as a means to hamper Trump putting his policies into effect, but also to harm Trump for the 2020 elections.”

        They couldn’t do it leading up to the election. The only way they can do it now is via Trump himself, meaning
        via his obvious character flaws. I’m not judging the man in a moral sense; I’ve enough trouble keeping myself in line. But he’s a thin skinned blowhard. It’s had so much currency lately it’s almost a cliche, to say that Presidents either grow in office (FDR say, even if you hate his politics), or they become more intensely what they are in the first place (Obama’s narcissisism.)

        I voted for Trump…nose held, teeth gritted…but I’ll be very surprised if he goes the way of personal
        growth. I fear it’s going to be 4 years and out. Then God help us if the Dems get back in.


    • While you are correct that no commercial MSR or MSBR has operated, a MSBR operated form the late 1960’s to the early 1970’s. Translated, that is a solid proof of principal. The decision to kill the MSBR program in favor of the technology that was fielded was driven by the perceived need for fissile materials for the ICBM program. We can certainly debate the wisdom of that decision! However, having successfully demonstrated proof of principal, the rest is engineering. Sadly, the U.S. has lagged behind. At one point the leading countries in developing MSR and MSBR technology were China, India and South Africa (of all places!) I haven’t looked at the literature lately but I suspect that it is now down to China and India unless the Israelis have a program running. So, perhaps not yet commercial but certainly well beyond snake oil.

      • My comment is aimed at Richard Baguley
        January 6, 2017 at 5:41 pm but I hit the wrong reply. Wish there was an edit function!

    • It’s really a case where the neo-Marxists know they are being nailed on laughable ‘global warming’, they will certainly be crushed under Trump. So now they simply proclaim a twisted sort of victory (in reality a surrender) and take credit for the lack of CO2 induced warming that never happened in the first place.

      It’s rather like the Japanese proclaiming victory after Hiroshima & Nagasaki.

      ‘Let’s declare victory and surrender’.

  7. Boy, are these guys ignorant of what technology they are really up against n the future. It’s not fossil fuels, it’s nuclear energy in the form of molten salt reactors, which can built entirely in factories
    and at a cost about one third that of conventional nuclear power and have essentially zero fuel costs, regardles of whether they are burning uranium, nuclear wastes, or Thorium.

    • Arthur, please refrain from doing the “snake oil” salesman routine with molten salt reactors. When a commercial MSR is commissioned, then you can proffer your “sales pitch.” As it stands today, there are no operating MSR’s and all of your claims have no real concrete data to back them up.

  8. It isn’t really good news because they’ll still be going after us recidivist fossil fuel burners long after the renewables have won.
    They’ll still fly around the world in their fossil fuelled aeroplanes to tell us how wicked we are for using fossil fuels when we could be sitting at home waiting for the sun to come out, and they’ll still be telling our masters to tax our industries for being efficient.
    Their story will be “the fossil fuels can’t be burned or the planet will burn”. That’s the real problem.

  9. It is also projected that by 2020 pigs will be able to fly….backwards

  10. We should congratulate them for saving the planet and allow them to take credit so that we can put an end to the nonsense.

  11. George,

    You forgot one thing with your backwards flying pigs – they won’t expel methane…..except to slow down and land…retrofarts….


  12. The real global climate emergency is the short view of “climate”.

    Next up, cosmic-dust-cloud catastrophism. There’s fear in them thar mole hills, and that is gold to alarmists.

    Too obscure ? Well, all attempts at humor are not successful. [crickets chirping, no laughs]

  13. With apologies to The Big O (Roy Obison)…

    “It’s Over”

    Your warming doesn’t love you anymore
    Golden days before they end
    Whisper secrets to the wind
    Your warming won’t be near you any more

    Chilly nights before they fly
    Send falling stars that seem to cry
    Your warming doesn’t want you anymore
    It’s over

    It breaks your lefty heart in two,
    That warming been so untrue
    But oh what will you do?
    When it’s freezing to you
    There’s climate anew,
    We’re through,
    We’re through.
    It’s over. It’s over. It’s over!

    All the rainbows in the sky
    Weeping snow, then say goodbye
    You won’t be seeing rainbows any more.
    Waning suns before they fall,
    Echo to you that’s frost, that’s all
    But you’ll see lonely sunset after all

    It’s over.
    It’s over.
    It’s over!
    It’s over!!

  14. That’s great news! Trump hasn’t been inaugurated yet and the leftist warmists are throwing in the towel. Even Obama’s bought and paid for climate fraud-mongers know you can’t fool Trump! Next up NWS, NOAA and NASA; I can hardly wait!!!!

  15. Isn’t it great that all it took was an election to solve Global Warming Armageddon . The Hot Air Scam just popped . Climate Changes and we can’t control natural variables that run the climate show let alone the indiscernible effect of a trace gas representing less than 1 % of the atmosphere . The real question is how the massive fraud got this far .

  16. There has never been a global climate emergency (well, perhaps the LIA was one). I don’t see how it can be good news that something that doesn’t exist is over.

    After 35 years of climate alarmism, our CO2 emissions have continued to grow unchecked. It is clear that nobody with any real power believes a climate emergency is real.

    The hoax is not that there is no global warming. The hoax is that governments over the world believe it is a serious problem.

    Why are we discussing it? We can safely ignore it.

  17. I don’t know where you people get your info from. The US govt’s own EIA report tells us that co2 emissions will increase by 34% by 2040 and Lomborg has been telling us for years that S&W only produce about 0.5% of TOTAL world energy and probably about 2.5% by 2040. That’s not a percentage of ELECTRICITY but TOTAL WORLD ENERGY.

    As Hansen said after COP 21, it is “all BS and fra-d”. Here is a quick video update from Lomborg about the BS claims about their so called CAGW. This includes the actual quote about S&W from the EU IEA.

    I’ll also link to the IEA pie chart that backs up Lomborg’s claims. S&W are a sick super expensive taxpayer funded joke, yet some people seem to need to believe in fairy tales. Here’s lomborg’s 5 minute video. And here’s that IEA pie chart showing Geo thermal, S&W combined only provide about 1.3% of world energy. S&W just 0.5% in 2014. Hansen also said that a belief in S&W is like believing in the tooth fairy and the Easter bunny. He might have been the big daddy of so called CAGW but he did make some sense on his good days.

  18. By 2020, solar photovoltaic is projected to have a lower LCOE than coal or natural gas-fired generation throughout the world.

    Not going to happen absent government distortions such as subsidies, mandates, carbon taxes and fracking bans.

    Reminds me of the late 1980’s reading the computer trade rags. Every few months or so there was another article with graphs showing that soon the installed base token ring networks would overtake ethernet. The experts were certain. Except the graph with each new article showed a wider gap between token ring and ethernet than the previous one and “soon” was a little further out. The authors at the computer trade rags believed what IBM told them and didn’t talk to people who actually installed and ran large networks.

    Add to this the fact that renewable energy — particularly solar and wind — is a new technology sector, in which large efficiency gains are to be expected.

    PV solar has some room to improve but wind is old technology with minimal efficiency gains to be expected.

    • Token ring was technically better (Like SNA. Sounds like AZURE?) for purists, it was simply too expensive to deploy wide scale. The cabling and connectivity issues alone was a huge cost. And then came along UTP.

      • Look at the high level diagrams, AZURE is SNA at the fundamental level. SNA didn’t have the internet (Apart from internal internet-connected networks CROVM4, BASVM3 etc), AZURE does. Microsoft copying stuff, again? SQL? (Don’t say “seequel”).

      • I was wrong in my terms…

        “(Apart from internal internet-connected networks CROVM4, BASVM3 etc)”

        Interconnected networks, not internet-connected. At this time the “internet” and “WWW”, as we know it, didn’t “exist”.

      • Patrick MJD:

        Token ring was technically better.

        Better in theory but in practice the theory didn’t work out. Many claims for superior performance were based on flawed modelling. There was a very interesting paper by David Boggs that actually measured ethernet performance under extreme conditions to show it did not degrade exponentially as the model studies predicted. I don’t have it any more. [ Boggs gave a presentation at an early USENIX conference reprising the initial 1973 talk he and Robert Metcalf gave at Xerox and using the same original grease pencil overhead slides. He included a quote from a reviewing Xerox physicist which flatly stated that CSMACD ethernet would never work for theoretical reasons ].

        Large token rings however tended to suffer from accumulated bit-jitter, because every station in a TR network is an active repeater and the stability of the ring as a whole decays to the stability of the worst station. This came to a head with 16Mbit TR when 3rd party cards were put on large rings also populated by IBM (spyglass chipset) 16M cards. There were interoperability problems and the whole ring would fall apart. Major commercial customers found they had to segment their network into smaller rings, or stick to IBM cards — much more expensive.

        The one real advantage TR networks had from an operations perspective was the structured cabling design (star topology). Twisted pair ethernet eliminated that advantage and allowed phone cables with all the associated termination and cross-connect capability the phone company had developed over the years. [In that same presentation Boggs reflected on all the developments of the past 15 years and said “I particularly like twisted-pair ethernet because it means we can now run ethernet on all the cables people have installed to run token ring”.]

        Then as you note there was cost: the cards, the cables, the cable termination labor, the lower patch panel density, the larger conduit size and the larger minimum bending radius for type 1 (inter-MAU) cables combined to make a large TR deployment three to four times that of ethernet (ca 1989-1991). Even the bluest of IBM stalwarts had a hard time swallowing that much difference. Once the 10BaseT standard was adopted and gear became available from multiple vendors, it was over for TR.

        This is way O/T, but the parallels with the global warming and renewable power debate justify the verbiage: (1) actual experience & measurements trump model predictions, and (2) lower cost trumps a fair amount of other real advantages. Wind and solar will not be cheaper than natural gas by 2020 absent major government-imposed distortions. If people are worried about CO2 emissions or natural gas shortages and willing to spend substantially more per kWH, go nuclear.

  19. What ever happened to nuclear power? No discussion here whatsoever. It’s as though it never existed. BTW, CO2 is not warming the atmosphere. This is a fact. Otherwise, why have the Earth’s temps remained stable for the past 20 years while CO2 has continued to increase unabated during this time? If it was responsible in any way in the past, it is no longer, for a number of possible explanations.

    • This particular piece of propaganda seems to be aimed at the nuclear solution lately endorsed by Hansen et al. As many will recall, Oreskes called Hansen a “neo-denier” for insisting the nuclear option was the only good one. What that little spat served to illustrate is that Hansen is serious about his doomsday world while Oreskes and her ilk have no interest whatever in solving a contrived problem. Like Hansen they know carbon taxes can’t make a measurable GHG difference; they only want taxes and regulation and globalized control. –AGF

      • From an energy (physics) perpective only nuclear technology may provide enough power to sustain our civilisation. But there is no hurry. Within decades we may harvest methane hydrates from deep see or develope coal gasification which will extend the fossil fuel era by some centuries. In the long term we have to develope compact (fusion) reactors. It is quite embarrassing that research for key technologies is largely neglected. We are governed by fools.

  20. Here is the Obama govt’s own 2016 EIA report that states on page 3 that world co2 emissions will increase by 34% by 2040. Just a pity that Obama and Holdren etc didn’t read their own reports about FUTURE ENERGY SOURCES and co2 EMISSIONS. Talk about fairy tales and wasting trillions of future $ for a ZERO return. And of course no measurable change to temp by 2100.
    See Lomborg’s PR study about their Paris COP 21 BS.

  21. When you think the tides of war have turned and you might be about to start losing it is quite sensible to try to declare victory and end the fighting immediately.

  22. “Good news” was repeated several times. Where was it? Since when have renewables become “competitive”? If cheaper than fossil energy it’s because of subsidies. That’s not competition. It’s dead set skulduggery that cheats consumers. Besides, world nenewable contribution stands at 5% last time I looked. That’s not going to change any time soon. Please, no more “good news” and “renewables” in the same sentence.

  23. The article is a smokescreen to cover the left’s retreat from an untenable climate alarmist position.

  24. Two thing: 1) CO2 cannot warm anything. 2) There will not be any significant change in the efficiency of wind turbines. To claim otherwise shows great ignorance of physics.

  25. What Mr Rosenberg and others like him are continually blind to is solar and wind generated electrons are not the same quality as thermal ones. At present his fickle electrons are free-riding on reliable thermal electrons but any modest electrical engineering knowledge would be acutely aware of his looming fallacy of composition problem. Unfortunately my State of South Australia will have to impress that upon the likes of Mr Rosenberg.

    • If there are similar failures in Europe this winter, that’ll have a political effect on the attractiveness of warmism. Politicians will have to get into all the complexities of the hidden costs of renewables, and may learn something.

  26. Biomass.

    I have no problems with using WASTE biomass.

    But when biomass is grown IN PREFERENCE TO GROWING FOOD for the world…

    … that is one of the MOST DESPICABLE, ANTI-HUMAN ACTS of the whole anti-CO2 “greenie” agenda.

    Also applies to ethanol.

    • AndyG55, you raise an interesting point: What is the ethical justification to make food for today more expensive to the poorest of the poor?

  27. “Solar and wind are replacing fossil fuels at an astonishing pace, sooner even than optimists expected”

    As I am writing this (just before 10am in the UK) contribution to the total electricity grid from wind and solar are:
    Wind 0.79GW = 1.99%
    Solar 0.10GW = 0.25%
    For the UK that is in the forefront of investments with billions of £ or $, astonishing pace indeed.
    What a joke.

    • The lights (Sunset) goes out at about 4:30pm in the UK during winter as I recall. So that solar figure seems reasonable at this time of year.

      • I’m surprised that solar is even that high (currently up to 1%, while wind is about the same), however this time of the year wind contribution should be at its highest.
        Problem is that the load on the greed is highest in the winter months. Critical load is 50GW, with that number being hit for couple of hours every of the last 3 days.
        At this moment the UK is fine at about 41GW load.

  28. What went wrong – surely its all pretty clear cut for folks who want to set up a ‘Power Station’, in the broadest sense. Be that coal, nat-gas, wind, solar or whatever
    They are sellers into A Market – that market being run by whoever controls the National Grid in such a way that it ‘Keeps The Lights On’
    Namely, the buyer in this market.

    So, lets say the buyer sees a cold snap of weather coming just as the Cup Final finishes on the TV and expects a surge in demand. Such surges in the UK are pretty specatacular – being the shower of tea-drinking couch potatoes that we are.
    So the buyer goes to market to get quotes for delivery of electricity, a certain quantity and at a certain time (because electricity is not especially store-able) Deals are struck and contracts signed.

    If wind and solar want to enter that market, they have to play by the rules – don’t they? If not, why not?

    Even a deaf dumb and blind man can see whats coming – if any supplier breaks that deal through being unable to deliver – they are not going to be asked again.
    And that is the only certain thing with wind and solar – they will let you down sooner or later. Esp sooner in the UK

    The solution is really really simple- have the renewable generators install their own backup.
    That way they will be able to enter the electricity market with strength & confidence, deliver when they promise, be ‘good for their word’ and become trusted and reliable suppliers.

    What is wrong with that?
    (I think we all know don’t we – how *did* it go so badly wrong?)

    • I know what it is like when the lights go out in the UK from personal experience, The cold 1970’s with union action and rolling black-outs. The attack by Arthur Scargil, and unions on Thatcher, eventually, broke for good or bad. Extreme leftists say Thatcher closed more coal mines than any other Prime Minister. Actually, it was Labour and Wilson in the 1960’s who did more damage to that industry.

    • The level playing field solution is to only allow electron suppliers to the common universal grid to bid those electrons they can guarantee 24/7 all year round but that would be game over for their Gummint sponsored dumping scheme. The only way out of their zero supply at times would be to partner with thermal generators and pay them whatever they need to go guarantor, but how economic would they be then? At present they bastardise the market with their cheap marginal cost from time to time, leaving thermal to wear the average costs of constant supply. When the existing, aging thermals can’t sustain those long term average costs, including allowing for capital depreciation, the power consumer will wear the brownouts as they close.

  29. Hah! The ‘climate emergency’ may be ‘over’ but the energy shortfall emergency is yet to hit home.

  30. There is no CO2 caused climate crisis, if data is the basis of the argument. And the claims about wind and solar becoming important energy sources are false. Other than that it is a great article. Yes, lefty parasitic behavior is looking for a new frontier to corrupt. But that’s what parasites do.

  31. There are a whole host of recent articles ignoring that many ‘renewable’ energy sources have ceilings that are ignored when plotting the trend line.


    The practical ceiling for solar power is summer peak demand – winter peak demand = demand that has to be met with something else.

    Since you have to pay build something else…the price of solar has to be below the marginal operating cost(fuel) of something else.

    The pace of solar installations has begun to slow in California and IMHO will in the near future barely keep up with replacement of units that are no longer functioning.(Solar advocates tend not to take into account that solar panels don’t last forever)

    The practical ceiling for wind power is available low/no cost balancing reserves…I.E. Hydro. I personally use 3 parts hydro to 1 part wind…the last Chinese 5 year energy plan I saw used 2 parts hydro to 1 part wind.

  32. Main point:
    Larry still believes that CO2 causes climate warming.
    As to his anxieties about Trump.
    Another popular uprising is starting to correct the excesses of yet another experiment in authoritarian government that was going out of control. Such as the one that took down Communism and the Berlin Wall in 1989. The one before that has been called the American Revolution. Before that there was England’s “Glorious Revolution” of 1688.
    Trump just happens to be fronting a very powerful movement.
    In 1989 in Eastern Europe just plain folk took on a murderous police state.
    All the American Left has is propaganda.
    I’ve published a couple of pieces on the subject. “American Spring” on July 4 and “Draining the swamp” after the election. Both can be Googled.
    Bob Hoye

  33. Many had predicted this turn of events years ago. Once the “catastrophic AGW” mantra started to collapse from the weight of contrary data and weakening of political correctness among the people, its purveyors would declare victory and move on to the next vehicle to try and hamstring our economy and society. Expect to hear more reports that the CO2 reduction measures already taken have saved us. And be on guard for the next point of attack.

  34. “we could repair the damage and make this world into a garden”

    WHAT DAMAGE? How can falling CO2 plant food repair anything. Only CO2 can make the garden thrive. Straw man from beginning to end. GK

    • Isn’t this saying “I wish evolution was totally wrong and only the nice things remained on the planet” (people not being part of the nice, of course). This all seems so anti-Darwin to me.

      • Dead-on, Sheri. It’s fantasy-thinking and anti-science.

        Interesting point about Darwin, efficient power generation is an expression of the advantage derived from our culturally obligate status as a species.

  35. “CO2 warms the planet” is not = to “CO2 is causing a climate crisis”
    “Building more so-called renewable power generation capacity” is not = to “”Renewable power is a viable alternative to fossil, nuclear or hydro power”

    When one factors in the actual deliverable power from renewables vs. the stated capacity of renewable, the contrast is quite telling.
    The hysterical non-rational response of our leftist friends to the inevitability of reality is bit entertaining but also alarming.

  36. I urge anyone who cares to be factually informed about wind to look at the reality in Texas, with one of the largest sources of grid wind power in the country.
    Wind is a waste of time, money and resources.

    • Not for the people making a fortune off of it—oh, wait, you meant for the great unwashed masses, right? :)

      • you got it in one! Thanks. Too few people are willing to consider just how far removed from reality hard core climatocrats really are.

  37. As we appear to be entering a cooling phase, they will probably claim that their jet con-trails saved the planet from overheating. They had best beware, however, as things get bitterly cold, they might be blamed for the next little ice age. Wouldn’t that be ironic?

  38. The cheerleaders for the CAGW Cause, and for their “solutions”, notably “green” or “renewable” energy, are in a deep state of d*nile, and in their desperation to keep the whole charde going are claiming many, many wild things in hopes of spurring the troops on. But in their heart of hearts, they know the jig is up.

    • Yes – when I first read the words “it’s over”; and saw the name “Salon”, I did a double take… Salon being honest about AGW was a stunning turnaround!

      Then I read the article; and understood that the old “spots”/”leopards” adage remains true…

  39. Interesting lingering myths:
    perpetual motion machines
    energy from weather

    Just gets a new coat of paint thrown on and remarketed over and over. Yet it always sells.

    • Sheri, you think “energy from weather” is a myth? Guess the rain that falls behind the hydroelectric dam is not “weather.”

      • If the drought continues after the stored water is gone . . . or the clouds continue after the energy storage is gone . . . or the wind does not blow when energy needs are greatest . . .

        Do you see the problem??

      • In fact, hydro power is responsible for several orders of magnitude more deaths than nuclear power. Take the Banqiao Dam disaster, for example:


        According to the Hydrology Department of Henan Province, in the province, approximately 26,000 people died[14] from flooding and another 145,000 died during subsequent epidemics and famine. In addition, about 5,960,000 buildings collapsed, and 11 million residents were affected. Unofficial estimates of the number of people killed by the disaster have run as high as 230,000 people

        Or the Sichuan earthquake, perhaps:

        BEIJING — Nearly nine months after a devastating earthquake in Sichuan Province, China, left 80,000 people dead or missing, a growing number of American and Chinese scientists are suggesting that the calamity was triggered by a four-year-old reservoir built close to the earthquake’s geological fault line.

      • catweazle666, Your claim of “several orders of magnitude” is not correct because you seem to neglect that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were two examples of “nuclear power”

      • “you seem to neglect that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were two examples of “nuclear power”

        Oh dear.

        If you set light to a straw man as big as that, you really would cause serious Global warming, Rob.

        Don’t be silly!

      • LMAO @ catweazle666, don’t talk about “strawmen” when you post a claim that an EARTHQUAKE and not hydro power that was responsible for deaths.

      • ” an EARTHQUAKE and not hydro power that was responsible for deaths”

        What was responsible for the earthquake, you prat?

      • Catweazle666:
        1) When you post “you prat?” you’ve already lost the argument since name calling is an act of desperation.
        2) As of today most geologists will tell you that the movement of tectonic plates is the root cause of most earthquakes.
        3) now, if you wish to argue that the specific earthquake you mention is CORRELATED to some other cause, so bit it, but you know full well that correlation is not causation.
        4) Enjoy

      • “now, if you wish to argue that the specific earthquake you mention is CORRELATED to some other cause, so bit it, but you know full well that correlation is not causation.”

        Read the linked article, dimwit.

        Or is that too difficult for you?

        Then take it up with the “growing number of American and Chinese scientists” who assert that there was causation.

        It is they that are arguing for causation, not me.

        But I suppose that’s too difficult for your brain cell to cope with.

  40. Even if wind and solar energy becomes as cheap as coal, gas, nuclear, etc, they are still not viable for base loading a large geographical area. During the winter all of America is in the dark for multiple hours (3-4?) so solar will not be available for anyone. You can not count on the wind being available throughout the night to cover for no solar. How far could you transmit wind energy from other parts of the country to cover for no energy whatsoever? How much extra wind capacity would you need to cover for those times? What about days when there is cloud cover? Depend on wind only? Unless large battery systems are developed, I don’t see wind and solar being the savior everyone hopes they will be.

    • Advocates of solar and wind need to understand following:
      1. Energy density- the amount of extractable energy stored in a given system per unit of volume/area or mass.
      2. Power density – the amount of power (time rate of energy transfer) per unit of volume/area or mass.
      Both of the above are dismally low when compared to fossil fuels and almost negligible when compared to the nuclear fuels.

      • I knew there was a reason why I had to refill my water pistol with water when it ran out. Displacing air just did not do the trick.

        A pity that those advocating wind just can’t remember something that they learnt in their childhood.

  41. ‘[T]he unsubsidized, levellized cost of electricity (LCOE) for utility scale solar photovoltaic, which was highly uncompetitive only five years ago, has declined at a 20% compounded annual rate, making it not only viable but also more attractive than coal in a wide range of countries. By 2020, solar photovoltaic is projected to have a lower LCOE than coal or natural gas-fired generation throughout the world.’

    Levelized cost of electricity:
    LCOE ignores time effects associated with matching production to demand
    Nuff said.

  42. The best metaphor for solar energy versus gasoline was provided by my thermodynamics professor 40 years ago. If you want to pull a cart you can harness one horse or 10 trillion fleas. If you begin the job at the same time which method of propulsion will get you to town faster and cheaper?

  43. The absurd idiocy of the people predicting the “end of coal” based just on LOW PRICES is laid bare just by looking at a plot of global coal consumption, which show a 75% increase since 2000. This, combined with the low prices, will tell you the fuel is abundant, cheap and in increasing demand. What is going to stop it growing ??

  44. Consequences

    Does Rosenberg’s article show a shifting of priorities by the Left? Yesterday climate change was our greatest threat, warranting spending trillions of dollars — or even making drastic revisions to our economic system (as urged by Naomi Kleinclip_image005 and Pope Francis). Today their top priority is opposing all things Trump.

    That just goes to show that “CAGW” has always been nothing more than a lever to power to enact political/philosophical/economic change. It has never been to “save the world”. It has been to control the world. The carrot held out more green in the pockets of the enablers.
    They see Trump as a threat to all of the above.

  45. The headline “IT”S OVER ” … is a bit premature unfortunately . The exaggerated fraud
    global warming relies on money to keep it going . Like a Ponzi scheme with no new suckers coming in at the bottom the thing just implodes . Governments that pull an Obama by jacking energy rates to consumers are going to pay a price for backing the scam but we aren’t quite there yet .
    Trump will hopefully honour his election promise and that will give other countries
    the wiggle room to get out of the way of the avalanched of hate coming from voters that have been ripped off by this fraud .

  46. It seems that Mr. Kummer knows little about science: he spouts ignorance once again.

    Carbonated oxygen, Mr. Kummer, is not the problem: YOU are !

    The climates have never not changed. NOT ever !

    Janice has put him in his place: a place from which he will be unable to recover.
    She has done it concisely and with a commanding, eloquent style which (evidently) cannot be surpassed.

    Mr. Kummer’s entire article is bullshit.

    What’s Up With That ?

  47. In spite of so many scientific works-made on the basis of models, assumptions, measurement, and who knows what else, to date there is no real evidence of who caused climate change on our planet. Each of these articles carries little hint of the real causes, but it is only one dot in relation to the overall picture of these causes.
    Once again I have to, again, draw the attention of everyone involved in this research, that almost all new way to deceive “knowing” the truth, using models and mathematics. Almost no one uses logic and consciousness, which are associated with the “warehouse” of all causes and knowledge of the true causes of any phenomenon.
    If using logic and natural law, then it must reject the assertion that climate change and global warming resulting from human factors.
    Climate changes are the consequences of interaction between the planet and the sun. But how ? That you should explore !!
    Here, my help: change the magnetic fields of the planets and their variations caused by changes in temperature and planets themselves and their wrappers. Again, I should know how and why. If anyone is interested, we can bring about discussion.
    If this does not happen, it means that everyone staying in positions for which no truth can get more money than the truth. Why? Therefore, the truth is one and few believed in it. There is much more money on combinatorics unknown quantities, as used by “experts” who have given today and wrote several million “evidence, valued at approximately $ 45 billion in the last 20 years (around 2 billion). Only set, and I submit that millions of not stating the truth, because you will lose profits if the truth wins

  48. That a publication/site called ‘Salon’ is actually this opinionated about ‘science’ is an eye-roller all by itself.

  49. Larry Kummer. From the Fabius Maximus website:

    ‘But CO2 will continue to warm the world — and contribute to our always changing climate — for several more decades, although I doubt models can accurately predict the magnitude of this effect.’

    The fifth column, the Biedermann among the arsonists.

Comments are closed.