“The Climate-Wrecking Industry… ” A nice encapsulation of Climatariat delusions.

Guest ridicule by David Middleton

David Middleton has been a proud member of the Climate-Wrecking Industry since 1981.

From the flamingly left-wing The Nation

The Climate-Wrecking Industry… and How to Beat It

Insisting that we’re all responsible for global warming lets the biggest corporate polluters off the hook.

By Jason Mark YESTERDAY 6:00 AM

Among climate activists, the scene is remembered with a mix of embarrassment and scorn: at the end of his 2006 Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore, having just detailed the existential threat posed by global climate change, offered the audience a way to take action: Change your light bulbs. Gore’s prescription seemed completely incommensurate with the scale of the problem. The future of the human race, as well as millions of other species, is hanging in the balance—better get to the hardware store for some compact fluorescents.

Yet even today, at this late hour, the fight against global warming is bedeviled by public bewilderment.


According to peer-reviewed studies by Richard Heede and the Climate Accountability Institute, the business practices of just 90 fossil-fuel companies are responsible for two-thirds of the observed increases in global surface temperatures between 1751 and 2010.


Drawing on this and other research, The Nation has assembled a list of the “Worst of the Worst” in the climate-wrecking industry. (See our list on the opposite page.) Earning a dishonorable mention is the Republican Party, which continues to drink the Kool-Aid of climate denial and to obstruct even the most modest measures to protect the climate. Also on the list is the US Chamber of Commerce, which has spearheaded much of the opposition from business groups as a whole.


The Nation

Dude!  This is the Internet, Al Gore’s invention… There is no “opposite page.”

Back to the delusional rant…

One weakness of campaigning directly against the climate wreckers is that it’s simply unrealistic to expect a corporation to abandon the very reason for its existence. A lasting and equitable solution to climate change would put the fossil-fuel industry out of business, since these companies aren’t going to walk away from their (for now) still-profitable enterprises.

Recognizing that problem, organizers have sought to outflank the companies by targeting their bankers.


Yet while they’ve declined to finance specific projects, these banks are still extending loans to the carbon polluters’ various holding companies. And even their baby steps toward climate responsibility have generated blowback. HSBC has been quietly blackballed by the fossil-fuel industry, which has had little difficulty finding other lenders (most notably JPMorgan Chase) to fill the gap. For now, at least, the banks need fossil-fuel companies as much as these companies need the banks.


Dude!  They’re “banks.”  Banks that don’t lend money to qualified borrowers, cease to be banks.  Your idiot savantism enabled you to grasp the fact that oil & gas companies are oil & gas companies, coal companies are coal companies… But, you don’t seem to grasp the fact that banks are banks.

Back to the delusional rant…

Destroying the climate, in short, remains a winning business proposition.


(Update 1, Sept. 1, 2018)


Warmunists whose livelihood depends on Gorebal Warming scare momgering (you, Mann, Schmidt, Hayhoe, Cook, Lewendowski, etc.) deliver no useful product to society.

While the Climate Wrecking Industry powers 98% of our transportation, 67% of our electricity and feeds half of the human population.

(End Update 1)

Now for the really delusional bit:

Among activists, a consensus is emerging that legal action may prove the best way to bring the climate wreckers to account.

Dude!  Maybe you haven’t been keeping up with other left-wing rags…




YOU CAN’T SUE your way to a solution for global warming. So says the judge.

On Thursday, Judge John Keenan of New York’s Southern District dismissed the City of New York’s lawsuit against the international oil and gas companies BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Royal Dutch Shell. Facing billions of dollars in climate change-related damage in the coming years, New York was hoping to extract some money from the transnational companies that extract the oil that people burn for energy—raising the planet’s temperature, exacerbating storms, melting polar ice and elevating sea levels, worsening wildfires, extending droughts, and allowing diseases to spread farther and faster.

But no. The problem isn’t the science; it’s settled. The problem is the law. Even though attorneys for the city tried to argue that their complaint was covered by federal common law and the courts, Judge Keenan found otherwise—that in the end they were suing over emissions, and so the Clean Air Act took over. Which is to say, what New York wanted to do in a lawsuit is covered by the regulatory powers of the president and Congress. “Climate change is a fact of life, as is not contested by Defendants,” Keenan writes. “But the serious problems caused thereby are not for the judiciary to ameliorate. Global warming and solutions thereto must be addressed by the two other branches of government.”

Cities around the country have been filing lawsuits, hoping to get money from oil companies to pay for things like seawalls and infrastructure improvements—part of a strategy that’s been developing for decades. Oil companies have continued to market and lobby for lighter regulation on a product that made life harder on the only planet anyone knows about with life on it, while the US government moved slowly, if at all, toward remaking the country’s energy production and carbon emissions. If regulation and the law won’t help, the theory goes, you turn to the courts.

That’s not going well. Keenan’s decision comes not even a month after a similar defeat 3,000 miles away in June to a lawsuit filed by San Francisco and Oakland against the same oil companies. That case had the same outcome, this time from Judge William Alsup of the Northern District1 of California: “Although the scope of plaintiffs’ claims is determined by federal law, there are sound reasons why regulation of the worldwide problem of global warming should be determined by our political branches, not by our judiciary,” he writes. “The problem deserves a solution on a more vast scale than can be supplied by a district judge or jury in a public nuisance case.”



Dude! You’ve already lost that battle.  Gorsuch + Kavanaugh + ACE = You Lose!

Back to the delusional rant…

The climate wreckers do, in fact, appear to be shaken by the lawsuits. In a procedural counterattack, ExxonMobil has petitioned a Texas judge to allow it to depose attorneys and local officials from the California communities suing the company.

Dude!  That’s how lawsuits work.  You get to depose the other side.  If ExxonMobil hadn’t petitioned for depositions, it would have been evidence that they were so shaken, that their attorneys forgot how to be lawyers. (Parenthetical comments were added by me)..

Whitehouse (a truly whacked out Senator from the most insignificant State in the nation) and Carlson (“a professor at the UCLA School of Law”), among others, think the lawsuits could open the way for a kind of grand bargain on climate change: In exchange for helping to pass a law mandating an economy-wide tax on carbon, the major polluters would receive immunity from lawsuits. But such a deal would have to come with financial accountability for the climate wreckers’ misdeeds—what Whitehouse called a “massive climate-relief fund” modeled on the tobacco settlement and BP’s settlement for the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. “They don’t get to walk away scot-free,” Whitehouse said.

Of course, for that to happen, climate-action champions would have to gain control of Congress. Which means that climate activists, like the rest of the progressive movement, need to do everything they can to ensure that Congress changes hands.

That’s the sort of transformation that will require far more work—and many more people—than changing a light bulb.

Jason Mark is the editor in chief of Sierra magazine and the author of Satellites in the High Country: Searching for the Wild in the Age of Man.

The Nation



How many Warmunists does it take to change a light bulb?   (I need a punch line).

Dude! Sheldon Whitehouse… A total whack job.

Dude! Do you think Whitehouse realized he was supporting enhanced oil recovery when he did this?

Jul 12 2017

Heitkamp, Whitehouse, Capito Lead Bipartisan Coalition to Reintroduce Bill Promoting Carbon Capture

Bipartisan Bill has Strong, Broad Support from Republican and Democratic Senators, Coal Companies, Environmental Groups, Labor Organizations

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senators Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), and Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) today led a broad bipartisan group of senators in reintroducing legislation to extend and expand a key tax credit to encourage technological innovation that would reduce carbon emissions, and recognize the need for a diverse energy mix around the world for years to come.

The 45Q tax credit, which the bill would extend, supports maintaining a place in our energy mix for existing resources like coal and natural gas by encouraging development and use of carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) technologies and processes—while also spurring adoption of low-carbon technologies to transform carbon pollution into useable products. Heitkamp and Whitehouse first introduced the bill last July. Since then, they have worked with Capito to build out bipartisan support among more progressive Democratic senators and more conservative Republican senators. A wide cross-section of coal companies, utilities, environmental groups, and labor organizations also support the bill, reinforcing a willingness from all sides to come together and seek bipartisan solutions.


“Everyone agrees carbon pollution is bad, but under the current rules new technologies to reduce carbon can’t gain a foothold in the market,” said Whitehouse. “This bipartisan bill will help level the field for new technologies, allowing facilities that prevent emissions to compete with older, dirtier plants. In the process, we’ll clear a path for promising businesses in Rhode Island and around the country that turn carbon pollution into useful products. That’s a win-win.”


Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)

The Climate-Wrecking Industry

Since the “Worst of the Worst” list was apparently left behind in the print edition, I looked up “peer-reviewed studies by Richard Heede and the Climate Accountability Institute“… I think this is the relevant peer-reviewed “study.”

The rise in global atmospheric CO2, surface temperature, and sea level from emissions traced to major carbon producers

Although, it only covers 1880-2010… Here are the “Worst of the Worst”…

Figure 2 from Ekwurzel et al., 2017.
  • If we accept that from 1880-2010, atmospheric CO2 rose from 290 to 390 ppmv, ExxonMobil is responsible for just under 3 ppmv of the rise.
  • If we accept that from 1880-2010, global mean surface temperature increased by 0.8 °C, ExxonMobil is responsible for just under 0.024 °C of warming.
  • If we accept that from 1880-2010, global sea level rose by 320 mm (12.6 in), ExxonMobil is responsible for just over 0.64 mm (0.025 in) of sea level rise.

And they’re US Public Enemy #2 in the Climate-Wrecking Industry?  US Public Enemy #1, Chevron, only barely edges out ExxonMobil.  And the Climatariat wonders why we laugh at them.


Ekwurzel, B., Boneham, J., Dalton, M.W. et al. The rise in global atmospheric CO2, surface temperature, and sea level from emissions traced to major carbon producers. Climatic Change (2017) 144: 579. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-1978-0

Dude!  ExxonMobil is not a “carbon producer”!




0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Thomas Homer
August 31, 2018 7:17 am

“carbon polluters” –

water polluters foul the water
air polluters foul the air
therefore ‘carbon polluters’ foul what?

Reply to  Thomas Homer
August 31, 2018 8:22 am

“Carbon polluters” foul intelligent thinking [Notice, I put the phrase in quotes, which indicates that I am referring directly to the phrase itself — how it is adopted and proliferated in the language of otherwise intelligent humans.]

August 31, 2018 7:19 am

Just so you know how the real world works, no one actually builds a coal mine without customers/investors/owners all lined up and many coal mines are mouth of mine for power plants. Otherwise it’s a resource under the ground in a basin covering hundreds of square miles. So coal producers are not some detached world from coal users.

August 31, 2018 7:22 am

Well, the version I heard of how many feminists it takes to change a light bulb is to scream “That’s sexist!!” I cannot think of anything appropriate for the green blob except for listening to a plonking lecture first on the virtues of natural light, the risks of artificial light disrupting one’s sleep cycle, why one should only use LED bulbs, and why the lumpenproletariat such as yourself should be in the dark anyway?

Reply to  Tom Halla
August 31, 2018 9:51 am

What did socialists use before candles?…..


C.K. Moore
Reply to  Latitude
August 31, 2018 1:59 pm


Greg Woods
Reply to  Tom Halla
August 31, 2018 9:55 am

None, as caves do not have electricity…

kent beuchert
August 31, 2018 7:27 am

What’s remarkable is the certainty these folks have that they know things that 1) they can’t know or 2) are totally false. They even seem to believe that sea level changes began with human emisssions.

CD in Wisconsin
August 31, 2018 7:30 am

“How many Warmunists does it take to change a light bulb? (I need a punch line).”

Five. One to stand on the chair holding the light bulb, and four to turn the chair.

Steven Fraser
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
August 31, 2018 7:37 am

How many Warmunists does it take to change a light bulb?

Only 1… holding on while the entire world revolves around them…

Tom in Florida
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
August 31, 2018 8:14 am

None. Those magical enviro friendly bulbs last forever in their world.

Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
August 31, 2018 8:31 am

How many Warmunists does it take to change a light bulb?

100, … 97 to agree on what the other three will attempt to do, and of those three, one will apply for grants, the second will do the actual screwing, based on findings that grant-funded research discovered, and the third will publish results, including intricate equations showing exactly how they all did the screwing.

Jeff in Calgary
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
August 31, 2018 8:35 am

None, the government will change if for them.

Steve Reddish
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
August 31, 2018 8:44 am

How many cockroaches does it take to change a light bulb?

No one knows – when the light goes on they scatter!


Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
August 31, 2018 9:24 am

Doesn’t matter …all they have is dim bulbs …

Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
August 31, 2018 9:28 am

All of them. And, it’s still not enough for them to realize that darkness at night sucks.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
August 31, 2018 9:38 am

It doesn’t matter. We’re the ones who will be screwed.

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
August 31, 2018 10:44 am

“How many Warmunists does it take to change a light bulb? (I need a punch line).”
None. That’s why they are always in the dark.

Serge Wright
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
August 31, 2018 3:13 pm

“How many Warmunists does it take to change a light bulb?”

None, because their solar panels don’t work after sunset.

Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
September 1, 2018 3:19 am

None. Because 97% of them will agree with the concensus that the lightbulb has already been changed by human activity.

Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
September 1, 2018 5:08 am

100 – 97 to claim that the light bulb is getting hotter due to back radiation and the light bulb is overheating so that in 100 years we will all be fried, 3 to say but it’s f’n dark in here, change the damn light bulb.


None, didn’t the greenies get light bulbs banned years ago?

August 31, 2018 7:30 am


– from today’s GWPF Newsletter:

AFP, 31 August 2018

The Canadian province of Alberta announced Thursday it would pull out of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s flagship climate change initiative in protest against a court ruling against the expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline.

A court had earlier quashed the government’s approval of expanding the Trans Mountain pipeline to the Pacific, siding with indigenous people worried that increased tanker traffic will harm whales along the coast.

Landlocked Alberta in western Canada, which sits on the world’s third largest oil reserves, was set to rely on the pipeline to sell oil to Asian markets via the port of Vancouver.

“As important as climate action is to our province’s future I have also always said that taking the next step, in signing on to the federal climate plan, can’t happen without the Trans Mountain pipeline,” Premier Rachel Notley told reporters in a live address Thursday evening.

“With the Trans Mountain halted and the work on it halted, until the federal government gets its act together, Alberta is pulling out of the federal climate plan,” she said.

Meanwhile, Trudeau said in a tweet he confirmed to Notley that his government “stands by the TMX expansion project” and “will ensure it moves forward in the right way”.

In addition to Alberta, the provinces of Saskatchewan and Ontario in mid-July announced an alliance against the carbon tax, which they believe is harmful to the economy.

Ontario — Canada’s richest and most populous province — elected a climate-sceptic prime minister in June, who is working to dismantle climate change policies.

Toronto City News, 30 August 2018

In a move to help alleviate some financial strain from both families and small businesses across Ontario, the Ford government announced that it will be eliminating the carbon tax from natural gas rates, but critics of the announcement say it’s “short-sighted” that will harm the environment in the long-run.

Speaking at Troy’s Diner in Milton, Premier Doug Ford bashed the carbon tax, calling it “a big scam” and “the worst tax ever, anywhere.”

“It has nothing to do with protecting the environment, it just is one more way for the government to line its pockets and gouge the people of Ontario,” he said.

“It makes gas more expensive. It makes home heating more expensive. It makes everything more expensive. Driving your car and heating your home is not a luxury, it’s a necessity.”

According to the premier, eliminating the carbon tax from natural gas rates will save Ontario businesses about $285 a year.

“If you are a small business owner in Ontario, working hard to meet your payroll, we want to help,” Ford said.

“Today’s announcement is one way we’re helping you.”

Ontario Energy Minister Greg Rickford said families across the province should see their natural gas bills shrink by about $80 to $100 a year.

“We promised to deliver real relief for families and small business and I’m proud to say that’s exactly what we’re doing,” Ford said.

Full story

Jeff in Calgary
August 31, 2018 8:59 am

How badly did Mr. Nice Hair have to be to get Alberta’s communist government to pull out? I suspect Alberta’s NDP government is starting to panic as there is an election in about 8 months and they are looking for any way to win some votes.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
August 31, 2018 9:41 am

They are toast anyway. But you’re right.

August 31, 2018 7:39 am

“proud member of the Climate-Wrecking Industry”

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!” Upton Sinclair

John Endicott
Reply to  RyanS
August 31, 2018 8:25 am

That quote from Upton Sinclair perfectly encapsulated the writer of this article from the Nation. Well done RyanS, there’s hope for you yet 😉

Thomas Homer
Reply to  RyanS
August 31, 2018 8:26 am

Do you understand that Carbon Dioxide is a necessary component of the Carbon Cycle of Life?

Alan the Brit
Reply to  RyanS
August 31, 2018 8:33 am

At last you’ve said something sensible, but remember, it cuts both ways & can apply toyou warmistas as well you know! I do wish you’d think things through!

Reply to  RyanS
August 31, 2018 9:22 am

On the other hand, according to Ryan, those who’s livelihood depends on the continuing existence of the global warming scare mongering are as pure as the driven non-existent snow.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  MarkW
August 31, 2018 9:43 am

Exactly! Researchers like Mann are the epitome of self serving doom mongers. Or a dolt like Gore who has enriched himself with drivel he can’t come close to comprehending the meaning of.

Reply to  RyanS
August 31, 2018 9:07 pm

Mmm, at least Middleton’s willful ignorance is explicable – his income depends on it. But what on earth can explain the ignorance of the rest of you rabble?

Reply to  David Middleton
September 1, 2018 5:28 am

…responsible for about 40% of a temperature increase of 0.8 °C, or about 0.32 °C. =

David Middleton
“Mostly harmless” comes to mind.

That took me all of a minute to find. You ignore the rate of change. For someone interested in Geology that falls under the wilful column.

Reply to  RyanS
September 1, 2018 7:32 am

Disagreeing with you is evidence of ignorance?
You have an undeservedly high opinion of yourself.

Reply to  RyanS
September 1, 2018 7:42 am

RyanS, you’re criticizing David Middleton for willful ignorance? YOU? ROFLMAO. You don’t hold a candle to him. Go back to your Huffing & Puffington Post forums w/the other uneducated sycophants.

John Endicott
Reply to  RyanS
September 4, 2018 7:07 am

The self-unawareness is strong in this one. RyanS, if you want to see what willful ignorance really looks like, just find the nearest mirror.

dodgy geezer
August 31, 2018 7:40 am

I thought that Germany had a pretty big coal industry, but I can’t see them anywhere on the list. Are they really smaller than the UK or India?

Reply to  dodgy geezer
August 31, 2018 7:55 am

It’s a list of the biggest corporations and nationalised industries. One or two coal mines owned by one company isn’t going to be among the 20 biggest energy producing companies

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  dodgy geezer
August 31, 2018 8:03 am

The Germans like to think of themselves as leading the world in green energy production. Perhaps they are because renewables (not counting nuclear which isnt classed as clean energy anyway) or clean energy; now accounts for more than 36% of the electricity production. The Germans are looking to increase this to 50% in the near future. However when you look at the graph

for the actual total energy consumption by type, you will see that fossil fuels are still 80% in Germany. The graph gives mineral oil of 34.6% but what they mean by mineral oil is crude oil. So what 2 decades of green energy has done in Germany is to replace 5% of the fossil fuel usage of 85% and knocked it down to 80% and replaced it with solar and wind. And to accomplish this they had to push their electricity prices to the highest in the world. Remember that electricity consumption accounts for only 20% of energy consumption. How high are electricity prices going to be if and when they hit the target of 50% of electrictity production by solar and wind? And how far will the consumption % of fossil fuel fall? It seems to me that even with 100% electric cars, and 50% of the electricity provided by solar and wind; the total % of fossil fuel as a % of total energy use wont go below 60%.

If that is the case then forget about any CO2 targets. They will be impossible to meet. The targets are irrelevant anyway because of major countries like China and India having free rein to carry on business as usual.

And this whole thing is ridiculous anyway because the atmosphere needs more CO2 NOT less.

Ed Bo
August 31, 2018 7:53 am

I think you missed the biggest problem with the rant, er, article, which is that the companies that they identify are not actually emitting that much CO2 themselves. It is their customers, like you and me (and the Nation magazine, come to think of it) who are burning the fuel and creating CO2.

Steve Reddish
Reply to  Ed Bo
August 31, 2018 8:53 am

If I buy a car and then use it to create crop circles in a corn field, do I get tell the judge Ford should pay for the farmer’s damages?

Of course, this analogy fails because my example actually has damages.


D. Anderson
Reply to  Steve Reddish
August 31, 2018 9:02 am

Dude! Where’s my car?

Joel Snider
August 31, 2018 8:04 am

Remember – if something raises a wild hair on a greenie’s buttocks, it must be banned.
And they’ve got a LOT of wild hairs.

August 31, 2018 8:06 am

The author here is spot on with respect to where this leads. They are setting up the major oil companies, coal companies, NG, etc to eventually cut a deal and create a permanent climate slush fund. That would be a court structured agreement and a legal construct, not one dependent on legislative/political muscle. It would be safe from the eventual education of the world as to the massive pillaging of taxpayers and ratepayers around the world.

I expect to see more advocacy and pressure on the “most wanted list” to come to this kind of settlement. IT is going to require real backbone and principles to keep them from knuckling under. Something that is often lacking in corporate headquarters.

Andy Pattullo
August 31, 2018 8:07 am

When we have a chance to vote on a measure to relocate all the climate doom zealots to a lovely little paradise where no fossil fuels are used, no byproducts of fossil fuels are availability, all food is vegan and cultivated by hand without the use of industrial tools, and all transportation is by foot I will have my yes vote ready.

Reply to  Andy Pattullo
August 31, 2018 11:17 am

Andy Pattullo

Try Sark. No cars allowed.


Reply to  HotScot
August 31, 2018 2:27 pm

Sark is very unusual. We got there by boat. Lovely place. Only viable as a place for the very rich though.

Out of the channel islands, the best. (I’m banned from Jersey)

Reply to  3x2
August 31, 2018 4:07 pm


That’s not fair. Now you need to tell us why you’re banned from Jersey. 🙂

John Endicott
August 31, 2018 8:23 am

“How many Warmunists does it take to change a light bulb? (I need a punch line).”

None, since electricity is no longer reliable thanks to the shift to wind and solar, lightbulbs are useless. Back to candles for you.

Alan the Brit
August 31, 2018 8:27 am

How many Warmunists does it take to change a light bulb? (I need a punch line).

Answer: One, but it will only be changed if the taxpayer pays for it! 😉

D. Anderson
August 31, 2018 8:50 am

Q: What did warmunists use before they had candles?

A: Electricity.

Caligula Jones
August 31, 2018 8:59 am

“the most insignificant State in the nation”

Wanna bet the writer has at some time blamed Trump for being “divisive”?

Reply to  Caligula Jones
August 31, 2018 9:25 am

It’s only divisive if it upsets me.

August 31, 2018 9:10 am

Wow, so people doing something completely legal aren’t breaking the law!

Who would hvae thought?

August 31, 2018 9:14 am

Are flaming leftists still permitted to flame?
CO2 emissions and all that.

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkW
August 31, 2018 9:21 am

Yes, but only if the flame is fueled 100% by renewables.

John Harmsworth
August 31, 2018 9:35 am

This is the Left. If they get their way we’ll all be grubbing in the dirt for insects.
Then they’ll be bitching because smart people know where to find fat insects!

August 31, 2018 9:46 am

The answer is 42.

2 holding the lecturing,
and the other 40 keeping notes on how to sue for damages and organize
protests all over against “light bulb change” deniers and wreckers.
(at Goracle latest “Sanctus” Church of Warumnists)


Bruce Cobb
August 31, 2018 9:50 am

The underlying purpose of these bottom-feeding rhetorical bomb-throwers couldn’t be more clear: it is nothing less than to bring down Western civilization, by attacking it’s life-blood: cheap (relatively-speaking), reliable energy.

Crispin in Waterloo
August 31, 2018 9:58 am

The use of the 1880 baseline is inappropriate. Changes from 1880-1950 were natural, within measurement uncertainties.

The only thing “Exxon could know” from 1950-1975 was that CO2 emissions produce global cooling. Did they hide that from anyone?

To carry forward an ever-advancing civilisation, we need new electricity generating and storage technologies. Let’s work on that together. Suing companies because they have money is not getting anyone anywhere. Why not sue the governments that permitted the exploration and recovery of fossil fuels? Why not sue the people who elected the governments for irresponsibly putting into power those who would support the exploration and job-creation and energy production that made all their lives comfortable, healthy and clean?

To the cities: Go sue yourself.

Phil R
August 31, 2018 10:05 am

David ,

Just curious. If I’m reading the graphs correctly, and making some simplifying assumptions, it looks like, for example the temperature graph, that SA, Exxon and Chevron are each responsible for about a little less than 3% of the increase. The rest appear to be between approximately 1 and 2%. if we simplify by assuming the average is about 2% and there are 20 companies, that would mean all together would be responsible for about 40% of a temperature increase of 0.8 °C, or about 0.32 °C. Somehow, that just does not push my panic button.

Coeur de Lion
August 31, 2018 10:07 am

Anyone who says carbon when they mean carbon dioxide is a liar

Reply to  David Middleton
September 1, 2018 8:11 am

It’s the only part credited with causing damage.

Mumbles McGuirck
August 31, 2018 10:50 am

It is heartening to see the Editor In Chief of Sierra Magazine recycling, even if it’s only the old Stalinist term “wreckers”.

How long before someone coins the term “Klimate Kulaks”? Ooops, I just did.

August 31, 2018 10:56 am

How many Warmunists does it take to change a light bulb? 

One to change the light bulb, and Michael Mann who will insist that there was nothing unusual about this when comparing to how people changed lightbulbs in the Middle Ages.

One to change the light bulb and one to insist we need a lightbulb changing tax to decrease the number of times people change lightbulbs.

Almost every one.

One to let us know that if we don’t change the light bulb within a hundred years
It may get get really really hot in the house and we may have a fire.
The plumbing will breakdown creating floods in the basement.
Your dog may not survive to see the next century.

And 97% of the rest of them to write papers supporting these scenarios.

One to change the lightbulb and one to make sure it is the lead story on CNN the next day. And if they can somehow blame Trump for the lightbulb going out they have a lead story for a week.

One to change the lightbulb and one to get the cities to sue GE and Westinghouse.

Just one to insist that large sums of money should go to the 3rd world so they can adjust to not changing their lightbulbs.

One to change the lightbulb and one to insist the is no relationship between the burnt out light bulb and electricity.

One to change the lightbulb, one to want a Nobel Prize for it and Al Gore to let you know that he invented the light bulb.

One to change the lightbulb and one to insist we should go back to a more environmentally friendly time like when people had gas lighting.

One to insist that no one can even speak about changing a lightbulb let alone change it unless they have a PhD in Lightbulb Changing Science.


One to change the lightbulb and one to point out how much better off is society with 5 dollar LCD lightbulbs then incandescent bulbs which cost 89 cents.

One to change the lightbulb and one to insist that too many people are changing too many light bulbs and that is why the Arctic is melting.

Reply to  Richard333
August 31, 2018 2:58 pm

I’ve never seen an LCD light bulb, however it’s been a long time since LED bulbs were 5 dollars each. Between the longer life and the reduced energy costs you will save money with the LED bulb. However it is and should always be the individual consumers right to select which they want to buy.

Gurkles McMumble
Reply to  MarkW
September 3, 2018 4:52 pm

That’s dependent, of course, upon the LED bulbs being sold not being so cheap that they stop working after a few months. Home Depot, for instance, sells this type… same price as all the others and only 1/10th the life! What a deal.

Every single LED bulb I’ve bought has stopped working in a short time (much shorter than the average expected lifespan of, for instance, a typical incandescent bulb), whereas the quality bulb (manufactured not-in-China) I stole from work is still going strong after a few years.

August 31, 2018 11:04 am

Though the studies of Richard Heede and the Climate Accountability Institute may be peer-reviewed, the claims of the climate models are not falsifiable. Thus the investigations of the global warming climatologists are not truly “scientific.”

August 31, 2018 11:28 am

I was lured here under false pretenses!

““The Climate-Wrecking Industry… ” A nice encapsulation of Climatariat delusions.”

David’s article correctly fits under his title.

However, I was reading the title somewhat differently.
I thought, “Hot dang! Someone finally put all of the alarmist doom predictions, causes and alleged fixes into one chart.”

Man, I had it wrong!

Mark Freeman
August 31, 2018 12:01 pm

How many Warmunists does it take to change a light bulb?

At least 34 with 1 opposing, you have to have a 97% consensus the bulb needs changing.

August 31, 2018 7:57 pm

David, you have made a notable phrase: “If we accept that ….”.

“If we accept that ….. ” is a phrasing that needs to be used more often. Much discussion here often “accepts” or entertains the narrative set forth by the alarmist community as the starting point of a discussion.

If we accept that the “so-called” scientists or alarmists have any valid points we should state that we are arguing from the point that “if we accept that they even had a point to begin with”.

August 31, 2018 8:29 pm

Typographical error.
It’s Weldon Shitehouse.

September 1, 2018 1:24 am

According to peer-reviewed studies by Richard Heede and the Climate Accountability Institute, the business practices of just 90 fossil-fuel companies are responsible for two-thirds of the observed increases in global surface temperatures between 1751 and 2010.

It isn’t often we see a Climate Faithful admit that the warming has been going on since before the US was a country. It kind of undermines their ‘Big Oil done it’ meme when you realize that even Steam power hadn’t been invented yet.


Mihaly Malzenicky
September 1, 2018 2:21 am

Obviously, economic interests are still in the forefront of world sustainability. If we think of a quick solution, LENR technology can mean the last chance. Thousands of research institutes are working on this subject and even this year a breakthrough is possible. However, it is true that there is no evidence so far because the inventors are secretive for understandable reasons.

LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
Reply to  Mihaly Malzenicky
September 3, 2018 5:15 pm

LENR is easily obtained. An electrical discharge generates a Z-pinch magnetic field which is applied to a synthetic diamond. The CVD process used to manufacture the synthetic diamond necessitates that the synthetic diamond has hydrogen molecules coating its surface (the diamond is built up via chemical vapor deposition of hydrocarbon gas (typically methane, CH4) and hydrogen gas).

This surface hydrogen bonds with oxygen from the atmosphere to create a microscopically thin film of water on the surface of the diamond. Atmospheric CO2 is then absorbed, creating carbonic acid.

This makes the surface of the diamond conductive. It also pulls electrons from the bulk of the diamond, leaving behind charge carriers (holes) in the bulk of the diamond, thus making the bulk of the diamond conductive, as well.

The Z-pinch magnetic field uses the charge carriers to tunnel into the bulk of the diamond. Given sufficient magnetic flux intensity, this disrupts the quark bonding (the electroweak interaction is, after all, an EM interaction at its base) inside the nucleons, causing quark flavor change and thus elemental transmutation of the carbon in the diamond, with a concomitant release of energy.

Obtaining LENR is easy. Controlling it is another matter.

LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
Reply to  LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
September 3, 2018 6:35 pm

For those interested, the weak interaction is considered to be the ‘residual strong interaction’. Thus it is the same sort of force as the strong, by which quarks bond via gluons.

The weak interaction and EM interaction, when unified (not symmetry broken) is called the electroweak.

In atoms, where the small distances yield high field strengths between the positively-charged nucleal proton(s) and bound electron(s), vacuum polarization occurs. It is this “self energy of the gauge bosons” which sustains the bound electron in its orbit. The electron (a point charge undergoing angular acceleration) emits Larmor radiation (virtual photons… ie: magnetism, which is why all matter exhibits magnetism… usually diamagnetism, with some valence electron configurations overriding the underlying diamagnetism with ferromagnetism, paramagnetism, ferrimagnetism or antiferromagnetism) at all times, but in its 1s orbit, physicists consider it to be in a ‘net zero radiation’ state. Of course, ‘net’ implies not only emission of energy (in the form of virtual photons) but absorption. The quantum vacuum zero point energy is where the bound electron obtains this energy, preventing it from spiraling in to the oppositely-charged proton(s) in the nucleus. It is the vacuum polarization in the vicinity of the nucleus which transforms the sinusoidal (spiral in 3D) quantum vacuum scalar waves into circular (spherical in 3D) motion of the bound electron (a sinusoid being a circular function, after all).

It should be noted that this implies that the non-zero expectation value of the quantum vacuum thus underpins the stability of all invariant-mass matter (which brings to mind another avenue of ‘tearing down’ invariant-mass matter into energy by artificially lowering quantum vacuum expectation value via a well-shielded Casimir cavity).

The above is corroborated by the work of Haisch and Moddel (who used Casimir cavities to artificially lower the quantum vacuum expectation value and thus lower the bound electron orbital radius of a noble gas, compelling the gas to give off photons (as happens when electron orbital radius decreases in all invariant-mass matter). They essentially created an artificial Lamb shift.) and by Boyer et. al. (who explicated the mechanism of sustained electron orbit as far back as 1975).

Quark flavor change is via the weak interaction. Quark flavor change can also be caused, therefore, by the weak and EM unified force, the electroweak.

Inside the nucleons, the weak and EM are unified into the electroweak. Outside the nucleons, spontaneous symmetry breaking of the electroweak occurs via the Higgs mechanism.

Thus, a strong magnetic field can cause quark flavor change as described above via the electroweak interaction, and thus elemental transmutation and a concomitant energy release. That’s one avenue to LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reaction).

Andy Wilkins
September 1, 2018 3:53 am

I notice that 2 of the commenters below the article in The Nation are whining that the Earth’s population is too large and needs to be reduced. I would have liked to have added a comment to suggest that they lead from the front and kill themselves, but you have to pay to comment. Paying just to comment? That’s not very socialist.

September 1, 2018 6:18 am

“the business practices of just 90 fossil-fuel companies are responsible for two-thirds of the observed increases in global surface temperatures between 1751 and 2010.”
So the British coal-mining companies caused 2/3 of the increase in global temperatures in 1752? Hmm…

Gerard O'Dowd
September 1, 2018 2:20 pm

The term “Climate Wrecking Industry” is revealing of the Marxist-Leninist roots of the Environmental Left propaganda and ideology. It has a direct parallel to the terms “Economy Wrecking” or “Industry Wreckers” the Soviet Communist Party used to arrest, imprison and execute people, often on made up charges of sabotage, Counter-Revolution, Enemies of the State, and treason; such indictments followed by sham trials, at first carefully staged public show trial performances, but then in secret because the former performances didn’t turn out quite the way the Party leaders, the NKVD Secret Police and Blue Cap prosecutors intended. Solzhenitsyn in Chapter 10, The Law Matures, The Gulag Archipelago, describes the reasons for Stalinist transition from public sham trials to secret sham trials in 1934-1937 in some detail.

The most memorable public sham trial Solzhenitsyn describes was the denunciation, arrest, trial, conviction, and execution of four District CP leaders in the ancient, slow moving, peasant village of Kady, in remote Ivanovo Province, Russia, for their successful efforts to save their local population from starvation, disobeying Politburo requisitions for extraordinary wheat flour shipments to Moscow, the prohibition of selling flour locally, and the decentralized baking of bread using abandoned Kulak cottage ovens that actually enhanced production above subsistence. P419-431.

One of the four defendants in testifying, Vaslov, didn’t follow the Prosecutors’ script. The Prosecutor accused Vaslov of Double Dealing and Wrecking. “Let the défendant tell us how he pulled off the nightmarish piece of wrecking that he stopped the sale of flour and the baking of Rye bread in the Central District bakery.”

In his exhange with the Prosecutor Karasik, Vaslov shouted that the Prosecutor should resign his position at the rostrum and come down and sit next to him.

He continued: ” The prohibitions on selling flour and baking rye bread were instituted by a decree of the Provincial Executive Committee. One of the permanent members of its presidium is Provincial Prosecutor Karasik. If that’s wrecking then why didn’t you veto the decree as Prosecutor? That means you were a wrecker before I was. ”

Vaslov and the other three were convicted and executed. I wonder if this is an example of what the Marxist-Leninist Left today means by Social Justice.

%d bloggers like this: