“A fossil-free future”… Real words from a real social justice warrior and author of The Parents’ Guide to Climate Revolution

Guest anti-social justice warrior-ing by David Middleton

Real Clear Energy was a veritable treasure trove today…

Wednesday, September 5

Brent Nears $80 as Gulf of Mexico Rigs Evacuated Staff, Gulf News
Iran Will Exert ‘Every Effort’ to Export Oil M. Sergie & A. Shahla, Bloomberg
India to Buy Iranian Oil Despite Sanction Threat Staff, The Hindu Business Line
Iran May Use Secret Oil Shipments to Skirt US Sanctions T. Paraskova, Oil Price
Natural Gas Is Already a Bridge Fuel Robert Rapier, Forbes
Blame Your Bank for Climate Change Chris Saltmarsh, The Ecologist
Biggest US Pension Funds ‘Must Consider Climate Risks’ Gail Moss, IPE
We Need to Respond to Climate Change Now Maya Spaur, The Washington Post
China’s Solar Farms Transforming World Energy Chris Baraniuk, BBC News
Offshore Wind on East Coast Would Bring 25,000 Jobs V. Rajamanickam, FW
Petro Companies Not Telling Shareholders About Climate Risks Mose Buchele, KUT
Parenting Like No Other in the Age of Climate Change Wendy Becktold, Sierra Club

A Parenting How-To Like No Other in the Age of Climate Change

Mary DeMocker’s new book is an essential resource for parents


Like most parents I know, I am sometimes seized by anxiety about climate change, usually in the middle of the night when I can’t sleep. I lie in the dark wondering whether my children will grow up to face life on an uninhabitable planet. At the same time, I often feel too mired in the day-to-day challenges of parenting to do too much about it, beyond committing to green habits like recycling, composting, and driving a fuel-efficient car. The hard truth, though, is that these activities, while valiant, aren’t going to save us from climate change.

Years ago, Mary DeMocker found herself in a similar position. “When my children were young,” she writes in her book The Parents’ Guide to Climate Revolution (out this year from New World Library), “my husband . . . and I rocked green family living—voting, recycling, insulating, fixing leaks, biking, and ‘living simply.’”

But as the years ticked by, the news about climate change grew more and more dire, and DeMocker found herself feeling increasingly anxious about the world her children would be inheriting. Her solution? “I stopped worrying so much about shrinking my family’s carbon footprint and started focusing on shrinking industry’s,” she writes. DeMocker cofounded Eugene, Oregon’s 350.org chapter, organized protests, and created political artwork.

In the process, she discovered that she felt better…


Sierra, The national magazine of the Sierra Club

Isn’t that nice?  “She felt better.”

WTF?!?  She felt better because she “stopped worrying so much about shrinking [her] family’s carbon footprint and started focusing on shrinking industry’s,”  She felt better because she stopped worrying about something she had control over and started obsessing about something she had no control over?

The only way she could reduce “industry’s” carbon footprint is to convince the sane people of the world to stop eating, traveling and using electricity… In other words, voluntarily revert to a Late Pleistocene lifestyle.

Amazingly, the stupidity of the Sierra book review escalates…

DeMocker told me by phone. “We have to be strategic and look at what needs to be done right now. We have to change policy to leave fossil fuels in the ground.”

That means that if we only have three minutes a day for some kind of climate activism, it’s better to skip washing out the peanut butter jar and instead of recycling it, toss it in the trash—and then use the time to call our congressperson.

“During this holy-shit moment on Earth, it’s far more critical to enact bold climate-justice policies,” DeMocker writes, “than to shrink your family’s wee footprint. . . . It’s better to get yourself—by Hummer, if necessary—to city council meetings and town halls to demand policies that break dirty energy’s stranglehold on everything.”

The only way “to change policy to leave fossil fuels in the ground,” would be for Thanos to snap his figures and wipe out half of humanity.

And there’s another reason why they would need a Thanos-style solution…

In fact, the book is essentially one big resource guide, full of ideas—100 of them to be exact. Its subtitle is “100 ways to build a fossil-free future, raise empowered kids, and still get a good night’s sleep.” Many of the suggestions only take a minute or two and cost very little to nothing. At the end of each chapter, DeMocker presents extensive lists for how to learn and do more. Want to go on sustainable family vacations? See the list at the end of tip #17.

They want “a fossil-free future”…

It literally does…

A Parents’ Guide is full of wide-ranging and sometimes unexpected advice that you probably won’t find in most green parenting books. For example, DeMocker talks about the importance of avoiding debt and teaching our children to do the same. That way, they can be free to live the lives they want to and will have time to agitate for change when they need to. If that means making do with less, well, that’s better for the planet anyway.

She even takes on American parents’ obsession with competitive sports: “We can’t be giving over our weekends starting when our kids are four to year-round soccer clubs,” she told me. “They’re expensive, they’re time-consuming, and they take away from spiritual life, from birthday parties, from downtime in nature, from parents being relaxed.”

Imagine a childhood in which your parents didn’t let you play real sports, like baseball and football… And instead took you to social justice warrior protests and marches.  Imagine a childhood in which you couldn’t get a Johnny Seven O.M.A. for Christmas because your parents were “making do with less” to free-up work days to “agitate” for “climate-justice policies” (whatever the frack those are), because “that’s better for the planet anyway.”

Better for the planet… Are people really this stupid?


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Caligula Jones
September 5, 2018 9:49 am

As I mentioned to a friend who said that the problem is with “over” population: nobody ever volunteers to make sure we are at, exactly, the “right” population…

And nobody who speaks about “the good old days” would voluntarily live in a world without antibiotics.

Reply to  Caligula Jones
September 5, 2018 9:57 am

Ah yes the good old “too many other people in the world” argument.
I normally find that those advancing the argument fail to lead by example.

Jeff Labute
Reply to  Caligula Jones
September 5, 2018 10:17 am

Thankfully, those who decide to reduce their carbon footprint by not having children , automatically take themselves out of the gene pool.

John Minich
Reply to  Jeff Labute
September 5, 2018 5:29 pm

I love the science of biology !

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Jeff Labute
September 5, 2018 7:18 pm

There was a post by someone called “XL” in a climate change related article at the Sydney Morning Herald here in Australia which went something like this… “I am about to see my 3rd grandchild and I am horrified at all you climate change deniers wanting to destroy the world…”

It turned out “XL” was a woman. She could not see the error of her post.

steve case
Reply to  Caligula Jones
September 5, 2018 10:18 am

Whenever I hear some one talk about over population, I tell them, “You first.”

Reply to  Caligula Jones
September 5, 2018 3:24 pm

Great…when the green mob eventually decides what is the “right” population could they also tell us what is the “right” temperature for Father Earth and what is the “right” level of CO2.

Reply to  Caligula Jones
September 5, 2018 6:42 pm

Even more: modern dentistry!

John in L du B
September 5, 2018 9:57 am

Please people. The Sierra Club’s objectives are not to save the environment or conserve nature. That is most definitely not their mission. Their mission is to build the endowment.

Reply to  John in L du B
September 5, 2018 10:21 am

And to control people.

M__ S__
Reply to  Bob Hoye
September 5, 2018 10:24 pm

Actually, to kill as many people as possible—but not themselves.

As I recall, one member of “Greenpeace” viewed the millions killed by malaria after DDT was outlawed as a good start.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  M__ S__
September 6, 2018 7:37 pm

“As I recall, one member of “Greenpeace” viewed the millions killed by malaria after DDT was outlawed as a good start.”

Unless you have some evidence someone actually said that, it’s just a gratuitous assertion, which can be just as gratuitously dismissed.

Reply to  John in L du B
September 5, 2018 10:30 am

John, sometime back in the 1980s I was asked to attend a meeting for all the state environmental group leaders. Lake Okeechobee, which had suffered decades of impacts, was showing signs of potentially “turning over” as Lake Apopka had done in the 1960s. The idea of the meeting was for all the groups to join forces, develop a plan and speak with one voice. Everybody at the meeting expressed their deepest concerns. Everyone blamed government, big agriculture, big corporations, urbanization, etc, etc. Yet when it came down to coming together, well it just wasn’t going to happen. Why? at first it was hard to tell. They sputters and mumbled. Several suggested they needed more data. I finally pushed them, suggesting the reasons was that many of those they blamed provided them with large donations. Only one even made a suggestion of debating me, the head of Sierra. He was outraged at the suggest but then argued was they would do nothing to anger their donors because such donations allowed Sierra to do so much good. I said well why can’t you all come together in a statement for government. Sierra said, “Oh no, we wouldn’t consider doing anything that might anger our friends in the agencies.”

John in L du B
Reply to  Edwin
September 5, 2018 10:43 am

Edwin, I never understood it until I was president of the local charitable foundation. We were all volunteers. We all worked very hard but it seemed the only thing we ever talked about was how big and how well the endowment was growing. And we weren’t being paid.
So if you’re the president of the Sierra Club pulling down your six figure salary you know exactly what you have to do to keep on drawing it.
I told my Board that there was a reason the principal invested and the male member are both called the endowment. Seems that size matters more than what you did with it.

Caligula Jones
Reply to  John in L du B
September 5, 2018 11:17 am

Could be apocryphal, but I believe it takes WWF (or Greenpeace or…) $1 million a week just to keep the lights on. Or something.

Give local, limit the number of layers of grifters you have to pay and do it yourself if you have to.

Reply to  Edwin
September 5, 2018 4:53 pm

Sierra does very little good.

I keep a Sierra Club camping cookbook that I was given while young and backpacking frequently.
The cookbook might be good for urban dinner parties, it is horrendous for camping and worse for backpacking.

Dilettantes trying to tell others how to live, act and spend their money.

Sierra Club: Courtesy http://www.give.org which is not a critical assessment.

” Governance:
Chief Executive: Peter Martin, Executive Director
Compensation*: $210,616
Chair of the Board: Steven Berkenfeld
Chair’s Profession / Business Affiliation
Managing Director, Investment Banking Division, Barclays
Board Size: 17
Paid Staff Size: 9

Method(s) Used: Direct mail, grant proposals, Internet appeals, and planned giving.

Fundraising costs were 9% of related contributions. (Related contributions, which totaled $87,863,342, are donations received as a result of fundraising activities.)

SCF reports that it partners with individual and institutional donors to align financial resources with strategic, measurable outcomes; provide flexible funding for innovation; build capacity in the environmental movement; and create partnerships with a broad spectrum of allied organizations around shared values and goals.

The organization offers its services as fiscal sponsor in receiving, administering, and disbursing funds to the Sierra Club and to other environmental organizations to support scientific, educational, literary, organizing, advocacy, and legal programs that further its goals.

For the year ended December 31, 2015, Sierra Club Foundation’s program expenses were:
Program services $54,312,411
Total Program Expenses: $54,312,411″

Then there is Sierra Club’s PAC: Courtesy opensecrets.org

Discloses Donors? PARTIAL
Viewpoint: LIBERAL
Type of group: SUPER PAC 501C

Grand Total Spent on 2016 Federal Elections: $556,250
150.9% spent in general election”

And Sierra Club Affiliates for 2016:

Sierra Club (PAC)
Independent Expenditures: $463,412
Sierra Club (501c)
Independent Expenditures: $370,617
Sierra Club (501c)
Communication Costs: $124,072
Sierra Club Independent Action (SuperPAC)
Independent Expenditures: $61,561”

Almost nothing for the environment, wildlife or people.

michael hart
Reply to  ATheoK
September 5, 2018 10:48 pm

I always imagine that the Sierra Club probably produces some nice calendars, of the sort you can can give relatives as a Christmas gift.

Craig from Oz
Reply to  Edwin
September 5, 2018 8:35 pm

“…a meeting for all the state environmental group leaders.”

First let us start with a question? Why has a single state some many environmental groups?

And to answer, because if you form your own group then you get to be in charge. This desire to be in charge also is part of the reason why groups like this generally refuse to co-operate. They are not common warriors, fighting side by side towards the shared objective, they are rivals, competing with each other for the glory of attention and warming glow of your donated money.

September 5, 2018 10:05 am

“I lie in the dark wondering whether my children will grow up to face life on an uninhabitable planet.”
Mary DeMocker …..
“But as the years ticked by, the news about climate change grew more and more dire, and DeMocker found herself feeling increasingly anxious about the world her children would be inheriting.”

Maybe these “mothers” shouldn’t have children ??

Reply to  Marcus
September 5, 2018 11:38 am

Maybe they should quit listening to the news.

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  Marcus
September 5, 2018 11:55 am

Not a problem. For if they are indeed “facing life on an uninhabitable planet” then they won’t have to face it for very long. By definition.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Marcus
September 5, 2018 12:34 pm

Maybe she could try turning on a light? Then, maybe she could try educating herself? Too much to ask, I know.

Clay Sanborn
September 5, 2018 10:10 am

“A fossil-free future”
I think it is absurd that people don’t want fossils. How would geologists and the such find out what ancient environments were like without fossils? We wouldn’t know about T-Rex and all the other dinosaurs without fossils. And what harm does a fossil cause. And what about the kids who delight in finding fossils in soft rocks, or in stream beds – preserved patterns of leaves, snails, and past animals. I for one am glad we have fossils. 🙂

Reply to  Clay Sanborn
September 5, 2018 11:16 am

I have a few fossils. I don’t talk to them a lot, but they’re always available for comments.

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  Clay Sanborn
September 5, 2018 11:57 am

I AM a fossil, and find it very cruel that they want to see my demise.

Ron Long
September 5, 2018 10:11 am

David, David, David, don’t shout at the precious little snowflakes, they might melt and disappear. Come to think of it, got ahead and shout. Since I like it warmer I have increased my carbon footprint to offset some of this nonsense.

Bryan A
September 5, 2018 10:17 am

“Imagine a childhood in which your parents didn’t let you play real sports, like baseball and football… And instead took you to social justice warrior protests and marches. Imagine a childhood in which you couldn’t get a Johnny Seven O.M.A. for Christmas because your parents were “making do with less” to free-up work days to “agitate” for “climate-justice policies” (whatever the frack those are), because “that’s better for the planet anyway.”

A childhood without Sports is a childhood without Verbs. When a Child looses their Verb, they put on weight. The Verb, SPORT is necessary to childhood development, health, and well being.

Reply to  Bryan A
September 6, 2018 5:42 am

“Get out on the pitch and hit that ball, right now!” has a few verbs. The SJW’s cry abuse!

Jim Clarke
September 5, 2018 10:19 am

Ridiculing these people is like shooting fish in a barrel. The problem is, that even after you shoot them, they are still talking on the phone to their congressmen.

September 5, 2018 10:20 am

And she complains about the cost of soccer!
That’s nothing compared to the costs of hockey. My partner’s grandson, age 14, played on Monday. 75 F outside and cold inside. The hockey bag full of equipment is almost a big as Matthew.
And this zealot, to quell her personal superstitious fears, wants to end this as well as other sports.
Matthew made the “Rep” team.
Quite likely, as a top student, on the way to university scholarship within the hockey system.
A friend’s grand daughter, age 11, is so good she is in the boy’s league and also on the way to scholarships.
Nice to watch this progress.
Bob Hoye

[The mods request you do not attempt to explain the blue line clause in the hockey stick metaphor. .mod]

Reply to  Bob Hoye
September 6, 2018 12:26 am

….what about the offside rule in Soccer….? 😉

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Bob Hoye
September 6, 2018 7:24 am

But think of all that CO2 breathed out during the game!!!! That’s why sex is soon going to be off the agenda!!!!

John Bell
September 5, 2018 10:22 am

You can damn well bet she uses plenty of fossil fuels to protect herself and her kids, every day, and if she is so hot on saving the planet, why is she having kids at all? Typical liberal hypocrite.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  John Bell
September 5, 2018 3:12 pm

“liberal hypocrite” is a redundant term.

D. Anderson
September 5, 2018 10:30 am

Soccer moms turning on each other. Much more entertaining than soccer.

“We can’t be giving over our weekends…year-round soccer clubs,”

September 5, 2018 10:42 am

Mocking and calling such people “stupid” over and over again is rude and ineffective and FAILS to win people over to the skeptical side of this debate. It is unworthy of publication in this influential blog.

The woman’s ideas are not “stupid” if you believe as she does that the Earth is in serious danger along with the future of her children. It would be appropriate to challenge those assumptions. But repeatedly calling her or her book “stupid”just turns reasonable people off. It is the tactic of the Alarmists and should not be ours.

Dale S
Reply to  TDBraun
September 5, 2018 11:00 am

I agree the mockery is a bit off-base — this woman isn’t advocating that people *voluntarily* shrink industry’s carbon footprint. She wants “bold climate justice policies” and thinks time spent pursuing political solutions is better spent than personally reducing your own carbon footprint.

Now is that a rational line of pursuing if you believe, as she does, that climate change is an existential threat and that government force can prevent it from happening. But does sincere belief in something prevent it from being mind-boggling stupid? Since the little ice age the temperature has risen slightly and the effects appear to have been beneficial; fossil fuels have been used to fuel industry and agriculture and the effects have been *massively* beneficial. And since the little ice age far more power has been given to government, with authoritarian governments being responsible for the death of hundreds of millions of people. Is there any chance at all that “bold climate justice policies” if enacted and followed won’t hurt real people, right now?

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  David Middleton
September 5, 2018 12:04 pm

Was it Juvenal who asked, “Who will mock DeMocker?”

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
September 5, 2018 1:40 pm

I would’ve said “Who will police The Police” but Sting would have objected.

David Chappell
Reply to  David Middleton
September 5, 2018 5:49 pm

Presumably her Hummer runs on good intentions…

Reply to  TDBraun
September 5, 2018 11:30 am

Yes, “stupid” is an over-used adjective. How about benighted, ignorant, misinformed, phobic, or ungrounded?

Reply to  David Middleton
September 5, 2018 12:42 pm

Looks like child abuse.

Reply to  David Middleton
September 5, 2018 1:07 pm

David, if you run out of places to use ‘stupid’, throw a few ‘GobSh1tes’ in. a very descriptive word imho

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Gary
September 7, 2018 10:07 am

Gullible and misguided!

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  TDBraun
September 5, 2018 12:12 pm

How about moronic then? Or dumb, half-witted, brainless nincompoop? Call a spade a spade, and let the chips fall, I say.

D. Anderson
Reply to  TDBraun
September 5, 2018 12:49 pm

You don’t think the late night “comics” are having an effect? It’s very profitable too.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  TDBraun
September 5, 2018 3:17 pm

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons that under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his own cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for the do so with approval of their own conscience.” – C.S. Lewis

I know most of you have seen this quote, however it is good at times like this to remind people what the real problem is here with people like this woman.

Dale S
September 5, 2018 10:46 am

“The news about climate change grew more and more dire.”

Reality fail — the next bit of “dire” *news* about climate change will be the first — so far climate change has failed to be even mildly annoying, let alone dire. What grows “more and more dire” is only alarmist rhetoric about the future, usually not grounded in the actual impact projections, such as they are.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Dale S
September 5, 2018 8:59 pm

What? Haven’t you heard? It is summertime and we are having summer weather. And we are all gonna die!

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
September 5, 2018 10:09 pm

Its summer/spring time in the USA and GW is completely out of control and The New York Times expresses it best…Roger Federer Is Tough to Beat. Global Warming Might Have Pulled an Upset….Sept. 4, 2018.
Tennis…that well known winter sport!
Roger has appeared at nearly 74 or so Grand slams and has won 20 titles.
I wonder if that means that Global Warming has beaten him the other 50 odd times?
I did initially think this was parody…every second MSM article seems like parody to me…but it is the real deal as it is by….Kendra Pierre-Louis who is a reporter on the climate team.

September 5, 2018 11:01 am

I am so dumbfounded by the stupidity of Wendy Becktold’s words that I have lost all ability to compose a rational response. I might need therapy for that one.

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
September 6, 2018 1:23 am

I totally agree.

September 5, 2018 11:10 am

And I love the Late Great George Carlin.

But this WEndy Becthold’s issue, here: “I lie in the dark wondering whether my children will grow up to face life on an uninhabitable plane” clearly indicates that she is out of touch with reality. She seems unwilling, also, to consider the simple fact that the Earth has been here for a very, very long time, has flourished enormously, survived one massive disaster after another and still moseyed along, will continue to do so for another 4++ billion years, and has yet to be uninhabitable until or unless the Sun swells up the the orbit of Mars. And then it will simply be vaporized and swallowed, just as Cronos swallowed his own children.

I feel sorry for her kids, because of this. If they are able to get away from her and think for themselves, they may tell each other “Mom’s not facing reality. Now what do we do?”

Ms. Beckthold is so pathetically mired in her imaginary disasters that I doubt there is little anyone can do for her. But since the bulk of humanity relies in some way on carbon-based molecules for heating and growing food, I want to know how she plans to set a completely carbon-free example of living without ANY AND ALL carbon-based products, including food.

I don’t know how deep her ignorance runs, but it is very deep and VERY sad.

Alan Tomalty
September 5, 2018 11:25 am


Evapotranspiration from water cycle gives 486000 km^3/year. WIKI gives 503000 and Babkin in a Russian study gave 577000

1 km^3 = 10^12 kg
Latent heat of fusion of water to water vapour at 20C = 2450000 Joules/kg
Number of seconds in a year = 3.1536 x 10^7
1 watt = 1 Joule /second
Surface area of earth = 5.1x 10^14 m^2

NASA graph gives evapotranspiration = 86.4W/m^2 Check their Earth’s energy budget graph on their website

The task is to convert the latent heat that is represented inside the water molecule from the water cycle upon evaporation to a W/m^2 equivalent of NASA’s figure of 86.4 W/m^2. I want to see if NASA’s figure has any basis in reality.

Solution 1: Using the 486000
figure we have Total evapotranspiration = 486000 km^3/year * 10^12kg = 4.86 x 10^17 kg/year
Total number of Joules = 2,450,000 Joules/kg * 4.86 x 10^17 kg/year
= 1.1907 x 10 ^24 Joules/year
Number of Joules/second = 1.1907 x 10 ^24 Joules/year divided by 3.1536 x 10^7 sec/year

= 3.775684932 x 10^16 Joules /sec
= 3.775684932 x 10^16 Watts

W/m^2 from surface = (3.775684932 x 10^16 Watts) divided by 5.1x 10^14 m^2
= ~ 74 W/m^2

Solution 2: Using the Wiki figure of 503000

we have ~76 W/m^2

Solution 3: Using the Babkin figure of 577000 we have
~ 87.8 W/m^2

So the difference between NASA and these solutions can also be because of taking a different temperature of evaporation other than 20C.

So why do I start with this analysis? It is because at least I am starting my topic with analysis which no one can question. Evaporation which exists and which exists on the scale I have enumerated is beyond question. Evaporation is the opposite of heat transferred to the ocean from the atmosphere. Evaporation is HEAT TRANSFERRED FROM THE OCEAN TO THE ATMOSPHERE. Heat transfer does not go the other way. Approximately 48-50 % of the initial total solar input actually makes it to the surface of the earth. Since the surface is ~ 70% oceans, this is the critical battleground of where is Trenberh’s missing heat? The alarmists like to say that the missing heat from the so called energy imbalance which doesnt show up in the atmophere is actually hiding in the oceans. The reason they say that the heat has gone to the oceans is that all measurements of outgoing LWIR at the top of atmosphere still show no deficit from incoming solar. So the alarmists manufacture a supposed heat trapping mechanism whereby the incoming solar is partially absorbed by CO2 and then transferred to the oceans. However , mathematically; that still doesnt add up because the 70 % of incoming solar that isnt reflected eventually balances because of measurements of top of atmosphere outgoing radiation which has not decreased over time. However even disregarding this mathematical flaw, the heat cant go to the oceans from the atmosphere because evaporation happens all the time and everywhere except deserts and Antarctica. Evaporation takes the solar input to the oceans and turns it into latent heat which then by convection gets lifted higher into the troposphere and when the atmosphere condenses most of that latent heat ( a tiny amount is contained within the water molecule) is then lost to the atmosphere as outgoing heat flux to the top of the atmosphere. Since CO2 has nothing to do with evaporation, that released latent heat doesnt make its way back to the surface or we would have had runaway global warming 4 billion years ago when the oceans formed on earth.

Up until 2003, ocean SST were notorious for being inaccurate because there was too much human input with collecting data by water buckets. It was also open to data tampering. However in 2003 a network of automated ARGO buoys was installed in the open oceans.


They took temperatures at many depths all the way down to 2000 metres. For the 1st 10 years this new system worked well and more buoys were added. However after it became increasingly obvious that the data did not show any increase in temperatures, the alarmists argued that the heat burrowed deeper into the oceans. Now they have instituted 2 ways to fake the data; tamper with the chart data and combine the land surface data with the SST data. We all know the fallacy of doing the 2nd adjustment but I would like to point out the former adjustment.

NCAR have on their site, a graph showing SST from ARGO buoys from 2005 to 2010.

Where the last 8 years are, I don’t know. The UK Met office once had a graph showing the ARGO buoy temperatures from 2003 to 2012, almost the same period. That graph did not show any warming. However, they have now taken that graph down and replaced it with the old bucket data graphs. If you compare the old UK Met office data with the NCAR graph (10 metre- 1500 metre depth, you will see that the NCAR data graph has been massively tampered with. At least the UK office dont present a fake graph.


Of course all of this fake stuff has been reported on before in other contexts and other data sets of other variables. My point here is to go further. The claimed heat imbalance that is supposed to go from the atmosphere to the oceans cant go via conduction since the ne conduction is the other way which NASA and every other energy budget graph makes clear. It is on the order of 18 W/m^2 from surface to atmosphere. That includes both land and surface. So the only other way that the heat/energy could get from the atmosphere to the oceans is by DW back IR. Never mind that the oceans are poor absorbers of IR, but there is very little IR going up from the oceans to the atmosphere in the 1st place in order to be trapped and sent back down . Here are the numbers. NASA gives 163.3 W/m^2 of solar reaching the surface. Of that 70% oceans is 114W/m^2. Now 86.4 leaves by evapotranspiration and evaporation but we have to take 90 % of that because that is the evaporation %. therefore 77.76 is by evaporation alone. Take 70% of that for the oceans which leaves 54.3% . Another 18.4 leaves by conduction/convection and we will take 70 % of that for the oceans so we have 12.88. Another 40 is by the atmospheric window straight to space Take 70 % of that and we have 28. Therefore we have 114-54.3-12.8 – 28 = 18.9 W/m^2.

There is very little to emit from the oceans. (See the analysis by Dr. Charles Anderson below.) We know the evaporation number is more or less correct from my initial calculations above so either the conduction figure is too high or the atmospheric window number is too high. Either way there is very little IR left for the oceans to emit to the atmosphere. In any case with so much evaporation going on how would the IR ever get past all the water vapour that is in the air immediately above the sea? The following is taken from a treatise written by Dr. Charles Anderson 27 March 2014. I quote Dr. Anderson with the text between the *’s

” The density of atoms per cubic meter in the surface is about 1 gram per cubic centimeter for the water that covers about 71% of the Earth’s surface and even greater for land materials or if considering the salts in the oceans. Expressed as a density per cubic meter of water, this is 1000 kg per cubic meter. A cubic meter of water has 3.34 x 1028 molecules. Infra-red emission and absorption in a surface occurs mostly in the outer 2 micrometers of the surface. Consequently, there are about 6.7 x 1022 water molecules emitting infra-red at most from the surface. These are the same surface molecules that absorb any incident infra-red radiation on the water surface.

The density of the atmosphere near the surface at sea level is 1.225 kg per cubic meter in the U.S. Standard Atmosphere at 288.15K. The number of molecules per cubic meter at sea level in the U.S. Standard Atmosphere is 2.55 x 1025/m3. The important infra-red active gas near the surface is water vapor and its density per cubic meter is commonly between 10 g/kg to 14 g/kg of air as shown in Fig. 7. below. At a specific humidity of 12 g/kg, (the earth’s ocean air average near sea level) ,the number of water molecules/m3 of air is about 4.9 x 1023. Therefore, there are more water molecules in the first cubic meter of air above 1 m2 of water surface emitter or absorber molecules by a factor of 7.3. This should mean that radiation that can be absorbed by water vapor will be absorbed in the first meter of air above the surface at a humidity near the Earth average humidity.

In comparison, at the current 400 ppm of carbon dioxide, there are 1.0 x 1022 molecules of CO2 /m3. There are 49 water vapor molecules for every carbon dioxide molecule at a specific humidity of 12 g/kg. In addition, the emissivity of CO2 molecules is less than 40% that of water vapor molecules. Many of the carbon dioxide molecule absorption peaks are largely or mostly already absorbed by overlapping water vapor absorption lines, so the effect of CO2 near the surface is very minimal compared to that of water vapor. This is less true at altitudes above 4 km when water vapor is very low, but carbon dioxide maintains a proportional mixing with nitrogen and oxygen. However, such altitudes have nothing to do with the back-radiation issue.

Returning to the back-radiation caused by water vapor, ”
Here I disagree with Dr. Anderson and I supply my own analyis of the IR that is leaving the ocean surface which which I will insert (instead of the 0.033 figure that he calculated) my own figure of 18.9 W/m^2(that I calculated above) and I will insert that figure in Anderson’s calculations below.
However, water vapor does not absorb infra-red across the entire surface emission spectrum which has a black body radiation distribution with energy. It actually absorbs only about 65% of it. So the actual water vapor absorbed infra-red radiation is only about .65 * 18.9 = 12.28 W/m2. But because of the 6.9 x 109 collisions/s, most of this energy is transferred to non-radiating nitrogen, oxygen, and argon. Only about 20% is re-radiated and half of that is radiated toward space. Consequently, the total back-radiation, PB, is about
PB = (0.2) (.5) (12.28 W/m2) = 1.228 W/m2 which is 1.228/340.3 (solar)= 0.0036 or 0.36 %

Thus, the absorbed back-radiation has an upper limit of about 0.36% of the average solar insolation at the top of the atmosphere (340.3 W/m2 ) ! ”

Dont forget that the above number is only for water vapour. I again repeat one sentence from the above quote of Dr. Anderson. “There are 49 water vapor molecules for every carbon dioxide molecule at a specific humidity of 12 g/kg.”

So if the above number for water vapour of back radiation is 0.36% of average solar insolation, the % number for CO2 is at least 49 times less or 0.0073469% of total solar insolation. if the net increase per year in CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.5%, then that means that this back radiation from atmosphere to oceans is increasing by 0.0000367345 % every year. If that number makes you wet your bed at night thinking of CAGW disaster then I say “Get a life”. However the alarmists will argue that they dont agree with “Only about 20% is re-radiated”. If it was more you would have runaway global warming because of water vapour.

So there is essentially very very little IR going from the oceans to the atmosphere . The little IR from the land to the atmosphere is the only other IR that is getting trapped by greenhouse gases. Perhaps some of that then gets radiated downward and sent laterally by the winds to the oceans, but that would be very small except near the coasts. THERE IS ESSENTIALLY NO HEAT TRANSFER FROM THE ATMOSPHERE TO THE OCEANS AND THE GLOBAL ALARMISTS HAVE NOT SHOWN A PHYSICAL MECHANISM BY WHICH THAT OCCURS except by back radiation. So on both counts; the math of energy imbalances doesnt add up and the math of IR ocean emissions is too small to worry about. GLOBAL WARMING MATH IS ALICE IN WONDERLAND STUFF.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
September 5, 2018 3:03 pm

Very interesting indeed. Thanks. Have not yet taken it all on board. Two points come to mind:
First: You only have to look at the leaves on a tree and all the rest of the flora to know that the water/atmosphere interface is immense and probably many times the area of the earth. The use of the 70% assumption relating to just the oceans is therefore not very useful.
Second: Vapor (gaseous water) rises by way of its buoyancy NOt by convection. There is a difference thermodynamically.
A third point that has just come to mind is that in the Planck equation at water phase change the value of the coefficient K is zero. This having a marked influence on matters of Climate Sensitivity.

Finally, from the biased option of an engineer I do not think that our climate can be explained primarily on radiation calculations. Energy has the habit of morphing into different forms irrespective of radiation and often irrespective of temperature change.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
September 5, 2018 9:43 pm

Its the oceans! They are the dog. That atmosphere is the stub of a docked tail.

The notional average temperature at sea level is 15°C (288K). The Earths black body equilibrium temperature is 255K. The lapse rate is 6.5°/Km, which means that the layer of the atmosphere that is radiation equilibrium is ~5Km (3mi or 15,000 feet). However, the up-welling of heated water vapor and air often rises well above that level before it condenses and releases its load of energy well above the bulk of the atmosphere. remember that most (70%) of the sun’s energy falls on a circle 22.5° in diameter centered on noon. Any energy in the atmosphere has a 12 hour window to leak into outer space.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
September 7, 2018 10:18 am


Why is it then that my tall tumbler of cold lemonade, drowning in ice cubes on a hot Summer day, sitting in the shade, will experience melting of all the ice and warm up if I don’t drink it quickly?

John Endicott
September 5, 2018 11:59 am

“Imagine a childhood in which you couldn’t get a Johnny Seven O.M.A. for Christmas “

It’s easy to imagine for anyone who grew up prior to 1964 or after whenever they stopped making them or anyone from one households that don’t celebrate Christmas (as Jewish or Islamic households) or girls who were getting Barbies instead of toy guns.

That said, as someone who was born enough years after 1964 to have missed out , I would have loved to have one of those for Christmas when I was of the target age.

Reply to  David Middleton
September 5, 2018 7:06 pm

I fondly remember Railroad Salvage from the 60’s.

Richard of NZ
Reply to  John Endicott
September 5, 2018 12:33 pm

What is a Johnny Seven O.M.A.? Sorry, just looked it up, but I have never heard of it before and I was born well before 1964 or even 1954.

Reply to  David Middleton
September 5, 2018 7:11 pm

Steve O
September 5, 2018 12:08 pm

It’s time to make some predictions of our own. In thirty or forty years:
– The temperature records will have proven a much lower sensitivity to CO2 than current models predict.
– The models will have been adjusted several times, refitted to the data, adjusted, and then adjusted again.
– They’ll still be wrong.
– CO2 emissions will have continued their steady climb, with no adverse effects.
– There will be no noted change in the rate of sea level rise.
– Tomorrows scientists look back at today’s generation with disdain, wondering how scientists could have fooled themselves so completely, for so long.
– Politicians will give excuses like, “Hey, we were acting on the best knowledge we had at the time.”
– Poor, corrupt nations will have given up trying to extract climate change tribute.
– Carbon taxes will still be in place in some jurisdictions.
– True Believers will have not changed their minds, but they’ll have died off to some extent.
– We’ll be given 20 years at the outside to take radical action.
– The activist groups who opposed nuclear power, and then opposed GMO’s, and then opposed global warming will have moved on to something else.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Steve O
September 5, 2018 3:21 pm

You have an unfair advantage over the CAGW alarmists: you can learn from the past.

Peta of Newark
September 5, 2018 12:09 pm

Cause and Effect go right out of the window.
Yes she would feel better – she got herself A Life and went out to meet and engage with people.
Real people rather than shadows and mirages in a computer screen.

We are sociable creatures and the interweb, despite its cracked up to be, is pulling people apart.

And how many times on here have we lamented/noted/commented/mocked that a lot of (climate) demonstrations are full of folks from Rent-A-Mob?

Is that a real problem…
Yes and No
But The Demonstration, any demonstration now is widely recognised by plebians and lunkheads, academics and even political types as a fantastic way of meeting new folks (the demo itself being the perfect icebreaker (Ice breaker. Climate. haha Doncha love that, ain’t English such a beauty language)
Some folks go to demos in the hope of exchanging bodily fluids and or catching a sex disease later on in the day.
And why not?
Is anyone here volunteering to be the hand-wringing, guilt-ridden & finger-wagging spoilsport at this particular moment? The very people sorts we so often take the piss out of?

The demonstration, its organisation and any after-party activities are perfect ways of getting some exercise, physical and mental while pumping some Dopamine & Serotonin WITHOUT chemical assistance.
Because ALL the chemical options have seriously deleterious effects on the human body
What is not to like?

The only place where this girl has gone wrong is in not actually realising that.

John Endicott
September 5, 2018 12:24 pm

“I stopped worrying so much about shrinking my family’s carbon footprint and started focusing on shrinking industry’s,”…In the process, she discovered that she felt better

So she felt better by talking the talk instead of walking the walk. That makes her just another leftie hypocrite.

Reply to  John Endicott
September 5, 2018 12:59 pm

Apparently she would rather have the government destroy power generation and leave her no choice but to ‘live green’, than do so voluntarily. Or maybe she feels what she is willing to do is juuuuussst right, and the rest of us need to be forced to that precise level. The line for good and evil starts just few inches to MY right, or left.

James Bull
September 5, 2018 1:06 pm

And here was me thinking of investing my pension pot in “The Climate Wrecking Industry” as it would seem to give a more security and better returns without the government having to pour in large amounts of other peoples money.

James Bull

Michael Cox
September 5, 2018 1:07 pm

The world now is soooooo much better than when I was a kid. Poor people used to be skinny. Polio-crippled people were common. Pollution was rife. Anyone who wants to turn the clock back to when most people lived in abject poverty are deluded.

September 5, 2018 1:12 pm

“‘I stopped worrying so much about shrinking my family’s carbon footprint and started focusing on on shrinking industry’s,’…In the process, she discovered that she felt better…’It’s better to get yourself—by Hummer, if necessary—to city council meetings’.”

Ahh, the time-honored traditions of statists everywhere. Don’t worry so much about what you personally are doing, work to get the power of government to force OTHER people to do the things you won’t…like give up your “hummer” and recycle the peanut butter jar.

Because it makes them feel better to force other people to do things than to actually try to do them themselves.

As I’ve said repeatedly over the past couple of decades: I might start believing this is really as much of a crisis as they claim when they start ACTING like this is really as much of a crisis as they claim.

Ryan S.
September 5, 2018 2:22 pm

Climate justice starts when you turn your carbon footprint into a pavement body print. That’s walking the walk, or at least falling for the falsity.

Reply to  Ryan S.
September 6, 2018 1:53 am

I don’t get it.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  RyanS
September 6, 2018 10:23 pm

Chalk outline on the pavement, maybe?

Greg Cavanagh
September 5, 2018 2:24 pm

The problem with Malthusianism, is that it has no basis in reality. It’s clearly demonstrated that the earth can hold 7.6 billion people, and there is still room to spare.

When I first saw Thanos killing half the population, my first thought was “why half?”. There’s no basis or thought to that. There’s no balance as he claims, it’s just “cut it in half”.

The Asgardian’s had just fought tooth and nail against Hela and lost a huge number of their population, escaping in a stolen space ship. But when Thanos finds them, he kills half of the survivors? The movie demonstrates how bereft of thought the Malthusian model is.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  David Middleton
September 5, 2018 4:18 pm

One in 14,000,605.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  David Middleton
September 5, 2018 8:04 pm

That would be a let down, besides the Avengers can’t go back in time because Thanos has the timestone.

I think Thanos will do that himself and reverse his own decision. Somehow he’ll realise that his ideal state isn’t ideal after all, and that all his beliefs are wrong-headed.

Perhaps Nebula ends up killing Thanos and he has a mini-adventure in the afterlife… only to return and fix it.

John Endicott
Reply to  David Middleton
September 6, 2018 6:55 am

Be that as it may, in the original comic book series that Avengers Infinity War was based on, Nebula was the one who saved the day.

John Endicott
Reply to  Greg Cavanagh
September 6, 2018 6:53 am

Spoilers for Antman and the wasp: In the post-credit’s scene Janet warns Scott to be careful to avoid Time Vortexes in the quantum realm and then when Scott is in the Quantum realm he get’s “trapped” there as Janet, Hank, etc become victims of Thanos’ snap. Ant-man will be in Avengers 4. Time Travel (via those aforementioned Time Vortexes) is likely to be involved.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  John Endicott
September 6, 2018 10:25 pm

Time travel is always the lazy way out.

John Endicott
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
September 7, 2018 5:45 am

Believe that if you wish, but time travel will be involved (whether or not it will be the “solution” remains to be seen) by all indications. And no matter what solution they use, it’s eventually going to come down to the “lazy way out” of pushing the old “reset button” given that many of the characters “killed off” have upcoming movies in the works.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  John Endicott
September 7, 2018 6:33 am

Those movies could be in a different time frame, such as before all this happened.

John Endicott
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
September 11, 2018 7:01 am

Do you honestly believe that?

John Endicott
Reply to  David Middleton
September 6, 2018 6:57 am

It is funny… Thanos is the Malthusian version of a super hero… LOL!

Yeah, I’ve said it before but the Malthusian lefties must have been wondering why the Avengers were trying to stop the “heroic” Thanos from doing what they have always insisted needed doing.

September 5, 2018 2:42 pm

A true Parents Guide would have a table set up in the house with a copy of the latest IPCC pseudo science bible, 2 solar powered candles, and a picture of a the three benevolent founders of AGW…

September 5, 2018 2:48 pm

“For example, DeMocker talks about the importance of avoiding debt and teaching our children to do the same.”

This woman is a congenital idiot. Debt management is a necessary skill for our kids, and it can be profitable. So much so that a prominent British financial journalist (one with his head screwed on) turned financial life hack advisor has recently made £85M from selling his web site!

Martin Lewis (https://www.moneysavingexpert.com) actively promotes financial education in schools to our government so kids leave with a functional understanding of how simple things like credit cards, mortgages and insurance can help, rather than hinder us. He shows people how to live a life off credit cards and never spend a penny in interest.

How does this idiotic woman expect her children to get a mortgage to buy a house? Perhaps she expects them to buy an old banger and drive around like rednecks (apologies to rednecks) in clunky old cars spewing out the demon CO2? Does she also expect them to live in a tent?

Or perhaps she’s doing well enough to pass her fortune onto them as an inheritance. Best she be careful though, there are many socialists who are desperate to tax the money an elderly parent passes to their children in the form of inheritance, despite income tax already having paid on it in the first place. It already happens in the UK but the bastards want more. Two bites at the tax cherry, that’s what’s cost the UK so many stately homes, pay the inheritance tax which is unaffordable or leave the home to rot.

Effing money grubbing socialist scum!

Paul Penrose
September 5, 2018 3:25 pm

Does anybody remember the Twilight Zone episode where the woman was living in a future where mankind was frying because the Earth had somehow moved closer to the sun, and then it turned out she was really in a coma and the reality was that the Earth was freezing up because it was actually moving away from the sun? Or was it the other way around? Anyway, I couldn’t help thinking of that show when I was reading this woman’s hand-wringing drivel.

September 5, 2018 4:48 pm

We are not allowed to recycle peanut butter jars……

I guess since parents lie to kids about the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, etc, lying about a fossil fuel free world is just one more deception they dump on the kid.

September 5, 2018 5:22 pm

People like DeMocker should shut up and stay in the shadows.

Of the three tax lots that she co-owns, two are about a ten mile commute from town.

1) The tax lot in town house is a small 1950’s with (inefficient) baseboard electric heat.

2) The two rural lots are side by side. The smaller of the two (1.7 acres) is taxed at $430 and is listed as being vacant (although it has a separate driveway and a shop/garage that is not included in the assessment). The larger 5 acre parcel has a house and what appears to be a non-permitted garage (garage isn’t listed in the tax records…).

Given that Democker has her in-town house, and her rural property, it is reasonable that she would need to rationalize her impact to “the climate problem” as being unimportant in grand scheme of things.

If I wanted to give her the benefit of the doubt, I would assume that the rural property could simply be a rental that they purchased 10 years ago (all tax statements go to the in-town house), but I am going to assume the worst in her, & her partner.

(In any event, it is likely that her taxes will go up in the future).

September 5, 2018 7:09 pm

Most of the Real Clear site isn’t completely one-sided.

But Real Crony Energy is really bad.

M__ S__
September 5, 2018 10:22 pm

“Are people really this stupid?”

Yes. And they choose to stay that way.

michael hart
September 5, 2018 10:40 pm

After “Like most parents I know, I am sometimes seized by anxiety about climate change, usually in the middle of the night when I can’t sleep”, I was literally shaking (™) with laughter.
I half expected it to break into “This is the dawning of the age of Aquarius..”

September 6, 2018 1:31 am

The problem, good people, is that green energy schemes do not work – I wish they did – but grid-connected wind and solar power FAIL based on high-cost and intermittency – and there is no practical super-battery in most situations to solve the problem.

Energy is my area of expertise and I have a very successful predictive track record. I have two engineering degrees and have studied this subject for many decades.

Fully 85% of global primary energy is fossil fuels, and the rest is hydro and nuclear. Green energy would be near-zero except for massive wasted subsidies and use mandates. Only a few places have enough hydro to provide their needs, and greens hate hydro. The only practical alternative is nuclear, and the greens hate nuclear too.

Without fossil fuels, most people in the developed world would just freeze and starve to death. This means you and your family.

It IS that simple!

Alan the Brit
September 6, 2018 7:17 am

The only way “to change policy to leave fossil fuels in the ground,” would be for Thanos to snap his figures and wipe out half of humanity.

But surely is that not the entire objective?

September 6, 2018 10:41 am

The author is wondering”….if my children would grow up to face life on an uninhabitable planet.” I’m wondering if Wendy’s children will grow up to understand that words have meaning. If the damn thing is uninhabitable you ain’t gonna grow up on it. You’d probably have less to worry about if you developed some standards of precision for your thinking, Wendy. You might even be able to pass them on to your children who would find them useful in a habitable world.

September 6, 2018 11:17 am

‘leave fossil fuels in the ground’ !? How you going to get your Hummer to that city council meeting to keep them in the ground? (he asked knowingly)

John in Oz
September 6, 2018 4:46 pm

Lying in the dark and worrying about the future is going to lead to sleep deprivation:

If sleep deprivation continues long enough, you could start having hallucinations—seeing or hearing things that aren’t there. A lack of sleep can also trigger mania in people who have manic depression. Other psychological risks include:

impulsive behavior
suicidal thoughts

If this lady were to get some sleep all of her troubles will disappear

Johann Wundersamer
September 6, 2018 9:35 pm

she “often feel[s] too mired in the day-to-day challenges of parenting to do too much about it, beyond committing to green habits like recycling, composting, and driving a fuel-efficient car.”

Until about 100 years ago, there were maybe 3 horse owners in a village “on the countryside”.

Today, every single average household sports up to 3 SUVs.

the times they are changing.

Clyde Spencer
September 7, 2018 9:56 am

“Are people really this stupid?”

There is abundant evidence that they are!

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights