Saved by pseudo-renewable energy?

Climate alarmists must prove expensive, weather-dependent energy is green and sustainable

Paul Driessen,

The IPCC says it’s still possible to limit planetary warming to an additional 0.5 degrees C (0.9 F) “above pre-industrial levels” – but only if global CO2 emissions are halved by 2030 and zeroed out by 2050.

So climate alarmists intend to carbon-tax, legislate and regulate our energy, factories, livelihoods, living standards, liberties and lives to the max. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal would eliminate and replace US fossil fuels by 2030. It’s an unprecedented economic and political power grab.

We went to war with King George over far less serious abuses and usurpations. And yet today we seem to have few Patrick Henrys or other stalwart, principled leaders willing to defy this insanity.

Those accusing someone of a crime must prove his guilt; the accused need not prove his innocence. But not only are alarmists bringing what amount to criminal charges against fossil fuels; wiping out the fuels that provide over 80% of our energy would bring widespread chaos, poverty, misery, disease and death.

As I said just days ago, those who claim fossil fuels and greenhouse gases are causing dangerous global warming and climate change have the burden of proving their case. Not with allegations, computer models, headlines, mob rule and demands for instant sentencing. With solid, irrefutable evidence.

Those who intend to use climate change accusations to disrupt and destroy modern energy systems and industrialized economies likewise have the burden of proving that wind, solar and biofuel energy can actually replace fossil fuels. That they are actually clean, green, affordable, renewable and sustainable.

Thus far, they have offered no real-world evidence whatsoever. And there is no way they can do so.

Fossil fuels are compact and dense. Small land and raw material impacts provide bountiful, affordable, reliable energy. America and the world have enough of these fuels to last at least a century at current rates of consumption – by which time human ingenuity will almost undoubtedly provide workable alternatives.

By contrast, wind, solar and biofuel energy is dispersed, weather-dependent, expensive and land-intensive. Every industrial wind facility, solar installation and biofuel plantation requires far more land – and far more raw materials – than their energy-generation-equivalent fossil fuel counterparts. Add in backup fossil fuel generators or massive battery arrays, and those impacts become astronomical.

To eliminate our fossil fuel energy – and replace it with these pseudo-renewable systems – we would have to remove tens of billions of tons of rock, to extract billions of tons of ores, to create millions of tons of metals, concrete and other materials, to manufacture and install millions of wind turbines and solar panels, and grow billions of barrels of biofuels. Vast acreage of croplands, wildlife habitats and scenic areas would be torn apart, covered with mining debris and blanketed with “renewable” energy facilities.

Moreover, as long as anti-mining radicals have effective control of US courts, legislatures and regulatory agencies, America’s deposits of rare earth and other strategic metals and materials will remain off limits. As Ned Mamula and Ann Bridges point out in Groundbreaking! America’s new quest for minerals independence, that would leave the USA 50-100% dependent on often unfriendly foreign sources for the “next era” energy systems that we have repeatedly been promised are “just around the corner.”

The same well-funded groups also battle mining by Western companies all over the world. That means global raw material supplies will be rapidly depleted … utopian green energy dreams will never become reality … and nations will descend into deprivation, disease, starvation, anarchy and war.

To put it simply, so that even Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, Al Gore and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi can understand this energy reality: The wind and sun may be free, green, renewable and sustainable. But the energy, land and materials required to harness and utilize that energy certainly are not.

Wind and solar systems also break down faster and must be replaced earlier and more often than coal, gas or nuclear power plants – which have operational life spans of 30-50 years, and generate power about 95% of the time. Wind energy proponents claim turbines last half that long: 20-25 years. They don’t.

A 2018 UK analysis of 3,000 onshore wind turbines found that they generate electricity efficiently for just 12-15 years (and maybe 25-30% of the time) – generating more than twice as much electricity in their first year than when they are barely 15 years old. So wind turbine raw materials depletion and land use impacts are far higher than advocates have admitted. These realities are no better for solar installations.

All of this also means the cost of wind and solar electricity is far higher than their advocates admit. Those costs may be partially hidden by taxpayer subsidies. But they are real, and punitive.

Electricity prices in US states that rely heavily on coal, gas, nuclear or hydroelectric generation hover around 9 cents per kilowatt-hour. In California, Connecticut, New York and other states that oppose these sources and impose hefty “green” energy mandates and feed-in tariffs, prices are almost twice as high. In Germany and Denmark, families must pay four times as much: 35-37 cents per kWh!

Try to run a factory, hospital, school, business, home, city or country on electricity priced at those rates. Imagine trying to do so when fossil fuels are driven into oblivion – by the same “environmentalists” who detest and want to eliminate nuclear and hydroelectric power plants.

Middle classes are already fleeing California’s and New York’s oppressive taxes, regulations, high energy and housing prices, job destruction, and predominantly Democrat politicians who blame every problem on manmade climate change. Just wait until their states go “100% renewable energy” by 2030 or so.

Meanwhile, more rational countries in Asia, Africa and elsewhere are building coal- and gas-fired generating units by the thousands, to power modern, industrialized societies and lift billions more people out of poverty. That means global emissions of plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide will continue to increase – even if climate alarmists succeed with their power plays in the USA, Canada, Europe and elsewhere. It means a number of Asian and African countries could soon outpace many of today’s industrial and economic powerhouses.

As to biofuels, how are farmers going to grow enough corn, soybeans, sugar cane and switchgrass to replace the petroleum that radical greens want kept in the ground, if they don’t have modern equipment and fertilizers – which eco-fanatics also despise? Farmers may have to get human “fertilizer” from sewage treatment plants, since many “environmentalists” also demand that we stop raising cows, pigs and chickens … which means farmers won’t even be able to get enough animal manure.

One of the latest climate scare stories claims that our warming planet will soon drive many insect species to extinction. What are people going to eat, if they can’t even find bugs to dine on?

All these are more reasons why the United States we must formally exit the Paris climate treaty by subjecting it to a two-thirds Senate “advice and consent” vote that would most assuredly fail. They are more reasons why we must revisit and reverse the EPA carbon dioxide “Endangerment Finding.”

Climate alarmists’ increasingly shrill claims … their refusal to engage climate and energy realists in debate … their escalating efforts to silence us – are proof that they are getting desperate. We need to continue ramping up our efforts – and cajole, embarrass and harangue politicians to show some spine, intestinal fortitude and intelligence, by standing up to the forces of climate dictatorship and darkness.

What can the average person do? Speak out. Write letters to editors, legislators, corporate executives and President Trump. Attend town meetings, press briefings, committee hearings and other events. Ask tough questions. Demand evidence to back up alarmist assertions. Above all, bombard politicians, climate activists and media talking heads with the F-word they most detest and fear: Facts.

Your future, your children’s future, your country’s future, our planet’s future – depend on it.

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) and author of articles and books on energy, environmental and human rights issues.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Geoff Withnell
January 27, 2019 10:36 pm

We do not need a Senate vote to leave the accords, since there was no Senate vote to join.

Kevin Lohse
January 27, 2019 10:44 pm

Facts don’t matter when your cause is just -said every warmunist ever.

Reply to  Kevin Lohse
January 28, 2019 5:45 am

A comic look at how progressives handle facts.

comment image

Gunga Din
Reply to  Ron Clutz
January 28, 2019 2:23 pm


January 27, 2019 10:52 pm

The Alarmists offer only abuse, ad hominems, and cant to those they refer to as ‘Climate Deniers’ as they have not discovered any evidence at all to date that CO2 controls climate. They have more stories than the Grimm Brothers about how CO2 controls all weather events and that CO2 will soon ruin us all, but not solid proof of anything.

Bill Powers
Reply to  Nicholas William Tesdorf
January 28, 2019 3:55 am

Cold and hot. Wet and dry. all resulting from the same source?

Here is a better story. When it gets cold then it is weather not climate but when the hurricane season comes around it is weather and climate.

They have an answer for everything yet evidence of nothing. How can you have it all ways claiming whatever bad things come our way are due to trace amounts of a life sustaining element?

Simple answer is to control the propaganda ministry and lie through you teeth Then claim that if we allow the faceless bureaucracy to wield more power over us that the boogieman won’t claim our grandchildren. All the while the real monster, the real killer of innocents is that same said faceless bureaucracy.

Reply to  Nicholas William Tesdorf
January 28, 2019 7:47 am

The only evidence I’ve found tells me that the IPCC couldn’t be more wrong about their presumed range of ECS if they tried. To be sure, they are trying very hard to support their claims with nonsense as the known laws of physics do not and are to be avoided at all costs.

C Earl Jantzi
Reply to  Nicholas William Tesdorf
January 28, 2019 10:50 am

Poland Bans Wind Turbines in 17 years.
Now we have the nation of Poland examining the health damages of Wind turbines. They have discovered that the low frequency noise given off by wind turbines, affects cellular development and mimics heart problems. They are going to force REMOVAL of ALL wind turbines in 17 years! Check this out, and read to the end and check the comments of Sommer, and watch the you tube video for a real education in the subject.

January 27, 2019 11:13 pm

“To put it simply, so that even Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, Al Gore and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi can understand this energy reality: The wind and sun may be free, green, renewable and sustainable. But the energy, land and materials required to harness and utilize that energy certainly are not.”

I don’t think that is anywhere near simple enough for them to understand.

Reply to  Phillip Bratby
January 28, 2019 3:09 am

Princess Pelosi?

richard verney
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
January 28, 2019 5:15 am

After all, coal and gas are also free.

Anything that exists is free. The costs are in harvesting the material, processing the material if necessary, getting it to market, converting it into something useful etc.

January 27, 2019 11:14 pm

We have Global Warming in Australia as evidenced by the recent brown outs in Victoria. The recently re-elected State energy minister tells the people the only way to fix this is to build more wind and solar generators to replace the ageing and unreliable coal fuelled generators.

The northern hemisphere has regions of record snowfall and cool spells. That is evidence of Climate Change.

Australia will certainly have a new Labor federal government mid-year with its 50% “renewable” energy target.

Nothing is going to change the narrative where every weather event is evidence of Climate Change and every warm day and wild fire is evidence of Global Warming.

The only way it will change is for the power grid to collapse at regular intervals and electricity bills continue to soar. Eventually the grid is no longer an economic asset and people just make their own while gaming the system until it funded from general revenue rather than payment for service.

Even a decade of obvious global cooling will not condemn the current narrative. There is some prospect of the current 3 years of surface cooling will continue as a trend but that still makes it 7 years or more before the narrative is seriously questioned.

Trump will not get a second term. The government shutdown, then backdown has made him toxic to both sides. There is no other national leader prepared to call out Climate Change.

The more deniers protest, the more they enrage and encourage the believers. In my view, your best efforts are spent on making you and those dear to you immune to the most serious consequences of the efforts to stop carbon based fuel consumption.

Wallaby Geoff
Reply to  RickWill
January 28, 2019 1:21 am

I was looking for a ‘sarc’ tag, but I think this guy is serious! Sounded more like a sermon. Well, Gorebull warming is more like a religion than science, so I guess it fits.

Reply to  Wallaby Geoff
January 28, 2019 4:25 am

Wallaby Geoff

You need a sarc tag?

kent beuchert
Reply to  RickWill
January 28, 2019 5:02 am

Trump will get the wall built, the only issue between him and his supporters.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  RickWill
January 28, 2019 5:09 am

“Trump will not get a second term. The government shutdown, then backdown has made him toxic to both sides.”

Wrong on both counts. Conservatives know how the game is played. If Pelosi refuses to deal, then there is nothing Trump can do about it but put a gun to her head, and he is not going to do that, so he figured the laid-off workers had suffered enough and he agreed to open the government in exchange for the Demcrats agreeing to set up a special panel to deal with the souther border including a border wall.

I’m glad Trump paid the workers and put them back to work. Government workers should not be used as negotiating tools by either side. They ought to pass a law guaranteeing workers pay even during a budget bill impasse. And docking politicians pay until they make a deal.

So Trump has not lost his following because he decided this tactic was not working. Trump is a realist. Now, he will have three weeks to put pressure on the Democrats to give him a wall, and if Nancy agrees to even two dollars, then she is the one that loses. Right?

Trump said yesterday he thought there was about a 50/50 chance of a deal being made. He wasn’t too confident, but he did say there were some good people on the panel. So we’ll see.

If Trump doesn’t get a deal from the Democrats, then he will declare a national emergency and will build the wall without the Democrats help. Let’s see how that goes over in the next election. The House might be back in Republican hands after watching the Demcrats turn the House into a fiasco incapable of governing.

Trump’s supporters don’t care how Trump gets the wall built. They only care that it gets built. And it will get built. The president has the constitutional authority to protect the United States.

I saw a poll this morning that showed Trump had 43 percent approval before the government shutdown and he now has 43 percent approval after the shutdown.

The only Trump supporter who has abandoned Trump is Ann Colter. Ann! Get a grip! You used to make sense.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 28, 2019 6:34 am

” They ought to pass a law guaranteeing workers pay even during a budget bill impasse

No need if the Congress would do its job and pass an actual budget each year by Sep 30th. But alas, that would mean our Congresspeople and Senators would actually have to take a stand on things. I have no illusion that this will ever change. I blame the 17th Amendment, that is what enabled the progressives to grab hold of the Senate and screw things up.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom in Florida
January 29, 2019 3:31 am

“They ought to pass a law guaranteeing workers pay even during a budget bill impasse”

I saw yesterday where both Republicans and Democrats have introduced bills that would protect federal workers pay during budget negotiations.

It looks like they are competing with each other to show their compassion. In this case, it’s a good thing if they end up protecting federal workers pay.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 28, 2019 8:44 am

I see where Senator Rubio is making noises about opposing Trump declaring an emergency at the southern border. Don’t do it, Marco. You are definitely on the wrong side of this issue if you do.

Ultimately, the president does not need the permission of Nancy Pelosi or fair-weather friends like Republican Marco Rubio to protect the United States. Congress has given its permission for the president to act in a national emergency by passing various laws to that effect, and the U.S. Constitution gives the president the authority to defend the U.S. when he thinks it is necessary. If you test this in court, the president will win.

Don’t buck the pesident on this, Marco, or any of you other wavoring Republicans. The president has the authority to declare a national emergency and the American people want to get control of the southern border. If the Democrats won’t deal, then the president has no choice.

Go against Trump and you are going to hurt your careers.

I don’t recall Marco Rubio protesting any of the national emergencies declared by former president Obama.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 28, 2019 1:59 pm

The poll data is interesting and encouraging.

US needs to keep Trump for two terms in the hope someone else with a spine will stand up. The risks in the German power grid are mounting as they are in Australia but Australia is the only region where they are causing enough disruption to get attention.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 28, 2019 2:47 pm

Nancy said no invite to the House to deliver the State of the Union (giving Trump a national audience with, perhaps with some “angel parents” in the crowd) until the shutdown ended.
Well, it’s ended.
Where’s the invite, Nancy?

PS I don’t do polls. They don’t influence me and I vote. I guess that’s deplorable.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Gunga Din
January 29, 2019 3:43 am

“Where’s the invite, Nancy?”

Nancy finally set the date. Trump will give his State of the Union speech in the House chamber on Tuesday, February 5, 2019.

Reply to  RickWill
January 28, 2019 1:51 pm

That the planet has been cooling for the last 3 years is not in question.

Is there anything you know that is actually true?

January 27, 2019 11:34 pm

When talking with “warmunists” I ask if they know how many molecules of CO2 there were (in the 70’s) in ten thousand molecules of air? They invariably shake their heads. I hold up three fingers. Then I ask if they know how many molecules of CO2 there are today. Same response. Then I put a terrified look on my face and hold up four fingers. They usually don’t speak to me anymore.

Reply to  F.LEGHORN
January 28, 2019 12:56 am


Reply to  lee
January 28, 2019 5:28 am

and life will fail if we halve or double that .00006?

nepalese want to know.

Reply to  lee
January 28, 2019 8:23 am

The actual answer is Zero.

The ozone layer exists as a result of ultraviolet radiation from the sun, some frequencies destroy ozone and others turn oxygen into ozone. The two processes result in an equilibrium where each affects the other. Take the ozone to zero and you are taking away the “shield” that slows down the production of ozone from oxygen. So production of ozone would immediately sky rocket and the equilibrium would be restored. So the analogy to CO2 concentration you just made is as absurd.

That said, the 4 parts vs 3 parts analogy skips an awful lot of physics. Like CO2 is logarithmic and cooling response from the planet is exponential. If you understand these two things, the reason for alarm disappears. For people whose eyes glaze over when you start using words like logarithmic and exponential, hold up three fingers…

michael hart
Reply to  F.LEGHORN
January 28, 2019 1:53 am

That was the original unproven conjecture which gave them the confidence to try an even bigger trick with CO2.
Cyclical ozone changes in certain locations were almost certainly there long before there were humans to measure it. As long as there is oxygen in the atmosphere and as long as the sun shines, there will be ozone. It’s production and consumption is self-limiting. Most of that short wave UV doesn’t penetrate from the top of the atmosphere before it meets oxygen, creates ozone, and thereby extinguishes itself even more rapidly. It will never reach the surface in significant amounts.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  michael hart
January 28, 2019 3:52 am


I recall reading about an Aussie talking about the “ozone hole over Australia” and how it was being whittled away letting in more UV, and how he “could feel the sun” burning his skin more than it used to.

Someone omitted telling him there isn’t a “hole” save where there are CFC’s, GCR’s and no sunshine. On the former two points, Prof Wing-Bin Lu provided me a link to his book on atmospheric ozone depletion and global climate change and the warming from 1970-2002:

“QB Lu, A monograph “New Theories and Predictions of the Ozone Hole and Climate Change“, World Scientific Publishing Co (July, 2015), ISBN-10: 9814619442, 308 pages.

“This monograph reviews the establishment of new theories of the ozone hole and global climate change, two major scientific problems of global concern. It provides a comprehensive overview of the author’s work including significant discoveries and pioneering contributions, such as the discovery of extremely effective dissociative electron transfer reactions of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) adsorbed on ice surfaces and its implications for atmospheric ozone depletion; the proposal of the cosmic-ray-driven electron-induced-reaction (CRE) theory for the ozone hole; the predictions of 11-year cyclic variations in polar ozone loss and stratospheric cooling; the discovery of the nearly perfect linear correlation between CFCs and global surface temperature; the proposal of the CFC theory for modern global warming; the discovery of greenhouse-gas-specific climate sensitivity and the parameter-free calculation of global surface temperature change caused by CFCs; the prediction of global cooling; and so on.Unlike conventional atmospheric and climate models, the author’s theoretical models were established on robust observed data rather than computer simulations with multiple parameters. The new theories have shown the best agreements with the observed data within 10% uncertainties. This book highlights the scientific understandings of the world-concerned problems from the unique point of view of a physicist who seeks theories with great simplicity and superior predictive capacity.This book is self-contained and unified in presentation. It may be used as an advanced book by graduate students and even ambitious undergraduates in physics, chemistry, environmental and climate sciences. It is also suitable for non-expert readers and policy makers who wish to have an overview of the sciences behind atmospheric ozone depletion and global climate change.”

Reply to  michael hart
January 28, 2019 7:39 am

I’m not the man-assumed in question, but generally ‘they’ could refer to doom-mongering landmark-ecoloonies that are either expecting nuclear winter or greenhouse summer.

Not commenting if ozone is healing due to the Montreal protocol. Could be. Could be, that if it were not true, the dissidents who tell it are roasted by the said landmark figures.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  michael hart
January 28, 2019 10:43 am

Since you didn’t try to refute anything Michael said about ozone production (and the fact that it does not block UV, but is created when UV is blocked by Oxygen), that you agree there is nothing to fear from falling or rising ozone levels in the upper atmosphere?

Gunga Din
Reply to  michael hart
January 28, 2019 2:35 pm

“Them” is the royal “him” referring to St. Al.
(You know, the guy that claimed in his book that rabbits were going blind in, I think it was, New Zealand because of The Ozone “Hole” when it was really an outbreak of “red-eye”. An Inconvenient Truth.)

January 28, 2019 12:09 am

“As to biofuels, how are farmers going to grow enough corn, soybeans, sugar cane and switchgrass to replace the petroleum”

GM plankton that produce high amounts of sugar grown in liquid in glass tubes.

(Of course not forgetting that much of Europe’s farm land is ‘set aside’, paid to be left unused, because we produce so much food. In fact land efficient can farming be that the Netherlands is the second biggest exporter, in gross tonnage, in the world, after the US, yet it is a small country.)

Yes, we have enough land to produce alcohol for cars. In fact it is a good fuel. WV and Fiat have been producing cars for it decades.

January 28, 2019 12:09 am

IPCC report includes the observation that permafrost melts. It was long the worst-case scenario, the biggest climate danger. Now it is a fact and ‘alarmists’ who thought it might happen are increasingly proven right. The IPCC report does not include the value of warming that permafrost melt could bring us to, they don’t say that that Earth could warm by 20 degrees or 40 degrees or that ocean could boil, for two reasons, the exact number is hard to calculate and we cannot let it happen. We want Mankind to survive , so we need to stop warming at 1.5°C.

Reply to  Dorota Retelska
January 28, 2019 3:15 am

Either you forgot the sarc tag, or you didn’t know that we have already had a notional one degree of warming. Can you feel how dangerously hot it’s gotten? Mostly in the erasers of the NOAA and BOM scientists that decide how to rewrite the record books!

Only half a degree to go and we will all fry in a CO2-induced… ah, let’s stop lying to each other. Nothing will happen with another degree or two, except for a golden age of agricultural productivity.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Dorota Retelska
January 28, 2019 4:16 am

Oh my, 20-40 degrees, the oceans could boil? That is completely unhinged from reality. Is this sarcasm? Tell me you’re not serious.

By the IPCC theory, which you apparently don’t understand, doubling CO2 could raise temperatures by 4.5 degrees (which by all current evidence is at least triple the actual number). The more CO2 in the air, the less effect it has. The wildest voices on your side try to claim 6 degrees per doubling. So let’s go with that. Going from 280ppm to 560ppm would give us 6 degrees of rise, (even though inexplicably 280-to-410ppm has given only about 1degree rise).

Now 560 to 1120ppm would give us another 6 degrees, bringing us up to 12 degrees rise, and 1120 to 2240ppm would get us to 18 degrees total rise. That requires an eight-fold increase in CO2 which we likely could not achieve without depleting all commercially-extractable fossil fuels. No possibility of reaching 20 degrees, let alone the roughly 97 degree rise needed to boil the ocean.

In reality, not all (possibly not any) of the temperature rise since pre-industrial times has been caused by CO2. Even if it has all been caused by CO2, the empirical evidence implies at worst 1.5 degrees rise per doubling. If we use up all the fossil fuels that are cost-effective to extract, we won’t likely be able to drive even a 4.5 degree rise.

And the cure for this modest warming, which would likely be almost entirely beneficial, would be the total dismantling of industrialized society. Millions will die if you have your way.

Reply to  Rich Davis
January 28, 2019 4:57 am

More likely billions..

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Dorota Retelska
January 28, 2019 4:29 am


The IPCC has observed that there has been melting of the permafrost. It has been melting for 15,000 years so it can’t be a very big surprise to anyone.

The “worst case scenario” you mention is not from the IPCC, it is from others who have imagined that melting permafrost will cause “runaway global warming from methane release” – the putative methane bomb. The methane release they imagine has been going on for 15,000 years and we have not seen nor found in the proxies anything like that. The postulations are incorrect.

The alarming claim that such a “catastrophic” event might happen ignores the reality that once melted, trees grow in profusion on the melted ground. Have a look at the taiga in Siberia. The CO2 draw-down by the trees is much greater than the methane carbon emitted by the stored biomass which grew there the last time it was warm enough. Consider where that biomass comes from! If this three growth reality is included in the evaluation, there cannot be a looming catastrophe from melting permafrost.

In Canada there are frozen tree trunks sticking out of the ground hundreds of kilometres north of the present tree line. The permafrost in between was melted 8000 years ago and has since re-frozen. When it melted the last time there was no ‘methane bomb’ so we have empirical proof that it won’t happen.

Mickey Reno
Reply to  Dorota Retelska
January 28, 2019 6:27 am

Some formerly living things will decompose if the permafrost melts. But more living things will start to grow. The net change will be positive. Do you hate plant life? Maybe you should deal with your irrational and aggressive phobia?

Reply to  Dorota Retelska
January 28, 2019 1:58 pm

One, the evidence that permafrost is melting is purely from models.
Two, mankind not only survived, but thrived when temperatures were 2 to 5C warmer than today.

January 28, 2019 12:14 am

California experiences increasing disasters, droughts, fires, floods, landslides . They will increase with global warming, they might increase fast and will have huge huge consequences on transportation and economy.

Reply to  Retelska
January 28, 2019 3:16 am

But more likely not! Did you count how many fake facts you’ve brought out in one sentence!

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  Retelska
January 28, 2019 10:02 am

@Retelska: You mention droughts and floods in California.

Well, I don’t know where you get your climate data from (or if you bother looking at any at all), but the NCDC rainfall data for California that I’m looking at seems to show a largely flat precipitation trend line for California going all the way back to 1925.

Hope this link works:

Also Retelska, could you please show me a climate change/CO2 induced flood in California that was worse than the Great Flood of 1861-62?

Reply to  Retelska
January 28, 2019 2:01 pm

The claim that the disasters in CA are increasing is refuted by checking history. There is nothing unusual happening in CA.

Rich Davis
Reply to  MarkW
January 28, 2019 4:57 pm

You should qualify that with “about weather events”. Apart from the weather, not much is normal in California.

John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia
January 28, 2019 12:52 am

An infograph, or, a poster to describe and summarize what cost and waste, such as described above, goes into ‘Renewable Energy’ would be handy. Any suggestions where one exists?

Rod Evans
January 28, 2019 1:16 am

If you live in a high density urban environment, now is the time to start panicking.
The Greens and the Socialists are determined to make energy unavailable to you. Those who installed wood burners thinking its an option to keep warm if the gas or electricity is off, think again.
The Greens/Socialists are determined to ban wood burners. Coal fires are already banned in the UK’s major conurbations.
When the snows and frosts of winter come, the wind farms will not supply and all other options “non renewable” options are being outlawed by international agreements.
Ever since the first humans embraced fire as a positive, our entire growth and development as a thinking animal, has been energy based.
The Greens/Socialists want to stop access to energy.
If anyone thinks they know the reason why, could they please explain it to the rest of us, because other than a mass suicide pact, I don’t understand what their objective is?

Leo Smith
January 28, 2019 1:45 am

in the Court of Public Opinion proof is not required, merely the belief of enough people.

January 28, 2019 1:57 am

Re. coal fires are banned in the UK. I suggest that you bring up the article Coal by Wire. Open coal fires caused the bif smog of 1952 that killed a lot of people. Nothing wrong with coal as long as its burnt efficiently.


January 28, 2019 2:18 am

“only if global CO2 emissions are halved by 2030”. Who do they think they are kidding? China is allowed to increase CO2 emissions as much as they like between now and 2030. The target cannot be met, no matter what the rest of the world does.

Carl Friis-Hansen
January 28, 2019 3:11 am

Great article from Paul Driessen.
It is great for most of us visiting WUWT, but if I wanted to issue a small campaign in Denmark and Sweden, what kind of “standard” letter could I use for friends and family as a template to mass flood the green oligarchs?
Such a template must be non-offensive, full proof fact bound, short and give the green reader a sense of having done injustice to mankind, but now having a chance of doing a more human friendly fight for our selves, our children and grand children.
Emotion is extremely important in such a template and in order for us to have an impact, I believe a template will echo louder, just like the green oligarchs and green sheeple do so effectively with their slogans and headlines.
We need to organize seriously. In Sweden, where I currently live, we have gotten a super green government, despite the only sensible political party, Sweden Democrats (SD), grew to third largest party. None of the other parties would not talk to them, because they are not green.

William Astley
Reply to  Carl Friis-Hansen
January 28, 2019 7:12 am

I agree.

What is need is a clear, convincing, readable, summary of the CO2 saving limitations of “green energy”.

The German’s have cheated in their calculated CO2 savings. The CO2 savings does not include the energy cost to construct the green energy items, the energy to transport the natural gas, the energy to build gas pipelines, compressor stations, and the significant loss in grid efficiency caused by on/off/on/off cycling of single cycle gas turbines, and so on.

Comment: A combined cycle natural gas power plant uses the waste heat from the first pass gas turbines to produce steam that is then run through a turbine. A combined cycle natural gas power plant is 20% more efficient than a single pass gas turbine, however, a combined cycle natural gas power plant takes 10 hours to start and hence cannot be turned on/off. The Germans have forced the grid to use green energy which required the utilities to not use combined cycle turbines.

They have ignored that lose in efficiency and loss in power to transport electric power long distances and the loss in efficiency to turn single cycle power plants on/off/on/off. Wind power is at the cube of wind speed. A wind turbine farm output can and does change 30% in 20 minutes.

The farms are large. high voltage DC power links (DC is required to transport electricity long distances) cannot handle the rapid change in power. There are engineering problems which the general public are not aware of. It was madness to super over purchase “green” stuff. Even if one believe in CAGW this solution does not work.

The idiots talk about the amount of green stuff that they have installed in their country as if that was some sort of virtue. The CAGW paradigm that they have created requires the entire world to reduce CO2 emissions to zero. That is ludicrous, physical impossible.

Germany has reached the absolute engineering limit of “renewable” energy. To install more they need batteries.

The green stuff wears out and needs to be replaced.

A back of the envelope calculation that is all in shows it is absolutely impossible to reduce CO2 to even 50% using the stuff that is called green.

Steven Fraser
Reply to  William Astley
January 28, 2019 9:07 am

Merkel is trying to make the entire country of Germany just like East Germany was during her younger years.

January 28, 2019 3:17 am

CO2 “zeroed” by 2050?
I guess “Occasional Cortex” was only off by 19 years.

January 28, 2019 3:28 am

“The IPCC says it’s still possible to limit planetary warming to an additional 0.5 degrees C (0.9 F) “above pre-industrial levels” – but only if global CO2 emissions are halved by 2030 and zeroed out by 2050”

The math for these assessments is based on the TCRE (Transient Climate Response to Cumulative Emissions).

January 28, 2019 3:50 am

All those luck souls living in California, you will soon have the honour of having Sir Nick Clegg living amongst you. You are are welcome

Carl Friis-Hansen
Reply to  Julian
January 28, 2019 5:35 am

What is it with these rich and well spoken politicians. Here is a newspaper headline in the Telegraph from 2013:
“Nick Clegg: I am entitled to call Tory climate sceptics ‘deniers'”

P.S.: Is “sceptics” not spelled “skeptics”? Oh well, it is probably the British spelling.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Carl Friis-Hansen
January 28, 2019 8:11 am

“Oh well, it is probably the British spelling.”

Yep. (Fowler, incidentally, backs the American spelling as being truer to the Greek base-word.)

Tom Abbott
January 28, 2019 4:45 am

From the article: “those who claim fossil fuels and greenhouse gases are causing dangerous global warming and climate change have the burden of proving their case.”

This ought to be repeated every time the CAGW debate comes up.

Any politician who proposes using the CO2 issue to turn our world upside down has the burden of proving that CO2 is doing us harm, before we take the drastic actions the CAGW Alarmists say are required.

Appeals to authority are not good enough, AOC, et al. Especially in this case, since the authorities you appeal to are just speculating about the climate. They haven’t proven their case, either. So you are appealing to the speculation of authorities.

Disrupting our world is serious business. Don’t do it unless you can make a case for it. You have a “long row to hoe” ahead of you.

January 28, 2019 5:05 am

You must be related Maxwell, but not quite as Smart ! : )

kent beuchert
January 28, 2019 5:07 am

Arguments against renewables would be far more effective if you provide a better alternative, rather than defend fossil fuels. Small modular molten salt nuclear reactor technology is that better alternative – better than fossil fuel, better than renewables, economically better, safer, functionally better (can load follow, so few peak generators required) . Most of the world (China, India) understands this and will/is developing molten salt reactors. If we do not, they gain a bigger economic advantage over us.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  kent beuchert
January 28, 2019 5:44 am

Wrong. It is up to the free market to come up with better sources of power, not government, and certainly not the Climate Numpties. If molten salt reactors are indeed “better”, then by all means, they should be pursued. Maybe in 10-20 years we’ll have them, maybe not. The point is, that the Alarmists demand that we get rid of fossil fuel-derived electricity, beginning with coal now, and their “reasoning” is that they are “killing the climate” (or some such nonsense).

Carl Friis-Hansen
Reply to  kent beuchert
January 28, 2019 6:15 am

I agree with you. The problem here in Europe is that some countries are terrified, horrified, shocked and saddened, when you as much as mention something where a nuclear process is applied. Denmark is one of the worst, they even closed a nuclear research island, where the had a small reactor to play with and supply hospitals with isotopes. The best Danes are the Great Danes, they only bark and eat a lot of meat, despite all the evil plant food it causes.

January 28, 2019 5:50 am

Mischaracterization is not necessary.

“The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change.”

“We’re not going to give time to climate deniers,… The science is settled even if political opinion is not.”

“Climate change denial should be a crime.”

“Treason against the planet.”

January 28, 2019 5:57 am

I have one question… if the planet is greening what is happening to O2 concentrations and what does that mean?

January 28, 2019 6:00 am

What are they going to do by 2030, grow half the food, build half the homes, plow half the roads, create only half the wealth that there is now, which is already short. Sounds like the road to calamity.

Steve O
January 28, 2019 9:29 am

“… but only if global CO2 emissions are halved by 2030 and zeroed out by 2050.”

… which we’re not going to do. It’s about time the Alarmists admitted the reality of that and adjust their thinking likewise.

But since they believe we face such a huge impending catastrophe, I promise to really take note if they show some leadership and begin to act like it:

1) Start eating insect protein.
2) Start protesting in favor of nuclear power.
3) Move to an apartment.

Or I will never take you seriously.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  Steve O
January 28, 2019 4:33 pm

If they ever did anything other than complain, I’d be impressed. They don’t understand what plastic is, or how it got to be in their possession. They don’t understand what manufacture is, or what tax is. Hell, I don’t think they know what gender is!

How on Earth did they get such power and authority over everything?

January 28, 2019 10:57 am

Renewable drivers. Less that renewable, reliable, sustainable, green converters. The Green blight has a niche value. It’s individual components, in isolation, have a separable assessment.

Sal Minella
January 28, 2019 12:14 pm

“Those who intend to use climate change accusations to disrupt and destroy modern energy systems and industrialized economies likewise have the burden of proving that wind, solar and biofuel energy can actually replace fossil fuels. That they are actually clean, green, affordable, renewable and sustainable.”

Evidently not.

January 28, 2019 1:20 pm

In 2017 the US consumed about 4 billion Megawatt hours of electricity. That’s an average of 456 Gigawatts (GW) every hour.
Coal capacity is about 285 GW, natural gas 440 GW, nuclear 98 GW, hydro 80 GW, wind 80 GW and solar 27 GW (end of 2015 data according to the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity).
Go windy green. How many windmills would it take to produce 456 GW and power the entire US economy?
Well, if atop each tower there is a 4 MW turbine, (that’s nameplate capacity), on average they run at 30% and deliver 1.2 MW. Therefore the US requires 380,000 wind towers. If they are spaced 300 yards apart, in a straight line they would stretch for 65,000 miles, 2.5 times the world’s circumference, or 25 times the distance from NY to LA. What a nation building effort that would be /sarc.
But now, remember that sometimes those wind turbines will deliver close to their nameplate capacity, generating 1500 GW, so battery or hydro storage will be required to store the excess. And sometimes they will deliver close to zero GW, so better keep that 440 GW of gas on standby.
And one more problem to address. If average is 456 GW, peak is likely to be close to 700 MW, so even more standby capacity will be required.
To repeat Paul’s wise words: “The wind and sun may be free, green, renewable and sustainable. But the energy, land and materials required to harness and utilize that energy certainly are not.”

January 28, 2019 1:43 pm

“limit planetary warming to an additional 0.5 degrees C”

Why would we want to do that?

Van Doren
Reply to  MarkW
January 29, 2019 3:15 am

That’s how commies operate – they always limit everything: food, clothes, cars, housing, warming…

January 28, 2019 2:04 pm

One of these days Kym will slip up and actually do something other than just whine and complain that those who dare to disagree with her are wrong.

Today, apparently, is not going to be that day.

January 28, 2019 4:42 pm

How many of the solar panels erected in Puerto Rico will be working after the next hurricane?
How many Wind turbines & Solar panels will work after a hurricane hits the east coast?
How many more miles of transmission lines will need to be maintained and how many will be damaged by the next storm anywhere in the country? Double the miles of transmission lines also doubles the chance of damage.
When the newest Ultra Super Critical coal fired power plants produce the same amount of CO2 as the CCTG NG units why are we switching to CCTGs that have a higher maintenance cost?
At the present rate about the same amount of Nuclear Power is shut down as the Wind Turbine and Solar generated power added. How does that help?
Why is Unreliable Wind/Solar better when it requires fast startup CCTGs to be running in a “Spinning Reserve Mode” and emitting CO2, to pick up the load?
Look at JoNova for the continuing saga on frequent power outages. I can remember when it was sometime years, yes years, between power outages at home. Today, it is basically a monthly event. Do you want to live like that, with surge protectors on your home, resetting all of the clocks, repairing all of the electronic equipment?

January 29, 2019 5:59 am

“By contrast, wind, solar and biofuel energy is dispersed, weather-dependent, expensive and land-intensive. Every industrial wind facility, solar installation and biofuel plantation requires far more land – and far more raw materials – than their energy-generation-equivalent fossil fuel counterparts. Add in backup fossil fuel generators or massive battery arrays, and those impacts become astronomical.”

These little 2170 lego bricks by the billions are going to fix all that-
but there’s a fly in the ointment-

Just wave it all away with flourish of the magic wand.

Verified by MonsterInsights