“Bill McKibben Sees Rays of Hope in a Grim Climate Picture”…

Guest ridiculing by David Middleton

I only had to read one sentence of Elizabeth (Fake Mass Extinction) Kolbert’s interview of Bill McKibben to know that it would be rife with material worthy of ridicule…

“Thirty or 50 years out, the world’s going to run on sun and wind, because they’re free,” McKibben says.

Yale Environment 360

That’s funny right there in these occasionally United States!

Sorry to step on your “ray of hope” Bill, but…

Modified from US EIA AEO 2019

In 2050, fossil fuels and nuclear power will still be generating over 2/3’s of our electricity according the the US Energy Information Administration’s Annual Energy Outlook for 2019. Renewables, including Bill’s “free” wind and solar power will be generating less than 1/3 of our electricity and that 1/3 includes hydroelectric and geothermal.


According the the EIA, the Sun will be generating 48% of 31% and wind will be providing 25% of 31% of our electricity… That’s just 23% of our electricity. Unfortunately for Bill’s “ray of hope,” energy doesn’t end with electricity. There are a few other categories.

By 2050, “other renewables,” including Bill’s “free” solar and wind power, will have barely overtaken coal, which will still be around.

US crude oil and natural gas liquids production will still be booming…

Peak oil is out there somewhere…

And the US will be exporting large volumes of natural gas to foreign nations who still haven’t caught on to the “free” solar and wind power.

MAGA!!! Energy Dominance!!!

While the EIA’s forecasts don’t always come to fruition (they totally missed the shale revolution)… I’d go with the EIA, IEA, OPEC or any other organization that can do math over someone who can’t do math and has never had a real job.

Unless American voters stupidly elect a president who favors energy impotence over energy dominance… Bill’s “rays of hope” don’t look very hopeful.

But now that power is showing itself. Even in the last few weeks, just to watch Extinction Rebellion and [16-year-old Swedish activist] Greta Thunberg’s followers around the world shutting down schools, and the remarkable young people from the Green New Deal fanning out across this country – those things to me are signs that the fever the planet is running is producing in quantity antibodies to fight back.


Then Bill closed off where he began…

Thirty years or 50 years out, the world’s going to run on sun and wind, because they’re free. The fossil fuel industry can’t keep its business model together more than a few more decades. I think they know that, and I think that’s all they’re playing for now. 


Like Bill McKibben even knows what a business model is… Even Gorebal Witless Global Witness gets it, sort of…

What is the basic business model of the oil industry? Invest capital into oil and gas fields to maintain and increase production.

Saudi Arabia will still be producing over 10 million barrels of oil per day until at least the 2060’s…

With a relatively minor contribution from probable reserves and proved reserve replacement, Aramco can produce 12 million bbl/d until at least 2060. Abdulbaqi & Saleri (2004). Peak Ghawar: A Peak Oiler’s Nightmare

Unless little Greta can convince the world that freezing and starving in the dark are good things… There are no rays of hope for the Bill McKibbens of the world.

I was surprised that Bill didn’t babble something about divestment. Maybe someone explained it to him. You can only divest an asset, if there’s a willing investor. Fossil fuel divestment is “really futile and stupid gesture”.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John the Econ
May 3, 2019 11:40 am

I’m still waiting for the “too cheap to meter” nuclear I was promised.

Reply to  John the Econ
May 3, 2019 6:43 pm

Amen, brother. I heard it 60 years ago.

Reply to  John the Econ
May 4, 2019 5:48 am


That was from a speech by Lewis Strauss, Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, at the Founder Day Dinner of the National Association of Science Writers, 16 September 1954. It was an appropriate place to let ones imagination run wild.

“Transmutation of the elements – unlimited power, ability to investigate the working of living cells by tracer atoms, the secret of photosynthesis about to be uncovered – these and a host of other results all in 15 short years. It is not too much to expect that our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter – will know of great periodic regional famines in the world only as matters of history – will travel effortlessly over the seas and under them and through the air with a minimum of danger and at great speeds – and will experience a lifespan far longer than ours, as disease yields and man comes to understand what causes him to age. This is the forecast for an age of peace.”


Perhaps he was looking at the technological progress in the past 15 years, since 1939, and imagining that continuing over the next 15 years. There were hopes of that, based on the massive government and corporate support for R&D, and the methods developed during WWII to speed up progress.

It didn’t happen, of course. But we’re better off, imo, having some people who dream of great things. They are the engines of tech progress.

Reply to  Larry Kummer
May 4, 2019 1:54 pm

Well, what DID happen was the Internet, something unseen in 1954 and only anticipated by a few. Orwell and Huxley comes to mind.
But a global neural system (imho) was the greatest achievement of the last century.

I was involved with the development of the MIME protocol which led to the webish interface we are all so familiar with. That is just the tip of the iceberg, ah glacier.

As in anything of great import, it is also a two edged sword. For example, we currently have the likes of Bill McKibben and Greta Thunberg to deal with. There will always be more.

I believe we are at a crossroads, where those who control the social news outlets have become convinced that they now know the way forward (as many before them have done) and can confidently control information to prevent differing opinions being discussed.

The only hope is that sites like WUWT may continue to spread knowledge and lead the rest of us out of the darkest corners of humanity.

May 3, 2019 11:55 am

SO! because the oil, coal and gas will not be running out soon.
The wind electrical generator and the solar panel makers will still be able to make them 24/7..365.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Twobob
May 7, 2019 9:26 pm

Electomobile powered Helicopters fly medics to rescue fallen injured teenage mountain bikers.

Only to near foothills, the batteries weigh some ~ 1300 lbs, 600 kg.

Berndt Koch
May 3, 2019 12:10 pm

Aren’t Oil and Gas are free too, isn’t it the extraction and conversion to useful energy that costs money?

Reply to  Berndt Koch
May 3, 2019 1:14 pm

Yes, and also the government taxes and royalties will make them unfree. If cars become electric, the revenue (in the Canadian system) to maintain the roads, for example, would have to be moved to whatever is powering vehicles, presumably to solar and wind generated electricity dispensed at not very fast charge stations.

Bryan A
Reply to  BCBill
May 3, 2019 8:09 pm

Then the taxes would be gathered at the charging stations. Even Home Chargers would be programmed to collect the taxes during charging or chargers would be individually metered

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Bryan A
May 3, 2019 10:47 pm

No, you would have something similar to what is used in New Zealand, called road user charges (RUCs. And will be applied to EV’s when the fleet breaches 5% of vehicles IIRC). On diesel you pay based on your odometer reading annually IIRC. Heavier diesel powered vehicles actually have a sealed odometer placed in the hub of an axle which includes trailers too. Petrol, you pay on every litre of fuel you buy as well as an annual registration fee. So, Govn’t have that revenue stream covered.

I also found out the maximum Australian Govn’t subsidy for domestic solar is AU$4,175.00. That’s a big chunk of someone else’s taxes.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
May 4, 2019 4:29 am

in Victoria until the last weeks they also handed out CASH of 2,500$ for people installing soalr panels. tell me thats not a scam and funded by our huge power costs!

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Patrick MJD
May 4, 2019 6:34 am

I should have said New South Wales. Each state has different subsidies. But its the same in principal. Some person who does not own a roof, cannot install solar and subsidises those that have and do.

Lee L
Reply to  BCBill
May 4, 2019 9:28 am

The taxes will already have been moved by then.

Here in BC the mayors of the ‘region’ around Vancouver all attend a ‘Mayor’s Council on Regional Transportation’. Part of its ‘regional’ transportation plan is the planned levying of a ‘Mobility Tax’ which is ‘road pricing’ by any other name. You pay by the mile ( I mean kilometer) to move around in your vehicle or to use a parking space ( not move around ). The favoured method of metering the use of the road( not the fuel) is by GPS. By law each vehicle will be required to have a GPS tracker installed which will record all movements and time stamp them. The data will sent to government computers automatically and a ‘mobility’ charge for each moment of the day will be generated and charged to your account. The computer can change the cost per km based on the roadway’s location and the time of day.

Fuel tax is yesterday.

Reply to  Lee L
May 4, 2019 9:52 am

And like the income tax, the government is able to get more information about YOUR business and travel. How long before total control is reached? The only thing left will be the elimination of CASH.

Freedom? I think NOT!

Big Brother. I think so.

Lee L
Reply to  Drake
May 4, 2019 1:36 pm

Absolutely true Drake.

And, regarding my mobility pricing post, what if you say f*** you to installing that GPS tracking computer? Sorry bud, here in BC the lefties legislated government run auto insurance ONLY decades ago. Subsequently, both left and right governments plundered the insurance corp so that rates have risen dramatically to cover previous sins.
But I degress. So go ahead and resist installing that GPS tracker or pull the wires off. However, be sure that having the tracker installed and active will be a precondition of your auto insurance coverage.

Sneaky lefties, always looking for multifunctinal levers.

Stephen Reilly
Reply to  Berndt Koch
May 3, 2019 2:59 pm

Exactly. The sun and the wind are free. It’s harvesting the energy that costs money. So by the same token, coal is free.

Philip Verslues
Reply to  Berndt Koch
May 4, 2019 3:58 pm

Your to smart for your own good, thanks for the laugh!

Al Miller
Reply to  Berndt Koch
May 6, 2019 1:49 pm

Berndt: You have it exactly right, fossil fuels are free- and much much more energy rich than wind and solar. Crippling ourselves with dumb energy is NOT the answer we need.

Hoyt Clagwell
May 3, 2019 12:15 pm

I’ll never understand why people don’t realize that coal and oil are just as “free” as any other energy source. The cost is always in paying people to convert the “free” stuff into something usable and delivering it to a point if sale.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  David Middleton
May 3, 2019 1:11 pm

“If you aren’t a liberal at 20, you have no heart. If you aren’t a conservative at 40, you have no brain.”

No one’s accused me of being heartless, but I managed to skip the first part. Saved me a lot of time, angst, and soul-searching.

Rick C PE
Reply to  Hoyt Clagwell
May 3, 2019 1:55 pm

Oil, gas and coal are sort of free to the land owner if you don’t consider the purchase price of their land. But production companies do have to pay the land owner for what they extract and, of course, governments at all levels tax it as well. But even so, the high energy density makes it less expensive as a source of energy than wind and solar. Of course if the liberals can add enough cost to fossil fuels (and/or subsidies to wind/solar) they can make renewables appear to be competitive. Just an illusion, but one the warmists are desperate to create.

Hoyt Clagwell
Reply to  Rick C PE
May 3, 2019 3:24 pm

All true Rick, but I assume that Solar and Wind farms require the same expense of leasing land, and likely a lot more land, to install their solar panels and windmill forests. I’m not sure what taxes that might entail, but any profitable business will have taxes, and lots of them.

Reply to  Rick C PE
May 4, 2019 4:13 am

So…..Just what exactly is coal, petroleum and natural gas other than concentrated sunlight stored chemically beneath the crust of the planet?And it is all going to be replaced by ‘harvesting’ solar energy on an ongoing real-time basis. Ain’t gonna happen.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  Hoyt Clagwell
May 3, 2019 2:37 pm

All food is free too. Cows are free, and fruit is free. It’s the cost to maintain them in healthy conditions, collect and process them, and get them into a shop in town in convenient and saleable packaging.

Timber for houses is free. It’s right there, int that huge tree. The pioneers simply cut it down themselves and shaped it into a house. Now days someone else cuts it down and cuts it into nice sized panels and delivers it to the work site. For some reason, that costs money.

M Courtney
May 3, 2019 12:24 pm

The future of energy is solar, biofuel and geothermal.

First the solar power will be caught by chlorophyll.
Then the chlorophyll will make the biomass (a fuel).
Finally the geothermal power will concentrate the fuel into forms that are economic to extract.

Reply to  M Courtney
May 3, 2019 1:40 pm

Yep – oil and coal won’t stand a chance against this scenario.
(oh wait . . . )

R Shearer
Reply to  M Courtney
May 3, 2019 7:04 pm

I assume you are being sarcastic.

Reply to  R Shearer
May 3, 2019 8:07 pm

He did leave out the “let it cook for a million years or so” part.

Reply to  R Shearer
May 4, 2019 9:38 am

Noooo, what gave you that impression?

Joel Snider
May 3, 2019 12:36 pm

I always find it particularly despicable when liars call other people liars.

May 3, 2019 12:51 pm


“And the US will be exporting large volumes of natural gas to foreign nations who still haven’t caught on (to) ?the “free” solar and wind power.”

Great post.

John F. Hultquist
May 3, 2019 12:52 pm

Bill is 58 and with luck will remain functional for another 20 years, maybe 30 if very lucky. He may see 2050.
He may see the percent changes, or something similar but I won’t.
If governments do decide to do something about CO2 emissions that will have to involve a ramp up in nuclear.
Give them 10 years to make the decision.
Another 10 years to get regulations and incentives in place.
Another 10 years to “grow” the ability to construct facilities.
Another 10 years to make a significant contribution.

Bill’s panic will set in by the time he is 65, about 7 years.
Then he can put pencil to paper and prove to himself that wind and solar are not going to do the job.
Others have already done this (many times) but Bill needs to do it for himself. He could do this now, in an afternoon. Being a reality denier, expect him to use up the entire 7 years.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
May 3, 2019 2:19 pm

Bill McK in 7yrs will realize as others like him will, that his life has been a woeful eggs-in-one-basket waste and moreover he has cut a wide swath through other peoples resources. I’m paying (for me) sky-high taxes because of his and other like wastrels’ ugly work.

A late-life crisis isn’t resolvable. Remember, he has broken down into tears on a few occasions from the stress of frustration, and here he has “hope”.


The fall will be hard, the lesson too late. The terrible “Climate Blues” an epidemic of clinical depression several years ago terminated the careers of a number of climate scientists, occasioned by ~ 2 decades of the “Dreaded Pause” that sewed doubt in their minds about global warming science and the fear that their studies and careers were for nought. A new wave of this seems unavoidable, but this time it will carry with it the guilt of the enormous harm it has done to millions of the poorest

R Shearer
Reply to  Gary Pearse
May 3, 2019 7:08 pm

Good analysis.

R Shearer
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
May 3, 2019 7:06 pm

I’m surprised that he’s only 58 as he looks much older; perhaps his diet is poor.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  R Shearer
May 4, 2019 5:39 am

His poor diet? Oh I’m sure he’s eating his crunchy quinona-dura fruit ganola and caramel-vanilla- soyamilk orgasmic lattes, locust burgers and other progressive muck.

Reply to  John F. Hultquist
May 4, 2019 1:21 am

Hey, pencil and paper can be expensive don’t you know. We could crowd source on here and buy him a $4 calculator …..

….. but then we’d have to teach him how to use it, I guess.

Non Nomen
May 3, 2019 12:52 pm

Bill’s “rays of hope” are as visible as Greta’s Co2-molecules.

Caligula Jones
May 3, 2019 12:56 pm

The stone age didn’t end because it ran out of stones.

The oil age won’t end because it runs out of oil.

As always, we need to take the income/pension/investments from these people and move them solely into wind and solar.

Only fair, isn’t it?

Michael S. Kelly LS BSA, Ret
Reply to  Caligula Jones
May 3, 2019 7:42 pm

And the cleavage won’t end because we ran out of cleav.

I could go on…

May 3, 2019 12:56 pm


” Maybe someone explained it to him. You can only divest an asset, if there’s (a) ? willing investor”
Too bad it takes 5 hours for my comments to go through…..sigh…..

(Your comments keeps showing up in the trash bin, have e-mailed about it to the bosses) SUNMOD

Reply to  Marcus
May 4, 2019 12:15 am

Thanks for letting me know so I don’t waste my time..

(It turns out you have problems moderating yourself, which is why you were in the Trash bin, I think you should try harder from now on since you have been PLACED into Moderation twice, control yourself and no more waste of MY time, then all will be ok) SUNMOD

Reply to  David Middleton
May 4, 2019 7:37 am

He also has gone off the rails with some wild comments…so he gets moderation. He’s been in moderation twice for such behavior.

May 3, 2019 12:56 pm

The sun and wind may be free, but the materials and labor to harvest them are not. And the current materials to harvest the sun and wind are not good for the environment.

Dennis Sandberg
May 3, 2019 12:57 pm

Author: “While the EIA’s forecasts don’t always come to fruition….”. EIA is a wind and solar activist. They did a cost analysis comparing EV’s to ICE gasoline, diesel & compressed natural gas vehicles. They didn’t state the cost basis in the paper but it turned out to be $100/bbl crude, $12 MCF natural gas and $0.12 kwh electricity. EV’s won, surprise? Talk about putting a (heavy/phony/fake) thumb on the scale.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  David Middleton
May 3, 2019 1:14 pm

Getting your full-mode robber-baron on, I see. 😀

May 3, 2019 1:04 pm

Bill McKibben is a typical passionate climate change doomster. Full of rhetoric and hyperbole but no substance.

Here is a debate with Alex Epstein in 2012.

“Bill McKibben and Alex Epstein square off on fossil fuels — do they make the planet a worse place to live or a better place to live?”


It’s a long debate but it contains everything you want to know about climate change alarmism.

McKibben knows he is losing the debate and resorts to espousing about climate change Armageddon. Epstein concentrates on the facts and puts it to McKibben that McKibben’s climate policies would kill millions of people in poor countries.

See what you think.

R Shearer
Reply to  leitmotif
May 3, 2019 7:45 pm

Good video, Bill McKibben comes across as an idiot, a flummoxed one.

william Johnston
Reply to  leitmotif
May 5, 2019 8:45 am

In the above quote, does the word “they” refer to McKibben and Epstein or to fossil fuels?? Just asking.

John Endicott
Reply to  william Johnston
May 7, 2019 5:56 am

LOL. “They” obviously refer to fossil fuels though I’m sure an argument can be made for “they” to be refereeing to the weepy one and his fellow travelers.

Mumbles McGuirck
May 3, 2019 1:13 pm

But now that power is showing itself. Even in the last few weeks, just to watch Extinction Rebellion and [16-year-old Swedish activist] Greta Thunberg’s followers around the world shutting down schools…

-Bill McKibben

So what they’re good at is closing things down and stopping progress. Not in creating things or getting things going. And he sees that as good.

Mark Broderick
Reply to  David Middleton
May 3, 2019 4:52 pm


This a great animation of “Hydraulic Fracturing (fracking)”, is it accurate ?

Mark Broderick
Reply to  David Middleton
May 4, 2019 4:46 am


“often prod(d)uction (P)latforms ” ….
Sorry, couldn’t resist..lol ! (you won’t see this for 5 hours anyways)

Thanks, it was interesting..

Reply to  David Middleton
May 4, 2019 2:46 am

Like to see him try that at a busy truck stop fuel island.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
May 7, 2019 9:42 pm

For people stomping things down and stopping progress we learned a new term: Daesh.

May 3, 2019 1:33 pm

Does Bill McKibben have the credentials to publicly debate Dr. Mariana Alves-Pereira regarding the cumulative and irreversible harm to the nervous system and the vestibular system caused by low frequency noise and infrasound radiation from industrial wind turbines?

mike the morlock
May 3, 2019 1:37 pm

Good afternoon David Middleton
I always like your articles though I don’t often comment.
You may want to alert Bill McKibben to the developments in the eastern Mediterranean in regards to Israel and Cyprus building natural gas pipelines from from their off shore fields. The EU may get a new supplier.
No more of Italy and Greece being at the end of line when Russia’s supplies get untimely.
Isn’t Exxon involved?

It is going to be a fun future.



May 3, 2019 2:19 pm

The met office has used a deduction of 0.2 c on CET to cater for the UHI factor some of which has been applied since 1974. There’s has been a major study going on there for some 18 months to ascertain if they should change this amount.

The population has increased by some 25% since 1974 with massive urbanisation And the current uhi factor seems low. The met office generally use data from the composite 1910 temperature records. These do not allow for uhi unlike CET.


May 3, 2019 2:25 pm

Until development of grid scale electrical storage, mining/farming/flight/ocean travel/ using only electricity, no matter how many PV panels and wind generators are installed there will still be a need for fossil fuels unless a new and different form of energy is found. All the virtue signaling taking place today in cities claiming “zero carbon” by 2020 up to 2050 is not going to happen. I’m still waiting on the plans these cities have to make their fantasy claims come true. Has anyone seen any of those plans yet?

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  markl
May 3, 2019 3:35 pm

Hope is not a plan.

Smart Rock
May 3, 2019 2:37 pm

The wind and sun are free, no question there. It just costs a lot in terms of investment in hardware, infrastructure and operating costs to turn them into electricity and put it into the grid. When they’re available, whether they’re needed or not!

Oil and gas and coal are free too. It just takes investment and work and money (and modest royalties to landowners and/or governments) to find them and get them out of the ground. And they are easy to store, too!

May 3, 2019 3:07 pm

Wind and Solar may be free but so are gas, coal and oil. All you have to do with any of the sources is to gather them up and convert them into useable energy or electricity. The cost is the final all-up cost of the process which in the case of coal, oil and gas is cheap and in the case of wind and solar, is expensive.

May 3, 2019 3:13 pm

Whenever I want the true scoop on all things about science in general, and climate change in particular, my first thought is I better find the nearest Harvard English major. Who fills that role, Bill McKibben, nincompoop.

May 3, 2019 3:23 pm

Sun and wind may be free, but the meter hooked up to measure electricity input/output to calculate consumption and taxes sure won’t be free. The infrastructure required sure won’t be free either.

Ed wolfe
May 3, 2019 3:31 pm

Heard on radio today
Show me a factory that makes solar panels
Or factory that builds wind turbines
And uses 100% renewable power to build them

May 3, 2019 3:51 pm

But now that power is showing itself. Even in the last few weeks, just to watch Extinction Rebellion and [16-year-old Swedish activist] Greta Thunberg’s followers around the world shutting down schools, and the remarkable young people from the Green New Deal fanning out across this country – those things to me are signs that the fever the planet is running is producing in quantity antibodies to fight back.

A growing mass of cells whose function is defective and is destroying the very body it lives in is called “cancer”, Bill. Not “antibodies”.

Lee L
Reply to  leowaj
May 4, 2019 9:35 am

It’s called ‘deluded young souls’ aka ‘useful idiots’.

May 3, 2019 3:56 pm

Good article David!

Those EIA projections for renewables look to still be based on the Clean Power Plan. Not to overlook the tendency of EIA to depend upon nameplate capacity, not actual energy generation.

No CPP, no chance of wind and solar following EIA’s straight line growth projections.
Even with a CPP, it is doubtful that enough cities or counties would allow massive amounts of land to be converted into wind or solar farms; as they watch early adopters of installed wind and solar suffer huge energy and/or tax bills..

Bruce Cobb
May 3, 2019 4:08 pm

The only fever the planet is running lies in the fevered imaginations of addle-brained doomsters like McKibben and his brethren.

May 3, 2019 4:33 pm

Utopia, wind and sun and water are free. Just lie back and ….
Now consider building a 4 MW generator on top of a 100 metre tower that on average only delivers 1.3 MW, and connecting 150 of them to a complex electricity grid. And then, build a 200 MW generator as backup for when the wind isn’t blowing. So double the investment – still free?Or, just use the reliable gas generator.

May 3, 2019 4:36 pm

Measuring Language Stimulus with EEG
Is that Epilepsy or Climate Psychosis ??

Global Warming’ Not Scary Enough, Alarmists Rebrand It ‘Climate Crisis
Since the expressions “global warming” and “climate change” do not frighten people enough, activists are proposing a shift in language to “climate crisis” or “environmental collapse,” with the help of advertising consultants.
Neuroscience research suggests that “global warming” and “climate change” do not produce a powerful enough reaction in people, whereas “climate crisis” got “a 60 percent greater emotional response from listeners” according to a recent study.
Environmental lobbying has reportedly yielded a 15-point increase in the share of Americans who believe that climate change is a serious problem, but activists are looking for ways to boost that number still further by using more explosive language.
Enter SPARK Neuro, an advertising consulting firm that measures physiological data such as brain activity and palm sweat to quantify people’s emotional reactions to stimuli.
SPARK Neuro fixed electroencephalography (EEG) devices to the heads of 120 volunteers to gauge the electrical activity coming from their brains.
At the same time, a webcam monitored their facial expressions and sensors on their fingers recorded the sweat produced by heightened emotions.
The group, which was evenly divided among Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, listened to audio recordings of six different climate phrases.
“Global warming” and “climate change” performed the worst, beaten hands down by “climate crisis,” “environmental destruction,” “weather destabilization,” and “environmental collapse.”

Clyde Spencer
May 3, 2019 5:19 pm

“… because they’re free,”

NASA has discovered that there is no such thing as a free launch.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  David Middleton
May 3, 2019 8:43 pm

Mr. Dynamics must be keeping his light under a lamp shade because a lot of people still don’t understand it and think they can get something for nothing. They even think that once a windmill is installed it is free energy in perpetuity.

william Johnston
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 5, 2019 8:51 am

Which is why they don’t come with a life-time warranty.

May 3, 2019 5:37 pm

“In 2050…”, “…at least the 2060’s…”. BAU should be pushing us well into a 3 or 4 degree spike.

Hubris anyone?

Reply to  David Middleton
May 3, 2019 10:19 pm

“Climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 = 1.28 °C”

Very unlikely, 1.28C is on the very edge of outlier territory. We already have close to that amount of warming now and CO2 increase is only up 43%.
Even a cold outlier like UAH is showing 0.13C/decade with atmospheric CO2 concentration increasing at only 2-3ppm pa.

The evidence strongly points to 2-4C.
comment image

Also evidence emerging that ECS varies over time.

Ignoring the PETM with its rate of CO2 increase 1/15th that of today. You think the next 50 years are going to look like past 50? BAU?

Man, are you in for some nasty surprises.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Loydo
May 4, 2019 6:39 am

“Loydo May 3, 2019 at 10:19 pm

Blah blah blah….You think the next 50 years are going to look like past 50? BAU?

Man, are you in for some nasty surprises.”

Please elaborate what surprises.

Reply to  Loydo
May 4, 2019 6:40 am

Close to a 1C rise from a 43% CO2 rise in 100 years, despite Scafetta’s best.

0.13C from our most recent decade is baked in.

Throw in the further 0.5–1.1°C masked contribution because “removing aerosols induces a global mean surface heating…”.

Thats 1.6–2.2C in 110 years…with emmissions ceasing tomorrow. For good measure lets throw in a methane release and a dark blue Artic.

Sees your 1.28C left in a cloud of exhaust smoke. Bad luck.

Reply to  David Middleton
May 3, 2019 11:47 pm

comment image
Correction that is transient climate response.

This is equilibrium climate sensitivity:
comment image

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Loydo
May 3, 2019 10:09 pm

Because Bill McKibben believes it, it must be true.
He of course has self appointed himself as one of the Bishops of Climate Change Religion.
To question him is to question the doctrine of the most Holy Climate Orthodox.
Only heretics do that.

Think I’ll add that to my truck as a bumper sticker.

Climate Heretic Onboard.
Frack on baby.

May 3, 2019 6:27 pm

Classic John Belushi, nicely done 🙂

May 3, 2019 6:49 pm

‘“Thirty or 50 years out, the world’s going to run on sun and wind, because they’re free,” McKibben says.’

Variable cost approaches zero. ‘Free.’

Fixed cost is extreme.

‘going to run on sun and wind, because they’re free’

Profoundly ignorant. And not afraid to display his ignorance. And Yale Environment 360 not afraid to publish.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Gamecock
May 3, 2019 9:55 pm

Yes GE is now giving away wind turbines any day now.
And Chinese solar panels, those come from 6000 miles away and they cost less than the dirt they obscure from the sun.

McKibben = Moron.

Joel O’Bryan
May 3, 2019 9:32 pm

The economic consequences of the US new Energy Dominance has not sunk in even to the Sage of Omaha Warren Buffett.

“Warren Buffett says no textbook could have predicted the strange economy we have today”

Energy dominance has changed the entire equation of the US economy and growth. No longer do energy dollars flow out of the US economy to the Persian Gulf states when the US economy accelerates. In the past, that was a brake, a negative feedback. Now the energy dollars mostly stay in the US, creating a positive feedback loop.

The paradigm has shifted on energy and expert economists haven’t yet figured it out because they’re all still stuck in 2008. The year their Messiah won the White House.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
May 4, 2019 4:10 am

You mean the Messiah, the One, Barry O’Bama ?

Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Corp. controls the largest railroad network serving the entire Bakken area, and has huge investments in the companies that are fracking oil and shipping it and all its precursors in rail cars by the hundreds of thousands. Buffett benefited grandly from Barry’s fracking policy.

May 4, 2019 4:21 am

Could someone ask Bill to come and install my free solar panels.

old white guy
May 4, 2019 5:11 am

I wonder how bill plans on manufacturing the solar panels and turbines without fossil fuels?

old white guy
May 4, 2019 5:17 am

The one thing that is free is bad advice, on second thought that is wrong because the price to pay for following it can be horrendous.

May 4, 2019 5:52 am

“In 2050, fossil fuels and nuclear power will still be generating over 2/3’s of our electricity according the the US Energy Information Administration’s Annual Energy Outlook for 2019”

And electricity is only one fifth of total energy needs.

Harry Passfield
May 4, 2019 9:09 am

This is getting interesting: Bill McKibben sees ‘rays of hope’; Greta Thunberg sees CO².
I wonder what other alarmists can see.

John Endicott
Reply to  Harry Passfield
May 7, 2019 5:48 am

Dead people. Not ghosts, but rather the billions that want to reduce the population by.

William Astley
May 4, 2019 11:03 am

Odd that the cult of CAGW members know so little about the problem situation.

We just fight.

Nuclear – Fission Reactor Breakthrough

There is a liquid fuel, no water, no fuel rod, fission reactor design that is as cheap as coal, six times more fuel efficient than current pressure water reactors, requires 1/3 the amount of fuel as a PWR, operates at atmospheric pressure, and that has no catastrophic failure modes which was built and tested 50 years ago and then covered up.

Gold hat is the benefit that would occur from the proposed change.

Duh, rather than spend money on wind and sun gathering we could install the breakthrough liquid fuel fission reactor which produces almost CO2 free power.

This is like a stupid game where everyone has different facts in their white hat and no clue that there is a black hat of facts that explains why pressure water reactors are so expensive. Pressure water reactors (PWRs) have catastrophic failure modes and hence require containment buildings, explosive valves, and Olympic swimming pool sized water reserves on top of the reactor which makes them expensive and dangerous if any of the safety equipment fails.

Red hat is the emotions people have concerning the subject. People hate pressure water reactors for specific reasons. People have no clue there is a fail-safe, seal reactor, that has no catastrophic failure modes.

Wind and Sun – Reality vs Care Bear Engineering View
This is like a stupid game where everyone has different facts in their white hat and no clue that there is a black hat of facts that makes wind and sun fundamentally limited due to basic engineering regions.

Black hat is the fact that wind turbines must be located in windy high locations generally far from the loads which are in cities. Wind and sun are free. New power lines, substation upgrades, new substations are not free.

Wind and sun are variable power givers which is practically different than a power supply which provides power on demand.

Red hat is the emotions people have concerning the subject. Calling sun and wind gathering green does not change the fact that wind power varies as the cube of wind speed. Wind power can and does change as much as 30% in hour.

As electrical grids must always be balanced (power supplied = power used), as wind and sun vary, power sources must be turned on/off/on/off to balance the grid.

John Endicott
Reply to  William Astley
May 7, 2019 5:45 am

William, you keep saying this but until you can show one (just one, that’s not too much to ask) in commercial operation all you are doing is hyping vaporware.

Gordon Dressler
May 4, 2019 3:46 pm

It is incredible that McKibben, now 58 years old, has apparently never in his life—and despite (or perhaps because of?) graduating from Harvard University—learned the widespread truthfulness of the meaning of the phrase “there is no such thing as a free lunch.”

On second thought, we ARE talking about the Bill McKibben here. Nevermind.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights