Buckets of icy cold reality

Democrat presidential candidates and Green New Dealers need to face some hard energy facts

Guest essay by Paul Driessen

CNN recently hosted a seven-hour climate bore-athon. That climate cataclysms are real and already devastating our planet was not open to discussion. So host Wolf Blitzer and ten Democrat presidential contenders vied to make the most extravagant claims about how bad things are, and who would spend the most taxpayer money and impose the most Green New Deal rules to restrict our freedoms and transform our energy, economy, agriculture and transportation, in the name of preventing further cataclysms.

Cory Booker opened the bidding at $3 trillion. Kamala Harris and Julian Castro raised it to $10 trillion. Bernie Sanders upped it to $16 trillion. Then they got down to the business of telling us which personal choices and living standards they intend to roll back the furthest. Among the proposals:

Ban all commercial air travel (ruling and privileged classes presumably excepted). Change our dietary guidelines or ban beef outright. “Massively” increase taxes. “Make polluters pay” for emitting greenhouse gases. Eliminate onshore drilling, offshore drilling, fracking, coal-fired power plants, internal combustion engines. No new pipelines. In short, ban the fossil fuels that provide 80% of America’s energy! No new nuclear power plants either. And then somehow, amid all that insanity, ensure “climate justice.”

They need to be doused with a few buckets of icy cold reality. The first bucket: We do not face a climate emergency. Computer models certainly predict all kinds of catastrophes. But both the models and the increasingly hysterical assertions of planetary chaos are completely out of touch with reality.

The second, even colder bucket of reality: Wind and sunshine may be free, renewable, sustainable and eco-friendly. But the technologies, lands and raw materials required to harness this widely dispersed, intermittent, weather-dependent energy to benefit humanity absolutely are not. In fact, they cause far more environmental damage than any of the fossil fuel energy sources they would supposedly replace.

Biofuels. US ethanol quotas currently gobble up over 40% of America’s corn – grown on cropland nearly the size of Iowa, to displace about 10% of America’s gasoline. Corn ethanol also requires vast quantities of water, pesticides, fertilizers, natural gas, gasoline and diesel, to produce and transport a fuel that drives up food prices and thus adversely affects food aid and nutrition in poor nations, damages small engines, and gets one-third fewer miles per gallon than gasoline.

Replacing 100% of US gasoline with ethanol would require some 360 million acres of corn. That’s more than twice the land area of Texas. But eliminating fossil fuel production means we’d also have to replace the oil and natural gas feed stocks required for pharmaceuticals, wind turbine blades, solar panel films, paints, synthetic fibers, fertilizers, and plastics for cell phones, computers, eyeglasses, car bodies and countless other products. That would require growing corn on almost four times the area of Texas.

Solar power. Solar panels on Nevada’s Nellis Air Force Base generate a minuscule 15 megawatts of electricity, about 40% of the year, from 72,000 panels on 140 acres. Arizona’s Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant generates 760 times more electricity, from less land, 90-95% of the time.

Generating Palo Verde’s electricity output using Nellis technology would require acreage ten times larger than Washington, DC. And the solar panels would still provide electricity only 40% of the year.

Generating the 3.9 billion megawatt-hours that Americans consumed in 2018 would mean we would have to completely blanket over twelve million acres – half of Virginia – with solar panels, and get the Sun to shine at high-noon summertime Arizona intensity 24/7/365, wherever we install those panels.

Wind power. Mandated, subsidized wind energy likewise requires millions of acres for turbines and new transmission lines, and billions of tons of concrete, steel, copper, rare earth metals and fiberglass.

Like solar panels, wind turbines produce intermittent, unreliable electricity that costs much more than coal, gas or nuclear electricity – once subsidies are removed – and must be backed up by fossil fuel generators that have to go from standby to full-power many times a day, very inefficiently, every time the wind stops blowing. Turbine blades already kill raptors, other birds and bats – perhaps a million or more every year in the USA alone. Their light flicker and infrasonic noise impair human health.

Modern coal and gas-fired power plants can generate 600 megawatts some 95% of the time from less than 300 acres. Indiana’s Fowler Ridge wind farm also generates 600 megawatts – from 350 towering turbines, sprawling across more than 50,000 acres (much more than Washington, DC), less than 30% of the year.

Now let’s suppose we’re going to use wind power to replace those 3.9 billion megawatt-hours of US electricity consumption. Let’s also suppose we’re going to get rid of all those coal and gas-fired backup power plants, natural gas for home heating, coal and natural gas for factories, and gasoline-powered vehicles – and replace them all with wind-powered electricity. We’ll also use wind turbines to generate enough extra electricity every windy day to charge batteries for just seven straight windless days.

That would require a lot of wind turbines, as we are forced to go into lower and lower quality wind locations. Instead of generating full nameplate power maybe one-third of the year, on average, they will do so only around 16% of the year. Instead of the 58,000 turbines we have now, the United States would need some 14 million turbines, each one 400 feet tall, each one capable of generating 1.8 megawatts at full capacity, when the wind is blowing at the proper speed.

Assuming an inadequate 15 acres apiece, those monster turbines would require some 225 million acres! That’s well over twice the land area of California – without including transmission lines! Their bird-butchering blades would wipe out raptors, other birds and bats across vast stretches of America.

But every turbine really needs at least 50 acres of open space, and Fowler Ridge uses 120 acres per turbine. That works out to 750 million acres (ten times Arizona) – to 1,800 million acres (ten times Texas or nearly the entire Lower 48 United States)! Eagles, hawks, falcons, vultures, geese and other high-flying birds and bats would virtually disappear from our skies. Insects and vermin would proliferate.

Manufacturing those wind turbines would require something on the order of 4 billion tons of steel, copper and alloys for the towers and turbines; 8 billion tons of steel and concrete for the foundations; 4 million tons of rare earth metals for motors, magnets and other components; 1 billion tons of petroleum-based composites for the nacelle covers and turbine blades; and massive quantities of rock and gravel for millions of miles of access roads to the turbines. Connecting our wind farms and cities with high-voltage transmission lines would require still more raw materials – and more millions of acres.

All these raw materials must be mined, processed, smelted, manufactured into finished products, and shipped all over the world. They would require removing hundreds of billions of tons of earth and rock overburden – and crushing tens of billions of tons of ore – at hundreds of new mines and quarries.

Every step in this entire process would require massive amounts of fossil fuels, because wind turbines and solar panels cannot operate earth moving and mining equipment – or produce consistently high enough heat to melt silica, iron, copper, rare earth or other materials.

Not once did CNN’s hosts or any of the Green New Deal presidential candidates so much as mention any of this. To them, “renewable” energy will just happen – like manna from Gaia, or beamed down from the Starship Enterprise.

They must no longer be allowed to dodge these issues, to go from assuming the climate is in crisis, to assuming “reliable, affordable, renewable, sustainable, eco-friendly” alternatives to fossil fuel (and nuclear) energy will just magically appear, or can simply be willed or subsidized into existence.

Citizens, newscasters, debate hosts and legislators who are more firmly grounded in reality need to confront Green New Dealers with hard questions and icy cold facts – and keep repeating them until candidates provide real answers. No more dissembling, obfuscation or incantations permitted.

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

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 12, 2019 2:18 am

Its a scam… Carbon engineering Ltd, can take CO2 from the air and after a small chemical process, give us ultra low carbon fuel, the fuel can be run in petrol and diesel cars/trucks, and can be used in aeroplanes… Carbon engineering Ltd, is in the finals of a Canadian paid government competition, to supply jet fuel. The parts needed for the machines are of the shelf parts, as oil companies already use the machines to blow out oil from the bottom of oil wells. The machines take up a a couple of acres and cost nothing compared to wind and solar… Yet its NEVER spoken about… All we hear is “trillions” of dollars are needed… Also how will the usa navy, air force, army survive??? Will all the defence department’s come back to the usa and just still their???

Jim G
Reply to  Sunny
September 12, 2019 2:51 am

Sounds hugely expensive!!! Taking the scarce .04% of air that is CO2 and going backwards to gasoline or propane. Where are they going to get a source of hydrogen?

Sounds like a subsidy mining scheme, that will end up using more energy than it makes.

Better off just using liquid natural gas, if you think gasoline has the cooties.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Jim G
September 12, 2019 5:02 am

No it is worse than that. They only want to extract ~3% of 0.04% CO2, that is the driver of climate change (Apparently).

Reply to  Patrick MJD
September 12, 2019 6:28 am

It costs them $100 or more to extract a tonne of CO2 and that’s just the extraction part. They need to show a complete mass and energy balance for their processes. Implicitly, they rely upon renewable power sources that are unreliable and not sustainable.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Scissor
September 12, 2019 8:42 am

I doubt very much anyone could extract 2000 pounds of CO2 from air for only $100.
The bulk price of liquid CO2 canisters is about $85-95 for 1/20 of a ton.

Bryan A
Reply to  Scissor
September 12, 2019 10:09 am

Their proposals would all ensure Climate Justice (Fair and equal Climatic Treatment of All (hoi-polloi) Citizens) as everyone would be taxed to death and no one would be able to afford to do anything (equally)
Obi-Wan “This is not the Climate Justice you’re looking for”

Reply to  Jim G
September 12, 2019 7:31 am

They have proposed getting the hydrogen by electrolysis of water, which is hugely energy inefficient for splitting the water molecule. They propose acquiring they electricity for this process through wind and solar.

Bryan A
Reply to  Anonymous
September 12, 2019 10:19 am

They can take their Solar Panels and put then where the Sun Don’t Shine.
Oops, that is already happening >50% of the time

Reply to  Bryan A
September 25, 2019 6:16 pm

Brilliant. I’m borrowing that.

Sky King
Reply to  Sunny
September 12, 2019 3:31 am

Wow! That is some technology you got there! Transforming C02 to “ultra low carbon” fuel! I’ll bet the oil and coal companies have fought to keep that one secret, otherwise we would know about this miracle already! What would be the thermodynamic explanation for this miracle? I need to get some of that ultra low carbon fuel for my Cessna 310!

Reply to  Sky King
September 12, 2019 4:07 am

Sky king…. Carbon engineering Ltd has got bill gates and other small private investors, but the biggest is three oil companies, exxon is one of them LOL… I would rather have “low carbon fuel” for my car (850 dollar car) then take out a massive loan for a electric vehicle. We already have everything we need for the fuel, all petrol stations, transport etc etc.. It’s something i read about when I was going through “the planet is dying” anxiety…

Reply to  Sunny
September 12, 2019 6:20 am

Pulling carbon dioxide (CO2) from the air and using it to make synthetic fuel seems like the ultimate solution to climate change: Instead of adding ever more CO2 to the air from fossil fuels, we can simply recycle the same CO2 molecules over and over. But such technology is expensive—about $600 per ton of CO2, by one recent estimate. Now, in a new study, scientists say future chemical plants could drop that cost below $100 per ton—which could make synthetic fuels a reality in places such as California that incentivize low-carbon fuels.


Chemical equation:

16[CO2] + 18[H2O] → 2[C8H18] + 25[O2]

It takes 8.89 kg of CO2 to make 1 gallon of octane.

The cost of extracting the CO2 from the air is currently about $600/ton.  This works out to $5.33/gal just to get the CO2.  $100/ton would bring this down to about $0.89/gal.

Carbon Engineering claims that the cost of generating the synthetic fuel  will be comparable to biodiesels once they have scaled up the process.

CE’s engineering work shows that AIR TO FUELS™ technology can produce fuels for less than $1.00 /L once scaled up, making them cost competitive with biodiesels. While currently more expensive than the production cost of fossil fuels, Low Carbon Fuel Standard regulations add to their competitive advantage, and allow market viability in leading jurisdictions today. The AIR TO FUELS™ process can deliver fuels that have an ultra-low life-cycle carbon intensity, or that are fully carbon neutral (depending on the energy source used to power the DAC component of the process).


$1.00 /L = $3.79/gal, assuming USD.

$3.79 + $5.33 = $9.12/gal

That’s just the production cost.  It doesn’t include profits that would be required to repay the investors, who are probably expecting at least an 8% ROI…

CE’s investors now include: Bill Gates, Murray Edwards, BHP, Chevron Technology Ventures, Oxy Low Carbon Ventures, LLC, Bethel Lands Corporation Ltd, Carbon Order, First Round Capital, Lowercase Capital, Rusheen Capital Management, LLC, Starlight Ventures, Thomvest Asset Management (an affiliate of Peter J. Thomson), the Benjamin Family, the Hodgkinson Family, and the Hutchison Family. Additionally, all of CE’s Board, management and many of CE’s staff have personally invested into the company as part of this round.


This sort of thing only makes sense in a world in which crude oil is around $250/bbl or there is a $1,000/ton carbon tax.  CE’s investors are true believers that oil will either become very expensive in the near future or that our government will seek to destroy our economy in the near future… Or they are just hedging against such nightmares.

Reply to  David Middleton
September 13, 2019 2:25 am

It’s actually far worse than you say. The conversion of carbon dioxide and water to hydrocarbons is effectively the reverse of burning said hydrocarbons, and is extremely endo thermic. Where will the energy for this process come from?

Curious George
Reply to  Sunny
September 12, 2019 7:52 am

Would it be possible to say “eat your shit” more scientifically?

Reply to  Curious George
September 12, 2019 8:01 am

Free lunches are few and far between. Putting gasoline back together again will always be more expensive than drilling for and refining crude oil… Unless government gets involved.

Reply to  Sunny
September 12, 2019 7:50 pm

Is “the planet is dying” anxiety similar to the anxiety of a drowning man?

Makes him grasp at anything?

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Dean
September 13, 2019 4:10 am

A drowning man is in grave danger and about to die.
“The planet is dying” is a pure delusion.

Mark Broderick
Reply to  Sunny
September 12, 2019 4:02 am

We need more c02 in the atmosphere, not less !

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Sunny
September 12, 2019 4:03 am

Sunny, that process would be even more efficient if the CO2 concentration in the air was 0.06%. The more we put up there the better it will be in the long run. We will need less land and fertilizer and water for agriculture if the CO2 is up.

Reply to  Sunny
September 12, 2019 4:03 am

It’s a scam indeed. Changing CO2 into fuel requires a lot of energy, so it is in no way a source of cheap fuel.

Reply to  commieBob
September 12, 2019 8:28 am

We use about 28% of our total energy on liquid transportation fuels.

Total annual US energy budget is 34e+15 BTU’s
The average nuclear plant prodeces 8800 GWh or about 3e+13 BTU’s. (1 GWatt × ~8800 hours/year).

That crunches down to about 300 Nuclear Power Plants to provide the US with Synthetuc Liqiud Transportation Fuels.

Gen 4 nuclear looks like it will come with a pricetag of $2Billion per Gigawatt.

That’s a $600 Billion investment for making liquid fuels (for around 60 years). That sounds like a lot less than $100 Trillion.

Synthetic fuel costs to replace a gallon of gasoline (~33 kWh/gal) at 4 cents a kWh and 55% fuel production efficiency (based on Hydrogen production efficiencies) would be about $2.40 a gallon before markup and taxes (averaging around $1)…so synthetic liquid fuels might have a price of $3.40 a gallon at the pump.

(With Windmill subsidy rates applied that would fall to $1.50 a gallon…good luck with that)

If we expect to have a couple 100 million EV’s on the roads, we’ll need those extra 300 Nuclear Power Plants.

Reply to  DocSiders
September 12, 2019 9:45 am

I’m skeptical of synthetic fuels. The Germans were desperate for fuel in WW2 and tried everything to produce a viable replacement for refined oil products. It didn’t work very well. link

Reply to  Sunny
September 12, 2019 1:01 pm

Ain’t going to happen. Fossil fuels, as a group, burn and produce a LOT of energy. There is NO way to reverse that reaction and turn CO2 and water into fuel. It’s called the Fischer–Tropsch synthesis which was used by Nazi Germany to produce large fractions of the fuel they used in World War II because they could not get adequate amounts of petroleum. It is expensive, dirty, and highly polluting without extensive additions to keep things relatively clean. One gallon of the average petroleum product, or gasoline, produces 36.6 of energy when burned.

All the CO2 and energy produced requires about 40% more power to turn it back into fuel, of sorts.
This isn’t rocket science. It was invented back in the early 1900’s and is used in refineries world wide. There’s no way to beat chemistry- that energy is in the chemical bonds and it requires more energy than you get to reform the CO2 back into fuel.

Michael Hammer
Reply to  Sunny
September 12, 2019 3:00 pm

This is weird, has no one heard of conservation of energy? If we burn fuel for energy creating CO2 in the process and then use some mystical process to convert the CO2 back to fuel so we can burn it again, either the energy required to convert the CO2 back to fuel exceeds the energy gained by burning it or we have a perpetual motion machine. So, instead of using the energy to convert CO2 back to fuel why not just use that energy in the first place. Maybe the claim is we can use low grade intermittent energy (wind/solar) to drive the conversion. If so, the conversion is a chemical energy storage mechanism which might be reasonable but if so its not made clear. Of course, we already have such a system, its called plants – which use low grade solar energy to convert CO2 back to fuels. Witness growing corn to make ethanol but the system is too inefficient to offer the hoped for benefits.

If, instead of becoming hysterical about needing “natural sustainable” solutions we simply developed thorium reactors (which appear to be already proven to be viable) we could end this supposed “crisis” once and for all with a system that. according to the literature, generates much less waste which is much less toxic for a much shorter time period and is sustainable for centuries. Now that would improve living standards world wide instead of trashing them – then again maybe that’s the real problem.

Would a world wide program to develop and build thorium reactor technology cost more or less than we are speeding on supporting the current hysteria? Would it kill as many birds? would it last more than the 10-15 years wind turbines seem to last? Would ti consume more or less of our rare transition elements and other resources?

Reply to  Sunny
September 12, 2019 4:01 pm

Technically, we have known how to make hydrocarbons out of CO2 for a long time already. It just takes more energy than you got out of burning hydrocarbon to CO2 to start with, so is a net loser, not to mention expensive on a number of fronts, not the least of which is real estate to put solar farms on, buildings for electrolytic cells, big tanks for hydrogen….

george Tetley
September 12, 2019 2:31 am

As I have said many times here, CNN Chit Not News, CNN = (99 99% of the problem

Mark Broderick
Reply to  george Tetley
September 12, 2019 4:20 am

This is CNN’S fake news qoute for 9/11…
“CNN commentator claims right-wing terrorists are ‘deadliest’ kind, excludes death toll from 9/11”


Truly sickening !

September 12, 2019 2:31 am

Paul forgot to mention battery back up requirements.

Reply to  Ian_UK
September 12, 2019 5:46 am

No we can store all the “excess” wind and solar electricity in our distributable mobile battery network of electric vehicles.

“The second, even colder bucket of reality: Wind and sunshine may be free, renewable, sustainable and eco-friendly.” –> not, renewable, sustainable nor eco-friendly….

Wiliam Haas
September 12, 2019 2:58 am

Based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, the climate change we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is effectively zero. This is all a matter of science. The Presidential candidates who do not believe this are anti science and should not be holding any public office.

The only serious approach to significantly reducing our use of fossil fuels involve the gradual replacement of ageing fossil fuel power plants with nuclear power plants but the Democrats seem to be against the idea and as such are anti science. The Democrats would have us turn back the clock on technology to a time roughly 200 years and more ago when mankind did mot make use of fossil fuels. That old technology cannot support the Earth’s current population so reverting to the old energy technology would result in billions of early deaths so that is what these Democrat candidates are for, killing the majority of Americans and other peoples of the world for that matter. But even if mankind stopped making use of fossil fuels altogether, the effort would have no effect on climate. It is all a matter of science.

Even if we could somehow stop the earth’s climate from changing, extreme weather events would continue because they are part of the current climate. We do not know of a global climate that would eliminate extreme weather events. We do not know what the optimal global climate is let alone how to achieve it. The Democrat candidates who are proposing all this do not understand, science, climate, or economics and hence are not qualified to hold office.

John in LdB
Reply to  Wiliam Haas
September 12, 2019 8:18 am

” That old technology cannot support the Earth’s current population so reverting to the old energy technology would result in billions of early deaths so that is what these Democrat candidates are for, killing the majority of Americans and other peoples of the world for that matter.”

There is a lot of discussion about the current crop of Democrats being “socialists”. This is much too kind. They understand completely the scientific impracticality of what they are proposing but pursue this course for the sake of grabbing power and subjugating people to their will and for their personal gain. Their scientific claims are reminiscent of Lysenko. What these people propose is out and out Stalinist and they know it. We know how many people Stalin killed.

Ron Long
September 12, 2019 3:07 am

Good report, Paul. The facts are so obvious you would think CNN moderators are sufficiently intelligent/educated to comprehend the folly of the entire Green New Deal, yet they press on with a straight face. Makes you wonder what their true objective is. The actual aspect of Socialism is that it puts into place a class system, with the leaders living large at the top (spending other peoples money with reckless abandon!), while the workers end up in austerity. Aggressive Socialism morphs directly into Dictatorship and/or Communism, and that is where the entire Green New Deal advocates are headed.

A C Osborn
September 12, 2019 3:11 am

Non of them live in the real world.

old white guy
September 12, 2019 3:14 am

They are all wrong. We will revert back to basic farming when all forms of energy are exhausted. All the foolishness we witness will in no way help mankind to achieve this paradise that the left thinks is possible if we only believe them and allow them to take all our wealth and comfort.

Reply to  old white guy
September 13, 2019 11:47 pm

old white guy the Chinese dictatorship is preparing for that time by building nuclear plants. Hopefully the west will wake up soon and not have to play very expensive catch-up in that regard.

September 12, 2019 3:26 am

“Sunny September 12, 2019 at 2:18 am

Carbon engineering Ltd, can take CO2 from the air and after a small chemical process, give us ultra low carbon fuel”

??? Small chemical process?
Chlorophyll works because the Earth is covered in plants that work using the sun’s energy to process CO₂ into plant foodstuff while returning oxygen to the atmosphere.
And that mankind benefits from eons of plant life capturing energy and carbon, then storing that energy into buried deposits where geologic and tectonic processes those deposits into easy fossil fuels.

To achieve the process you claim. mankind must replicate or improve chlorophyll’s efficiency, plus modify that captured carbon (C), into fuel for general usage using a timely industrial process…
Calling it a small chemical process is a scam.
Within that process, humans must invest more energy than they can obtain from the resulting product.

Ethanol, is a simpler reduction of plant derived sugars and starches into fuel (ethanol); yet costs as much if not more than extracting buried fossil fuels, then processing that fossil fuel into a multitude of products usable by humans.

Ethanol supplies significantly lower energy containing fuel than the fuels to which it replaces, while reducing that fuel’s storage capability. Ethanol quickly absorbs moisture from the atmosphere; and will absorb water until it separates from the fossil fuel.

“Sunny September 12, 2019 at 2:18 am

Carbon engineering Ltd, can take CO2 from the air and after a small chemical process, give us ultra low carbon fuel

Utterly false as stated.
Carbon content and that carbon’s content ability to release significant exothermic energy when combusting with oxygen are two critical factors to provide man with energy from fuel. Stating that the fuel is “ultra low carbon” is akin to stating the fuel supplies ultra low energy.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  ATheoK
September 12, 2019 4:11 am


Not 100% false. A fuel with a high H to C ratio is high energy and lower carbon. H doesn’t have to be connected to C it can be other things. It is just convenient because carbon has a lovely half-filled outer shell.

Ethanol is a lousy fuel compared with multiple alternatives. It is easy to make and having political backing with subsidies is attractive to the private sector. Same as solar panels.

What about butanol? You like that?

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
September 12, 2019 6:34 am

Which butanol isomer? They all smell bad to me, t-butyl especially.

Dodgy Geezer
September 12, 2019 3:33 am

“…..Ban all commercial air travel (ruling and privileged classes presumably excepted). Change our dietary guidelines or ban beef outright. “Massively” increase taxes. “Make polluters pay” for emitting greenhouse gases. Eliminate onshore drilling, offshore drilling, fracking, coal-fired power plants, internal combustion engines. No new pipelines. In short, ban the fossil fuels that provide 80% of America’s energy! No new nuclear power plants either. And then somehow, amid all that insanity, ensure “climate justice.”…….”

Let me improve that paragraph for you:

Ban all commercial air travel (except for the ruling and privileged classes).
Change our dietary guidelines or ban beef outright (except for the ruling and privileged classes).
“Massively” increase taxes (except for the ruling and privileged classes).
“Make polluters pay” for emitting greenhouse gases (except for the ruling and privileged classes).
Eliminate onshore drilling, offshore drilling, fracking, coal-fired power plants, internal combustion engines (except for the ruling and privileged classes).
No new pipelines (except for the ruling and privileged classes).
Ban the fossil fuels that provide 80% of America’s energy (except for the ruling and privileged classes).
No new nuclear power plants (except for the ruling and privileged classes).


Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
September 12, 2019 6:38 am

Governments could take immediate action and begin curtailing their own air travel. At the very least, government employees should not be allowed to earn frequent flier miles on government business.

Mark Broderick
September 12, 2019 4:07 am

Notice the America hating left never mentions China or India ! Hmmmmmm…..

Joe Ebeni
September 12, 2019 4:16 am

In Spotsylvania County Virginia, contractors are working on a nameplate 500MW solar array with 1.8Million panels covering 3500 acres within a 6400 acre property….clear-cut and with huge environmental damage. We are overcast well over 40% of the time. With nighttime, overcast etc. Would anyone care to estimate for me the actual projected output of the array?
I tried to tell climate zealots that a gas powered 500MW plant could be built on less than 300 acres with far less environmental damage with more reliability and less cost.
BUT…..the humanity of it….save the children…..Dirty CO2

Mark Broderick
September 12, 2019 4:27 am

Speaking of buckets of water….

“First water detected on potentially ‘habitable’ planet”


“K2-18b, which is eight times the mass of Earth, is now the only planet orbiting a star outside the Solar System, or ‘exoplanet’, known to have both water and temperatures that could support life.”


Reply to  Mark Broderick
September 12, 2019 9:32 am

Interesting for sure, but the gravity on that planet would be rather crushing….

John W Braue
Reply to  beng135
September 12, 2019 5:37 pm

Wikipedia gives the radius at 2.71 times that of Earth (although Cloutier et al. (2018), which it lists as the source, seems not to include this figure). If so, the surface gravity would be 11.53 m/s^2; hardly crushing.

September 12, 2019 4:28 am

Talking of ice – why is the WUWT sea ice page frozen at the beginning of August – more than a month ago?
Is it unkind to show the alarmists that the longed for catastrophic new minimum is not happening?
That the ice melt has levelled off sharply?
I’m sure there’s a story behind this data freeze.



Reply to  Phil Salmon
September 12, 2019 9:04 am

I was wondering about that too — may be that the link used on this page is obsolete?
Thanks for the link.

Reply to  beng135
September 12, 2019 1:07 pm

Here’s another one:


Arctic ice has reached minimum and turned.

There was a time when that would have been important news.

Reply to  Phil Salmon
September 13, 2019 7:46 am

There also this interesting page on up-to-date Arctic temps:

Richard M
Reply to  Phil Salmon
September 13, 2019 5:14 pm

Not just the sea ice page. Same problem with the ENSO page.

September 12, 2019 4:43 am

“Assuming an inadequate 15 acres apiece, those monster turbines would require some 225 million acres! That’s well over twice the land area of California…”

Seems like a good use of at least one California. Better than what we’ve got.

September 12, 2019 5:12 am

Corn? Corn????? CORN????????

Corn is a nitrogen-hungry grass that requires not just plenty of rain to grow, but plenty of CO2 to produce the sugar (fructose) that turns into ethanol!!! If you plant corn and ONLY corn on farmland, without rotating crops like soybeans (nitrogen=FIXER) or adding fertilizers to it, you will have lower and lower production levels in a matter of a ONLY few years. And that will not merely damage the soil, it will require years of leaving the soil fallow to recover as well as dropping the production level of corn to nearly nothing.

So much for that little daydream.

The blatant ignorance of these people should scare the voters into running to the other side. Unfortunately, it may not be that easy. How about a year without bucketloads of edible plants in the supermarket bins?

All that stuff that these morons – including the clown news networks – take for granted can disappear in a heartbeat if the farmers in this country could go on strike for just one season. And by disappear, I mean no imports like tomatoes from Mexico Lindo or watermelons from Guatemala, either.

LET THEM EAT CAKE!!!! (or cardboard. 🙂 )

Bruce Cobb
September 12, 2019 5:16 am

It’s going to be a clash between Sleepy Goofy Gaff Joe, and Loony Tunes Screech Owl Dizzy Lizzie. Sleepy, the frontrunner will eventually get the nomination because more than anything the Dems want to win, and they know that he’s their best shot. Trump must be rubbing his hands with glee at this point. He can’t lose. Dizzy’s energy policy is in the full retard category. She’s cuckoo for cocoa puffs on climate. Sleepy’s is only half retarded. After a bruising battle with Dizzy, Sleepy will be an easy target for Trump, and an easy win in 2020.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
September 12, 2019 7:34 am

I wouldn’t bet on Biden getting the nomination. He’s looking very shaky to me. Tonight’s Democrat presidential debate will be another test of Joe’s mental state. Joe doesn’t seem to be firing on all eight cyclinders.

Which leaves Socialist Bernie and Lyin’ Warren.

The Democrats have nothing. Nothing but the Leftwing Media running interference for them. That’s the only thing keeping them in this game.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Tom Abbott
September 12, 2019 9:46 am

Imagine Biden is the nominee, and it is a week before the election (or whatever), and Biden and Trump are onstage, live, in front of the whole world with cameras rolling, and he launches into one of his lapses, that have been called gaffes but are really a combination of outright lies, inability to keep track of the words coming out of his mouth, lack of awareness of his physical location in space, or any of several embarrassing character defects like his creepy touching and smelling, or his sickening propensity say things only a tone deaf bigot could ever say?
Just imagine the horror of hundreds of millions of people upon realizing that a man who is slipping well beyond the initial stages of dementia is about to have a chance to be elected President of the United States?
This man has been running and failing in national elections for over three decades, and at this point is already older that Reagan was when he LEFT office!
He is unable to even hold his own against the inane clown car posse of Democratic contenders while they are all in kid glove mode. It begins to get dirty once the primaries are on the horizon.
And if somehow he is the nominee, what will happen when the whole world watches over and over again in TV and internet ads his creepy pedophilia videos, or the ones of him grasping and groping married woman while their husbands are feet away, and the cameras are rolling?
It is incredible this man is being considered at this point.
He has less chance of being elected than any presumptive nominee I can recall.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
September 12, 2019 3:50 pm

Biden is ahead in the polls, Warren is 2nd behind him. The rest of them are trailing. Let’s hope it stays that way up to the real campaign trail time, and then – well, Trump can make anyone look ridiculous, but if Biden does get the nod, I think even Bernie may look better to some people who will vote for him. That dilutes the vote considerably.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Tom Abbott
September 13, 2019 3:31 am

I did not watch the debate but I did just read a few rundowns.
Biden did not pee his pants, however:
-His teeth almost fell out while he was answering one question
-He declared that he was vice president, and not in the past tense
-He mush-mouthed numerous things he was trying to say, and was not even trying to correct himself
-Even more instances of complete incoherence and mind wandering tangents. Aske about reparations for slavery, he spoke about marrying a teacher, playing the radio, record players, Venezuela and Maduro…everything but reparations…and did so with no attempt to make any connections as he lurched from one non sequitur to the next.

Seriously, the few minutes of clips and quotes I saw were incredibly embarrassing.
I think him and his people need to take him out of this process and announce his retirement from politics…while it is possible to do so with a modicum of grace and a shred of dignity intact.

September 12, 2019 5:29 am

A Democrat will be our next president come January 20, 2021 … it will be Joe Biden, and he is the opposite of a climate alarmist radical. He is all about compromise and working with the opposition to get stuff done, unlike Trump, and unlike most of the other Democratic candidates for president.

There will be no massive restructuring of society, no $16 trillion emergency response programs. Nearly everybody today is quite happy with the changing climate that has always changed and nearly everybody on the planet understands that concept quite clearly, despite the climate alarmists hysteria to the contrary.

Everybody needs to just calm the heck down. America has had more than enough of radicalism, both right and left.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Duane
September 12, 2019 5:49 am

Yeah, no, in your dreams. Trump will mop the floor with Biden, wring him out, and hang him out to dry. Even a half retarded energy policy is bad for America. He is essentially an Obama clone clown. Trump will win even bigger in 2020 than he did in 2016.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
September 12, 2019 8:22 am

You are fantasizing. Trump never won a majority of voters, he only got in by the skin of Putin’s teeth by winning in four swing states by razor thin margins. In each of those states Trump is polling at least double digits behind Biden. And Trump just keeps getting worse and worse – he is actually quite obviously mentally defective, as well as morally defective, as is apparent to everyone on the planet but his diehard sycophantic supporters like you.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Duane
September 12, 2019 9:25 am

Those four states have not been swing states for decades.
They were part of what was called the Blue Wall.
Trump won all the swing states, in case your brain tumor has caused you to be unaware of recent events.
He trounced Hillary after ending the political careers of over a dozen Republican heavyweights, including putting a sharp point on the end of any chance of a resurgent Bush dynasty, after which he put the permanent kibosh on the Clinton dynasty, did it all on a shoestring budget and despite having never ran for any office whatsoever, did it all with 100% of the news media, including Fox news, dead set against him, and did it even with a huge number of Republicans opposing him to the bitter end.
Oh and BTW he showed the whole world what utter liars and fakes the RINO never-Trumpers have always been, and in the process sent several supposedly conservative but really just crony capitalist flunky journalists straight onto the road to obscurity and irrelevance.
Thanks to Trump, we shall never have to suffer through the smarmy lies and doubletalk of people like Bill Kristol or George Will again.
Sent RINOs like Jeff Flake and Paul Ryan, to name only two, back to whatever rock they crawled out from under.
Biden does not even know where he is or what he is saying.
He is barely lucid.
Warren is the likely nominee, because there is zero chance Biden will not eventually have a lapse so embarrassing, sad, and sickening, it will make peeing his pants while on stage seem like a minor flub.
The only question is…how humongous the landslide, how many new R senators, and how big the retake of the House?

Don Perry
Reply to  Duane
September 12, 2019 2:32 pm

Wow! A virulent case of TDS! Better look in the mirror to witness a real mental defect.

Reply to  Duane
September 12, 2019 6:15 am

Just expect higher taxes and a recession. Remember the D’s were telling us about the new normal economy during O’s administration.
And, of course, they will blame Trump for the recession.
And, that notorious bad luck that seems to follow all socialist economies everywhere they have been tried.

Reply to  joel
September 12, 2019 8:26 am

The coming recession is 100% on Trump and his stupid trade wars with the rest of the world. The Fed is telling him that, all the economists on the planet are telling him that, the business leaders in the US are telling him that, and the farmers who are getting screwed, and the manufacturing workers who are getting screwed, and even the coal miners are getting screwed royally by Trump’s trade wars and are telling him that.

GDP growth, stock market growth, and jobs growth were all far better under Obama than under Trump. Look at the numbers – unlike Trump, the numbers don’t lie.

But being mentally defective, he refuses to listen. He is a destroyer of economies, who inherited the best economy anybody inherited since the 1960s, and he is destroying it.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Duane
September 12, 2019 8:45 am

I knew it was only a matter of time before you went full retard, Duane.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Duane
September 12, 2019 10:27 am

Duane, I suggest you seek help for your obvious case of TDS. Quick, before Trump wins again, and by an even greater margin this time. None of your demotarded clown candidates have a chance of winning in 2020. Zero, zip, nada.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Duane
September 13, 2019 4:30 am

Duane, you need some education on economics and business. Remember Japan in the late 1970s and early 1980s? (Of course you don’t, you weren’t even born yet and had no basement to live in.) Japan was mopping up the world economy by devaluing their currency, placing all kinds of non-tariff barriers and dumping products on the rest of the world. Change “Japan” to “China” and you have the current world economic situation. Where is Japan now? They’ve been in a perpetual funk since the mid-1980s, selling back all their prized real estate acquisitions. Korea, China and Vietnam soon replaced them as the economic powerhouses. And why is this? Because the Japanese worked very hard to make products to send to the US and Europe in return for a fraction of what it cost them to produce. Eventually, it took it’s toll and the Japanese economy couldn’t handle it any more. It’s called the Purchasing Power Parity Theorem. Eventually you pay the piper.

Trump’s trade wars are just pushing the Chinese into the downward spiral a little quicker. Now they have to either lower their price more to make up for the cost to consumers or they lose market share. All that crap you hear from those leftist economists is just typical lying and BS from a leftist. Since a conservative changed the policy it can’t possibly work. China is hurting big time and will have to give in soon.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Duane
September 13, 2019 4:39 am

“The coming recession is 100% on Trump and his stupid trade wars with the rest of the world.”

What coming recession? Are you talking about the German economy, or the Chinese economy? You are certainly not describing the U.S. economy, which is booming. While the rest of the world verges on recession, the U.S. economy is booming because of Trump’s tax cuts and regulation rollbacks and his focus on developing U.S. fossil fuel sources.

Trump didn’t start the Trade Wars. Trump has just decided to fight back against those nations which are perpetrating a trade war on the United States. China has been unfairly taking $500 billion per year out of the U.S. economy, and Trump is going to put a stop to it.

The trade war is hurting China, it is not hurting the U.S. China is lowering prices on its goods to remain competitive and is devaluing its currency. Meanwhile, Trump is collecting tens of billions of dollars from China, some of which he is using to support American farmers who have been targeted by the Chinese. As Trump said: “Before, China didn’t give us ten cents. Now they are giving us tens of billions of dollars.”

Anyone who complains about this trade war is advocating for allowing other nations to continue to screw the United States on trade. Trump’s goal is free, FAIR trade. We don’t have that now. We will have that in the future as long as Trump is running things, and the U.S. will be better off economically for it.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
September 13, 2019 6:30 am

@Tom Abbott,

Finally, I see someone gets it as well. China is in a trade and material resource war with the entire planet.

Here’s the other global trader, “free trader” lie. The reason, more like an excuse, the businesses want have factories with China is so they can have access to those 1.4 billion and sell their stuff.

China will never let anybody have that kind of open, large and unfettered access to their “citizens”.

Frankly, if China had a more open and more balance trade with the USA or anyone else they would have more leverage in this equation. They made their own bed. They build their own fire.

The Chinese government is not friendly to anybody; nor do they want to be friendly.

Reply to  Duane
September 12, 2019 6:16 am

So, Duane, you are saying not to worry. All those D’s are lying?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Duane
September 12, 2019 7:41 am

“America has had more than enough of radicalism, both right and left.”

Could you point out some of the radicalism the right is guity of?

I don’t seem to see much rightwing radicalism, unless you are referring to tax cuts and rolling back regulations as radicalism. Please explain what you mean because I think this claim of rightwing radicalism is blown way out of proportion as a means to make the Right seem as radical as the Left.

The Right is nowhere near as radical as the Left. Not even close. The radical right is a fringe element that no mainstream conservative would claim, whereas the radical left has taken over the Democrat party and are fomenting violence and division at every turn.

Show me the rightwing radicalism you are talking about.

J Mac
Reply to  Tom Abbott
September 12, 2019 10:14 am

Tom: “Show me the rightwing radicalism you are talking about.”
Duane: (crickets…)

Tom Abbott
Reply to  J Mac
September 13, 2019 4:45 am

“Crickets” happens every time I ask that question, J Mac.

The lefties want everyone to believe that the Right is just as radical as the Left, but when you ask for examples, all you get is “crickets”.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
September 12, 2019 3:11 pm

A right-wing radical is defined by the left as anyone believing in the Constitution (like the Electoral College, First and Second Amendments, and an independent judiciary whose role is to render judgments based solely upon existing US laws, not popular political memes, or ‘international consensus’).

The Founding Fathers were old, white, radical right-wing men, who must be erased from US history. (I’m afraid that’s too close to the truth of liberal-progressive thought to call it sarcasm).

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  jtom
September 13, 2019 4:04 am

Every person on the left sees themselves as square in the middle.
At least all of them I have spoken to about it.
And because they do, from their point of view, Republicans and conservatives in general have moved ever further to the right over time.
Pretty ridiculous, when you consider that someone like JFK would not have to run as a conservative Republican.
Positions like being in favor of border security, building a barrier on the southern border, deporting illegal aliens, opposing same sex marriage, tax cuts for the middle class, defense of civil liberties, declining to openly support third trimester abortions, cancelling the 2nd Amendment, or confiscation of guns from law abiding citizens…as recently ten years ago virtually all Democrats running for office took these positions, at least in public.
No more.
Now many of them speak openly about being outright socialists, and anyone who even wants to have a border, refuse full citizenship and benefits for anyone who cares to wander into the country, wants to not raise taxes or to keep the 2nd Amendment, is deriding as a fascist alt-right skin head white supremacist Nazi lunatic.
Obama, or at least the things he dishonestly ran on, would now be considered a right wing radical.
Tonight Chris Matthews…CHRIS MATTHEWS!…went on air and called at least four of the candidate’s positions “extreme”, and wondered “I do not know how you get away with that.”
He was referring to, among others, positions taken forcefully by Bernie, Warren, Beto, and Harris.
These four are “extreme”, “hard left” “ideological” even to Chris “Mr. Tingles” Matthews.

Meanwhile Biden is unable to speak coherently, recall what year it is, or keep his appliances and appurtenances in place.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
September 13, 2019 8:18 am

“…someone like JFK WOULD have to run as a conservative Republican.”

Reply to  Duane
September 12, 2019 2:59 pm

Let’s see: you are counting on the youth and minorities turning out and voting for an old white man who helped create the system they are railing against.

OTOH, Trump will be campaining with slogans like, “If you like your job, you can keep your job. Vote Trump.”

The smart money will be on Trump.

AGW is not Science
September 12, 2019 5:34 am

“The second, even colder bucket of reality: Wind and sunshine may be free, renewable, sustainable and eco-friendly. But the technologies, lands and raw materials required to harness this widely dispersed, intermittent, weather-dependent energy to benefit humanity absolutely are not. In fact, they cause far more environmental damage than any of the fossil fuel energy sources they would supposedly replace.”

Excellent summation, but I’d like to add another ignored elephant in the room – not once have they ever considered the potential impact on the Earth’s climate of “harnessing” the wind or the Sun – for all they know the “climate effects” of doing so, as they ramp up ever more stupid “renewable” energy “collectors,” might be far worse than the IMAGINED effects all the CO2 emissions in the world!

We can review the Earth’s climate history and easily confirm that atmospheric CO2 has essentially NO effect on temperature/climate. But the effect of extracting energy from the wind and the Sun at industrial scale is completely unknown. Yet they want to charge forward with this stupidity (which is entirely incapable of meeting our energy needs in any event) without the slightest bit of caution.

Tom Abbott
September 12, 2019 6:07 am

From the article: “Then they got down to the business of telling us which personal choices and living standards they intend to roll back the furthest.”

And this is where the crazy Democrats are going to go off the rails. The American people are not going to accept a roll back of personal choices and living standards. It’s just not going to happen. Anyone who suggests such a thing will be political toast.

Tom Abbott
September 12, 2019 6:12 am

From the article: “The second, even colder bucket of reality: Wind and sunshine may be free, renewable, sustainable and eco-friendly.”

Wind and solar are *not* eco-friendly or free.

September 12, 2019 6:37 am

From what I heard and read about this ground breaking broadcast was that it was truly monumental!

However these courageous ten Democrat presidential contenders did not go far enough! They should have highlighted more about the ‘living wage’, employment changes and how, in partnership with the unions, everybody will have a equal share of the nation’s wealth. Explain that by careful Federal investments/divestment campaigns, paid for by correctly taxing the very wealthy banks, companies and individuals, the riches of the America can be equally shared and enjoyed.
They should have spoken more about how America could be returned back the natural Eden it once was by carefully restricting large areas from free access of the polluting population by the implementation of proper property laws.
And their most important attribute that should have been highlighted is how America would work with the UN to fully implement all aspects of ‘UN Agenda 2030’, thus helping to save the planet from overpopulation, the climate crisis, by reducing the (overly-liberal) freedoms of today by all legal means possible, both in the USA and abroad.

So all I can say is these ten Democrat presidential contenders, these soldiers for the cause, need to up their game and fully stand with the UN and it’s aspirations.

[do I really need a /sarc tag?]

John Dilks
Reply to  tom0mason
September 12, 2019 7:42 pm

I wish you had started with a /sarc tag.
It would have saved me a few points on my blood pressure.

Jeff Alberts
September 12, 2019 6:44 am

“CNN recently hosted a seven-hour climate bore-athon.”

Was there any actual discussion about the climate?

Walt D.
September 12, 2019 7:04 am

Explains a (mathematical) difficulty with Climate Modeling even with a simplified model.

September 12, 2019 7:23 am

Well frankly this is a basket of nonsense, isn’t it?

This seems to assume that all the power is only generated from solar, or only generated from wind, when of course at different times and different locations it will be one or the other or a mix of both…

I cannot understand the obsession with the space taken up: an awful lot of solar can go on roofs or parking lots: the rest on poor quality land which you can also graze etc… this doesn’t even consider how much wind power can be offshore (quite out of sight, some of it)

If you site wind power properly, it won’t kill birds or bats and there is absolutely no human health impact from it. None, absolutely none.

The USA may be larger in terms of energy demand than some of the countries which have so far installed large amounts of solar and wind – but! the effects and land use are in proportion for somewhere like the UK or Germany or India or China, which have had no problem finding the resource for putting in renewables, be it land or power lines, without in any way overwhelming the environment.

Reply to  griff
September 12, 2019 9:10 am

The griffinator sez:
Well frankly this is a basket of nonsense, isn’t it?

Glad you agree w/thoughtful people here about the New Greed Disaster.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  griff
September 12, 2019 9:30 am

“If you site wind power properly, it won’t kill birds or bats and there is absolutely no human health impact from it. None, absolutely none.”
I rarely bother to speak to you, Griff.
But this is a basket of pure lies.
You should stop lying in public.

Reply to  griff
September 12, 2019 11:35 am


Please read the shook ‘hot air’ by prof mackay former chief scientist at DECC

He demonstrates that your belief in renewables is misplaced, there is not enough land or materials to power a modern day society and to do so on an intermittent basis is self defeating.

Like houses, solar and wind need to be put on optimal land which in the uk are often in wild upland areas which of course no longer remain wild and add to that the massive pylons needed to get power to where it is needed

Bryan A
Reply to  griff
September 12, 2019 8:05 pm

The greatest problem with both solar and wind, even combined, is their inherent propensity to induce instability in the electric grid without a back-up system in place that is capable of covering 100% of demand 100% of the time at a moment’s notice. For the modern electric grid to function properly the electric frequency of A.C. (in the U.S. 60 hertz (Hz) and in the U.K. 50 Hz) must be maintained. To do so the generation source MUST spin at a constant rate of speed, something wind alone can’t guarantee and wind+solar can’t guarantee at least 12 hours in every 24 hour period. As well as wind+solar+battery combo having an equal inability to maintain frequency for extended periods without grid backup (unless you are only powering a small load off grid

September 12, 2019 7:28 am

“…would require something on the order of 4 billion tons of steel, copper and alloys for the towers and turbines; 8 billion tons of steel and concrete for the foundations; 4 million tons of rare earth metals for motors, magnets and other components; ..”
How much more of such raw materials would be required to replace the fleets of gasoline and diesel powered vehicles with EVs?

September 12, 2019 7:45 am

William Haas
In England “sea cole” was used in households more that 300 years ago.
Decades ago, a ran across a delightful article about using coal in the fireplace in the bedroom. Obviously for the well-to-do.
The precursor to the newspaper was the “broadsheet”.
And one published in Newcastle (where the coal came from) in 1625 had a self serving article about using coal in the bedroom.
Because, with the warmth and light “It hath heightened the joys of intimacy.”

Rod Everson
September 12, 2019 8:00 am

From the article: “Citizens, newscasters, debate hosts and legislators who are more firmly grounded in reality need to confront Green New Dealers with hard questions and icy cold facts – and keep repeating them until candidates provide real answers.”

The real reason it’s impossible to get climate alarmists, the famous ones who’ve led the effort now, not the hangers on like the current crop of Democrat candidates, is that every single one of them is on record making outrageous forecasts that never materialized. They would stand no chance in a debate because all their opponents need do is quote their opponents’ old predictions and then state reality as it stands today, followed with the debate-winning “Why should we believe your dire forecasts today when you were not only wrong before, but you were so wrong that the opposite happened instead?”

Cite an example previously provided by the alarmist opponent present (and every prominent alarmist has provided one, I suspect), stand back, and listen to the sputtering reply. There would be no recovery possible which is why you can never get them into a forum where they have to face a knowledgable opponent. As for CNN, in the best interests of their viewers they could have demonstrated some skepticism, but chose instead to continue to mislead them.

Three examples come to mind for starters,leaving aside all the “It will be too late by the year _____” nonsense:

–Hurricane intensity and frequency will increase (followed by a decade when no Cat 3 hit the U.S.)
–The Great Lakes will gradually recede (followed by their filling to record levels today.)
–The Arctic will be ice free by some date that has already passed (followed by obvious ice still present.)
–Your favorite example?

Toss in a few side comments about dying bats and raptors, rising consumer electricity prices everywhere renewables have been mandated, and the cost to taxpayers of all the subsidies thus far, and let the audience decide who won the debate.

Reply to  Rod Everson
September 12, 2019 9:20 am

Several months ago, CNN aired a Town Hall meeting with former Vice president Gore. Someone made a serious mistake and let the Mayor of Tangier Island speak. He told the VP that his life-time home, Tangier Island, a “poster-child” for sea level rise, wasn’t suffering from sea level rise at all, based on personal observation over several decades.
The former VP blustered that “scientists tell us”, but never addressed the Mayor’s first hand observed data.
I’d love to see more of this, but I’m guessing that CNN is redoubling its efforts to screen who speaks in Town Hall meetings.

Rod Everson
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
September 12, 2019 9:53 am

Jim, that’s an example, but it needs to be more targeted to be effective. Now, if Gore had specifically said thatTangier Island would be submerged by some specific date, preferably a date that has already passed, then he could be quoted by the Mayor, followed by his personal observation rendering Gore’s forecast ridiculous. Under those circumstances, there would be no possible recovery other than denying he ever said it. Blustering that “scientists tell us” would be a waste of time. He’d be pinned. And by “pinned” I mean that everything else he says would be discounted severely, even by a largely sympathetic audience.

Again, I believe this is exactly why prominent alarmists refuse to debate publicly. They know they are extremely vulnerable to this tactic.

Nicholas McGinley
September 12, 2019 8:31 am

Great write up.
But, you forgot to mention at the end, that even after using all those materials and building out all those turbines…they will all have to be replaced in only TEN or TWENTY years!
Many will be failing right from the get go.
And no one can live near one!

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
September 12, 2019 12:31 pm

And no one can live near one!

An easily refuted statement, because many people do.
link to photo

It does not help the skeptical view to make false statements.
As mother said: Tell the truth and you do not have to remember your fibs.

Reply to  John F. Hultquist
September 12, 2019 4:42 pm

Please provide the google earth satellite view of this wind farm location. The picture provided could easily show the houses quite some distance in the foreground with the bird choppers in the forest, possible over a mile away. Perspective with towers so tall can be very deceptive and I can see tall trees behind the houses and in front of the turbine towers and the tallest nearest tower clearly shows the other 3 are farther away.

Famously to Americans who know soldiers who served in Iraq, the camel spider, which they all seemed to have pictures like the following to show how HUGE the spiders were.


comment image&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.camel-spiders.net%2F&docid=3Q9xM6m5LpIqFM&tbnid=clTCMCRvRv_T9M%3A&vet=10ahUKEwi6qOXmt8zkAhUEup4KHcMTBqwQMwhoKAQwBA..i&w=395&h=296&bih=947&biw=1678&q=camel%20spider%20in%20iraq&ved=0ahUKEwi6qOXmt8zkAhUEup4KHcMTBqwQMwhoKAQwBA&iact=mrc&uact=8

And if you know many fishermen, they tend to take a picture of their big fist held away from their body toward the cameras to use perspective to make the fish appear bigger than it is. Is that what the photographer intended with the picture you posted?

This is basically a web site frequented by skeptical people and I am skeptical of your picture and your purpose.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
September 13, 2019 4:55 am

Various regulations in various places set down standards for minimum distance from a turbine to a home or inhabited area.
Many governments stipulate a separation of at least 2 kilometers between a wind farm and any town village or city.
Quebec bans them within 2km of homes and within 1 km of a road.
Some proposed regulations have stipulated a distance of no less that ten times the height of the turbine. With many turbines in excess of 400′ tall, and some onshore turbines at least 574′ tall, and at least one type of turbine over 800′ tall.
One locale in Iowa just enacted a moratorium with a 1.5 mile minimum setback.
Ohio has a minimum setback of 1250′, and that is not to a house but to a property line.

Anyone who would live within throwing distance of a runaway turbine is insane. Anyone who builds one near someone else should be liable for any damages if and when it is proven how harmful turbines are to human health, tranquility, and happiness, to property values, and any other unforeseen harms that may result.

Wind Turbine Syndrome(WTS) has been documented going back at least as far as the early 1970’s, and has been found to occur as far as 10-12 km from the location of a turbine. At least one study found 70% of respondents have WTS at a distance of 5 km.

-Bavaria enacted the 10x height setback minimum, and additional nighttime noise reg of 35 db
-Setback proposal of 2 km makes 65% of Poland off limits for turbines
-Denmark Min. 4x turbine height, no exceptions. Also strict regulations on sound often override these. Extra penalties and setbacks for audible noise.
-South Dakota has an least one region with a 1 mile minimum, to any home or property line.

-New Hampshire: Within 1 mile, max 8 hrs/year of shadow flicker, sound of < 40-45db depending on time of day, setbacks case by case but must consider ice throw, tower collapse, blade shear, etc

Maine: Noise limits, with 24/7 limits on noise of 55 db for distances of over 500', and much stricter within 500'

I expect many lawsuits in the years to come from any locale which has failed to protect the rights of people who have had these useless and harmful monstrosities built near them.

As for your picture: You call that living? To me a state of constant oppressive noise and danger is hardly living. How close are those homes.
I can tell you what else does not help skeptics views: People who claim to be skeptics but suffer from the slowly boiling frog syndrome.

I do not lie, on purpose, ever.
I also do not call people liars unless it is very clear they are doing so.

Let me ask you this: How close would you be willing to live to a 400+ foot tall wind turbine?
How close would you allow someone to build one to a neighbors home or property?
If you would not live under one, or opine that it ought to be legal to let someone build one near someone else's home, what does it mean when you say people can live near them and any other opinion is a lie?

September 12, 2019 9:29 am

pffft… banning air travel would instantly increase the surface temp by more than a degree F

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
September 12, 2019 1:10 pm

Manufacturing those wind turbines would require something on the order of 4 billion tons of steel, copper and alloys for the towers and turbines; 8 billion tons of steel and concrete for the foundations;

Not clear how the total of 12 billion tons break down into each material, but to put things in perspective:

In 2014 the entire world produced:
1,600 million tonnes (metric tons) of steel
~10,000 million tonnes of concrete
19.1 million tonnes of copper (2015 figures)

I haven’t looked up more recent figures, but I assume with the pickup in economic activity the amounts produced in 2018 would be somewhat larger.

So all those wind turbines would require at least 2 years of world steel production and a substantial portion of a year’s world concrete production. Probably a year or more of world copper production as well.

It’s not going to happen, but you can’t tell that to the faithful.

Mickey Reno
September 12, 2019 1:38 pm

Who cares about the little crap? What about the BIG stuff? Is Beto’s hair nice and neat, and are his teeth clean, and is his flat tire now fixed? Wait, a Democrat that drives a car? What gives? Oh well, just ignore your cognitive dissonance and nod like a good little cultist. That’s what really matters, I suppose, if we’re to guess at the meaning of Beto’s YouTube videos. Oh, and Bernie, the AOC flavor of socialist loved by Cenk Uyger and Anna Kasparian? Don’t we want their sensibilities governing us? Or, do we settle for a “centrist” like creepy Uncle Joe or opportunist extraordinaire, Kamala Harris? Oh, and how do we feel about school busing, now that we’re remembering the 1960s? The best source of Kamala news comes from a weekly podcast I listen to religiously, called Radio Free California, hosted by Will Swaim and David Bahnsen… https://www.nationalreview.com/podcasts/national-reviews-radio-free-california-podcast/ … one of the regular weekly podcasts at National Review.

September 13, 2019 4:12 am

I am waiting for one of them to say that every house and building needs to have both solar panels and small wind turbines to be self-powering. That way no new land is affected and energy demands are met.

It’s coming…

Doug Kauffman
September 16, 2019 1:00 pm


Way off base – Mod

Dave Magill
September 24, 2019 8:17 am

Aren’t the numbers of wind turbines and solar panels low by a factor of almost 3?

3.9B MWh is the electricity currently used in the USA. Electricity currently accounts for 38% of US energy. They are also planning on replacing the other 62%. For example ICE to EVs and home heating by gas/oil to electricity are “relatively” easy endpoint conversions requiring roughly another 3.9B MWh.

Also, since USA produces only 15% of global emissions, seems we (or someone in the world) also have to pay for the other 85% to be converted. Even if they would, the raw materials needed are off by a factor of almost 7.

%d bloggers like this: