Books on the ‘Climate Emergency’ – Suggested Christmas Reading for Sceptics

Guest Post by Tony Brown (tonyb)

Sceptics hoping to counter the mounting hysteria and calls for dramatic action to combat the ‘Climate Emergency,’ may want to ensure they are properly informed on the issues, in contrast to those that boldly claim that ‘climate change is rubbish’ or that highly qualified scientists are idiots who don’t know what they are doing.

This is a shortlist of recent books to read that will help you to better understand your climate anxious friends and relatives, others are potential book presents to try to calm their more extreme concerns.  I have read the books myself through the eyes of someone involved in writing articles on climate change for some 15 years, mostly from a historical perspective.

In recommending this selection it should be noted that I have provided details of physical books, not e-material (if available).  Books allow one to dip in and out according to time availability, are useful reference material for a book shelf, and if intended as a gift has more presence than e- material. My apologies in advance, but I use the word ‘hysteria’ a lot.

Those wanting to understand why their young relatives and friends have such concerns about the climate that many believe will severely affect their adult lives, will find this first selection a good place to start,  to help understand where  their concerns are coming from.

 “No one is Too Small to make a difference” Greta Thunberg. Softback.  Penguin Books;  ISBN 978-0-141-99174-0

Greta is the world’s most famous school truant to climate sceptics, but she provides the teenage rebelliousness-a climate strike every Friday- and the black and white certainties that young people appreciate.  

She is highly influential, not only to her peers, but also to schoolteachers and to world leaders. British sceptics were highly embarrassed when senior British govt. figures fawned over her during a visit and she is said to be responsible for influencing the European Union’s zero emissions plan. Through her histrionics at the UN she also reached a much wider audience. 

This book is as petulant and pouty as she comes over, and is an astonishingly slim book, which provides trite certainties such as ‘Our house is on fire,’ apocalyptic interpretations of climate events, and confident assertions such as ‘we need to focus every inch of our being on climate change ‘ and misrepresentation; ‘According to the IPCC report we are about eleven years away (from 2019) from being in a position where we set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control.” Easy to see why teenagers are scared about their future with such hysteria.

Her failure to recognise there are two sides to every balance sheet is a fundamental flaw; for example in bashing the UK for its ‘mind blowing historical carbon debt’ she fails to acknowledge that as a result of that nation launching the industrial revolution, ordinary people live longer, healthier, happier, richer and more fulfilled lives, with more freedoms human rights and respect for the rule of law than in the entire history of humanity.

Sit down with a very hot cup of coffee and the coffee will probably still be warm by the time you have finished reading this trivial but iconic booklet, that will provide an invaluable insight into what is driving many of the young, to whom slogans seem to be replacing facts and personal analysis. Its greatest merit is its brevity, which means it is more accessible than some of the very wordy and tedious tomes published about climate.

“The Uninhabitable Earth” by David Wallace-Wells . Softback. Penguin ISBN 978-0-141-98887-0

For those wanting to understand why adult friends and relatives are experiencing severe cases of climate hysteria, this is the book. It is depressingly and relentlessly downbeat, apocalyptic, strident and accusatory. Those who weren’t alarmed before about the climate would be after reading this gloomy tome, if they take the things written at face value.

It is well referenced and sceptics will be familiar with many of the scenario and the players involved. It will provide an invaluable insight into the minds of those who believe we should mobilise against climate change in the same way as with World War 2, and why extreme activists believe the draconian govt actions taken against Covid 19 should be equally applied to the climate change that they believe to be an even worse disaster, unfolding now.

The book is enthusiastically  endorsed by such as the Washington Post and the UK Sunday Times and a flavour of the hysteria surrounding it can be seen in two of the reviews; ‘If we don’t want our grandchildren to curse us we had better read this book’ Timothy Snyder.

‘This book may come to be regarded as the last truly great climate assessment ever made. Is there even time left to pen another? Clear, engaging and often dazzling.” The UK Daily Telegraph (normally a rather sober paper)

Full of nuggets of information –although some may query their accuracy-passionate, intellectual, philosophical and often densely written, it is not an easy book to read, as the authors style and tendency to mix subjects, means it does not always flow smoothly.  So if some of your friends and relatives are already beyond extreme anxiety, but appear to be well informed, they may already be a reader of this well regarded author. Consequently, reading it yourself may help to better understand their fears, and judge how unfounded you believe them to be. That the ‘Climate Emergency” is already overwhelming us and will only get much worse is the overall message.

The Afterword to the paperback edition states; ‘The final pages of the manuscript of this book was written in early September of 2018 in a spirit of halfway optimism, which at the time I halfway believed.”

If this is halfway optimism Iwould hate to hear the author’s definition of pessimism. This is a thoroughly depressing book, full of dire interpretations of events and with little regards to history. If your friends and relatives follow this influential author, or those of a similar nature loudly proclaiming a climate apocalypse, it should be no surprise if they demand that you repent your views, as urgent action is clearly needed to fix things, in their opinion. Your more rational attitude to the climate will no doubt enrage and baffles them and may have fractured relationships. This book is recommended only because it gives such a good insight into the philosophical mind-set of this type of author and those who read their words approvingly.

After all that gloom, it is a pleasure to turn to 2 books that won’t envelope you in misery and dismay at man’s wickedness and apparent desire to destroy the planet by next Wednesday.

‘Apocalypse Never’ by Michael Shellenberger  Hardback. Harper Publications  ISBN978-0-06-300

I am not aware of having read any of his material before and was drawn to it as, like Michael Moore, I had heard that he had belatedly realised that in order to keep our lights on and civilisation functioning, we needed to turn to nuclear power.

I found myself nodding at many pages of this large and well referenced book, although most sceptics won’t agree with the basic premise that man’s excessive CO2 is the root cause of our climate ‘problems’.  Many of the ‘facts’ and scenarios are already set out in Wells book, but Shellenberger refreshingly interprets them in an entirely different, more realistic and positive manner.

He recognises that pristine forest is cleared, not because locals enjoy burning trees, but that they need farmland to support their family. That using wood and dung for cooking by natives in parts of Africa is not to deliberately use the most inefficient and polluting fuel they can find, but because that is what is available. That villagers  killing wild life around the periphery of African wildlife parks, is not to find tasty and exotic food, but because the creatures are destroying their crops.

Coal he recognises as the boon it has been for centuries, and that the faster undeveloped nations can industrialise, the quicker they will move away from it, have smaller families and place less pressure on the environment. He is also highly ambivalent about the role of such organisations as Greenpeace.

A review by Kerry Emanuel sums it up; 

‘In this engaging and well researched treatise, Michael Shellenbergr exposes the environmentalist movements hypocrisy in painting climate change in apocalyptic terms, while steadfastly working against nuclear power, the one green energy source whose implementation could feasibly avoid the worst climate risks. ‘

This is an enjoyable and level headed book worth reading in its own right to understand the issues, arguments and the authors solutions, and one to give as a present to those who need to calm down and realise the situation is nowhere near as bad as they believe .

“False Alarm” by Bjorn Lomborg. Hardback  Hachette books ISBN 978 1-5416-4746-1

The books sub heading; “How Climate Change Panic costs us Trillions, hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet’ sums up the books themes, as Lomborg sets out to demonstrate these assertions with numerous references.

Lomborg remains a Luke warmer, but one who recognises the costs and difficulty of achieving what ardent environmentalists demand. A review by Jordan Peterson neatly sums up the book, its contents and its aims;

‘Bjorn Lomborg’s new book offers a data-driven human centred antidote to the oft apocalyptic discussion characterising the effect of human activity on the global climate. Careful, compelling and above all sensible and pragmatic .”

Lomborg sets out his stall early in the book:

‘Climate change is real, it is caused predominately by carbon emissions from humans burning fossil fuels and we should tackle it intelligently. But to do that we need to stop exaggerating, stop arguing that it is now or never, and stop thinking climate is the only thing that matters.’

Sceptics who believe man has little culpability in the matter can meet with climate anxious friends and relatives on this halfway ground more usefully than the ‘Now or never, close the world down immediately’ scenarios often evinced by media, radical scientists and the hard core activists attitudes summed up by Wells book.

Whilst devout sceptics might not agree with the basic message of either Shellenberger or Lomborg,  at least these authors views are not apocalyptic and provide useful material to reassure  the climate alarmed groups that the end of the world in not nigh. In that respect, encouraging the spread of these more moderate views will ensure that at least the world won’t be upended and civilisation reversed to save us from ourselves. Very readable.

The Denial “ by Ross Clark  Softback. Lume Books;  ISBN 978-1-83901-210-5

I have long believed that fictional satire has a useful place in highlighting such world events as the ‘Climate Emergency’ and its attendant alarmism, irrationality and disturbing solutions based on increasingly authoritarian demands.

As with Orwell’s ‘1984’ and ‘Animal Farm’ this unassuming book exposes these shrill traits in a chilling manner. Any long term sceptic will recognise the scenarios that unfold, as authorities and increasingly confident activists take ever more drastic action against climate realists. In this case, epitomised by a public spirited but naive retired meteorologist called Bryan Geavis. He at one time, worked in a junior capacity for an oil firm by advising on weather conditions as they affected the safety of employees working on oil rigs. Any mention of Oil has of course become a red rag to a raging out of control bull.

As a modest and un-forecasted storm overwhelms London due to the flood defences not being closed, the UK govt and people look for a scapegoat, and it is our unassuming central character who becomes the villain. The book pinpoints the hypocrisy of celebrity ‘climate influencers’ allowed to fly where they want to observe and report to their social media bubbles just how dire things are, through to the disturbing audited personal carbon rations, bans on meat, dairy and imported food and many goods-except for the elite. It becomes inevitable that this growing insanity will result in a climate court run by brainwashed children and overseen by a govt increasingly scared at what they have unleashed.

Even the most innocuous weather event is viewed as man’s fault and when the govt agrees to publicise the daily count of those ‘killed’ by the climate we should not be surprised when it includes  a flock of geese drowned on local marshes, ‘exhausted’ after battling climate change induced storms, and drowning in marshlands more flooded than ‘normal.’ In response, the govt on the back foot of outraged and hysterical public opinion at this ecocide, rename the “Department for the Climate Apocalypse” to the “Department for Climate Armageddon.” 

Inconvenient facts on past storms and weather events, and the use of previously authenticated historic temperatures are disregarded, and it is a criminal act to reference them or to deny the reality of climate change.

People killed by climate change in the official records now include a cyclist thrown off his bicycle by a pothole, allegedly caused by unusual levels of rain and frost; a woman allergic to bee stings who had been stung by one considered to be unusually active for the time of year.

Highly recommended. Why not give a copy to alarmist friends and relatives in the hope they will be able to see, through satire, the way we are heading, the absurdity of the claims made of our dire effect on the climate, the mounting hysteria, the irrational actions, the witch-hunts and the economic collapse that faces us as we try to eliminate the last vestige of CO2 emissions?

That renewables failed to step into the power gap caused by the wholesale closure of other forms of British energy generation should also come as a warning to those convinced renewables will be our saviour.

If they tell you that Bryan Geavis got what he deserved, then it is time to find new friends and relatives

Chilling, perceptive, often funny and entertaining, it is surely a shape of things to come if the climate madness continues.

Books on renewables. When compiling this review I was aware of the lack of a good book setting out the arguments in favour of, and the counter arguments to, the use of renewables and the desire to rapidly phase out fossil fuel as a means of generating power.

I like the idea of ‘free’ energy from the sun, wind, and water as a means to replace fossil fuels, but recognise their dependency on the vagaries of the weather gods and shortcomings over storage, reliability, costs, back up, availability of raw materials, environmental damage, extravagant use of space etc. However govts all over the world are promoting them as the means to fulfil the much desired ‘zero net emissions of CO2.’

Why? What calculations of the suitability of renewables as our 24/7 base power are the govt buying into, encouraged by environmental pressure groups? Do Governments know something about renewables that sceptics have missed, who mostly believe that renewables are inadequate as a means of base power to keep lights on 24/7 and in promoting them politicians will unwittingly dismantle civilisation whilst chasing Unicorns?

Nuclear seems to be low on the list of possible sources of ‘renewable’ energy -indeed is actively disliked by many environmental groups and governments-which has prompted recent interventions by such as Michael Shellenberger and Zion Lights,  former spokesperson for anti-nuclear power group  Extinction rebellion who resigned and is a  co-founder of ‘Nuclear for net zero.’

Does anyone know of such a book to review? Preferably one similar in size  to Greta’s slim handbook that will succinctly set out facts and figures and the plus and negative points,  without having to plough through pages of philosophical debate, personal opinion and irrelevant material etc?

Clearly more facts and figures are needed before either ‘side’ of the fossil fuel versus renewables debate can persuade the other of the merit of their energy policy.

Climate Publications-The means to an end?

Reading numerous climate related books over the last few weeks to produce this Christmas reading short list, reveals the highly philosophical and theoretical nature of many of the authors in the climate alarmist field and the political and socially aware ‘Climate Justice’ views they hold.

The books explained the mind-set of influential and often extreme climate activists who have captured the ears of govt, the cheque books and public posturing of many corporations, and the outpourings of the ‘liberal’ media. Their position readily explains why those who are unaware of climate history or can demonstrate an inability to put events into a broader context, believe the current situation to be unique, and consequently view ‘catastrophic’ climate change with such fear.

But all will apparently be well once we wholeheartedly embrace the renewable energy revolution.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 27, 2020 2:49 pm

Personally, this truck driver has spent his time trying to understand the basic science, learning about the history of the scientific method, land then trying to use that, with a dose of common sense, to make my own decisions of where I stand on climate issues. That is how I became a “denier”. That and of course my natural bent, learned by a more extensive study of history, to distrust the motives of governments and most institutions in general.

Reply to  rah
November 27, 2020 4:16 pm

Watt you said.
See what i did there.
Bringing in common sense totally F’s things up.

Reply to  rah
November 28, 2020 2:42 am

I got so far as reading three titles. I had to, I thought this idiot was being sarcastic when he started quoting Gretha. I bet he couldn’t tell us what casues the seasons. Not one CO2 junkie I’ve met could tell me, yet they all accused me of hating science.
This site is really interesting, then they publish drivel like this….

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  paranoid goy
November 28, 2020 9:05 am

I think you miss the point

He recommends those first titles as reading so that you and I will better understand why the climate insane are climate insane.

He’s not endorsing their views, he’s suggesting you need to read this to see what the crazy read in their bubble

Reply to  Pat from kerbob
November 28, 2020 11:55 am


Thanks for actually reading the article rather than skimming it and coming to the wrong conclusion.


November 27, 2020 3:01 pm

What governments know about renewable energy is that they can take from the general population and give to themselves and their friends. That’s really all you need to know about governmental support for these wasteful projects.

Reply to  Spetzer86
November 28, 2020 12:12 am

Build Back Better…for someone else 🤪

Reply to  Spetzer86
November 28, 2020 12:56 am

In Germany a large percentage of the renewable energy is owned by individuals and communities – NOT govt or large corporations…

“Community energy expresses the ownership of renewable energy by single owners (including individual agricultural enterprises, individuals and smaller corporations) as well as by renewable energy cooperatives. In 2012, Germany reached 72,907 MW installed capacity of renewable energies. 25,049 MW thereof are counted as community energy, which constitutes 34% of the total installed capacity of renewable energy.

Photovoltaic (PV) and wind energy have the largest shares of renewable energy production in Germany. Around 15,000 MW of installed capacity in PV sector is in community hands, which is nearly 50% of the total installed PV capacity. In addition to private individuals, the proportion of farmers in the construction of photovoltaic systems was growing in recent years.

In onshore wind energy, community energy constitutes 25% of the total installed onshore wind energy capacity (30,854 MW) in 2012.

Bioenergy is also contributing to community energy, especially biogas plants and biomass CHP plants. Out of 4,946 MW installed capacity in bioenergy sector in 2012, 41.9% are in community energy hands. Farmers are the most important ownership group of biogas plants.”

Iain Reid
Reply to  griff
November 28, 2020 1:22 am


little of any of this capacity would have been built if the German government had not provided money for these private individuals or companies.

Despite all this capacity Germany is building coal power stations and has one if not the most expensive electrical cost in Europe. It also is reliant on it’s neighbours through grid conections to keep the lights on.

Germany is like the U.K. where solar generation is useless in winter for an obvious reason. Why a rational government is following the renewables path with such fervour (As is the U.K.) is perplexing given the very well known technical deficiencies of renewable generation (ignoring the more obvious practical ones), or part time power as I prefer.

Reply to  Iain Reid
November 28, 2020 2:07 pm

The simple explanation is that the governments in question are not rational.

Reply to  griff
November 28, 2020 2:26 am

Lets see if Griff can do some basic high school Physics questions:

Wind contributes about 15% of UK demand annually
Criminal biomass burning about 8%
Solar about another 4%
Nuclear about 15%

The remainder comes from fossil fuels and hydro etc. So lets be generous and say about 45% of UK annual demand is already covered without fossil fuels.

Average annual energy supply in the UK is about 323,000 GWh.

Please answer the following simple questions:

1. How much do you have to multiply the current wind fleet size to plug the 55% shortfall and supply 70% of UK demand?
2. During the last two days wind barely contributed an average of 4% to UK power demand. Assuming wind supplies 70% of demand annually but this drops to 0% for a short period, how big a battery would you need to plug that shortfall for a period of (a) 2 days and (b) for 7 days? Give your answer in multiples of the Tesla South Australia battery which when installed was capable of supplying 129 MWh
3. How much will the battery specified in your answer to (2a) and (2b) cost if the Tesla battery in South Australia cost £50 million?

Let’s see how you get on Griff. Especially interested in your answers to (3a) and (3b).

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  ThinkingScientist
November 28, 2020 6:56 am

“Criminal biomass burning about 8%”

Bullshit- you have NO f******” clue about biomass. It’s renewable and dependable- and CHP facilities run 24/7. Also, if it’s woody biomass- it helps those managing forests get rid of low value wood that otherwise would degrade the forests. It has nothing to do with the truly criminal energy sources, large scale wind and solar. Michael Moore screwed up mentioning biomass in his video- the guy he showed in his video dissing biomass is a guy I know very well- who told me on the phone one day that he doesn’t have to tell the truth because he’s an activist.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
November 28, 2020 7:45 am

Biomass for Drax in the UK is cut in North America and shipped 3000 miles so Drax can claim subsidies from the UK government to the tune of £789.5 million in 2019. The subsidies are worth more than the power sold. Criminal in my book.

You can think what you like. And no need to swear, it doesn’t strengthen your argument at all.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
November 28, 2020 12:10 pm

“Criminal biomass burning”

Oh, Drax! I thought the Brits had gone back to burning witches.

Reply to  ThinkingScientist
November 28, 2020 7:46 am

Try bookmarking this site for great visual representation 24/7
All makes sense… why can’t the public understand your excellent point?
2 days ago at 1000hrs Fossil Fuel supplied 65% (including 5% Coal !!!) wind 0.9% and solar 2.3%. Boris Johnson recently said “You heard me right. Your kettle, your washing machine, your cooker, your heating, your plug-in electric vehicle – the whole lot of them will get their juice cleanly and without guilt from the breezes that blow around these islands”

Reply to  ThinkingScientist
November 30, 2020 9:39 am

As Griff can’t answer the Q’s I posted, here are the answers:

1. 55/15 = 3.67x current wind fleet on average
2 Daily average demand = 323000/365.25 = 884 * 0.7 (wind%) = 619 GWh per day shortfall.
Converting to Tesla batteries = 619/0.129 = 4800 Tesla batteries for 1 day (rounded)
so 2(a) = 9,600 Tesla batteries for 2 days
and 2(b) = 33,600 Tesla batteries for 7 days
3(a) £480 Billion
3(b) £1.68 Trillion (or approximately the entire outstanding UK national debt before Covid)

Reply to  griff
November 28, 2020 3:38 am

From Grid Watch UK.
Meanwhile, back in the UK …..

GB Electricity National Grid Demand and Output per Production Type.

Solar 2%
Wind 7%
Hydro 2%


In the Real World
Reply to  griff
November 28, 2020 6:17 am

Clever bit of irony there Griff .
In the UK the National Grid have declared this to be ” UK Wind Week ” .
And with cold weather , high demand on the grid , and a high pressure area over the country wind power has been producing 1% of demand for a couple of days . { Coal has been at 7 % ].

Keep it up , this has been one of your funniest posts for a while .

Reply to  griff
November 28, 2020 6:29 am

Griff, do you know why they won’t even acknowledge the fact that since the UN/IPCC was formed…to lower emissions…….China’s emissions have more than tripled?…and how much money China has been paid…to lower emissions

Reply to  griff
November 28, 2020 12:22 pm

German wind and solar vs Demand from 7/11/2020 – 12/11/2020

comment image

Its a TOTAL FARCE, even a total idiot like griff would have to realise that by now.

Mike McHenry
November 27, 2020 3:01 pm

If the truth of the inappropriate use of the PCR test is discovered by the general public trust in science is going to collapse. The “Climate Emergency” will be relegated to the trash.

November 27, 2020 3:18 pm

Once upon a time, I was a scientist – nothing to do with climate. I still can’t talk climate very well. But I know enough physics and engineering to know windmills and solar power won’t do the job. Too much concrete and metal and fiberglass, too many moving parts, exposed to the weather (and offshore the weather includes salt).

I suspect this whole fuss is beside the point. I’ve been watching from the Seventies. New Ice Age shifted to Global Warming, then when questions were asked about the absence of ice and summers just about the same as always, it became Climate Change. (Let’s see those skeptics refute that!)

Now we have insanity like California. It’s not working. They say it is. Whatever is happening, it is neither what they predicted, nor anything that’s going to be improved by brownouts and electric cars. Spinach is Green, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to eat it.

Reply to  Ellen
November 27, 2020 4:11 pm

Ellan, nice summary of the last 45 years. A book that solidified my convictions about climate denial is the book “The Deniers” by Lawrence Solomon. About 10 years ago my wife gave it to me. If you haven’t already read it, you might like it.

November 27, 2020 3:40 pm

I was part of the geography dept at UBC in Canada in 1991. During that time, the profs were part of the leadership of “global warming” initiatives being discussed in the world. We were on the cutting edge of policy making. My prof laid out the case for bankrupting the first world nations and sending the money to the third world – this was the purpose of carbon credits. He made no bones about this. He said this will be done. It would only take time to infiltrate the governments and agencies. I knew then that all this climate change garbage was a huge sham and hoax.

November 27, 2020 3:40 pm

Lomborg … ”‘Climate change is real, it is caused predominately by carbon emissions from humans burning fossil fuels and we should tackle it intelligently”

So we have now moved from hypothesis to fact have we? Scientific method be damned? Consensus overrides all that?

Anyone who comes out with such a statement should not be supported. It only encourages the zombies.

Reply to  Mike
November 28, 2020 2:47 am

Lomborg is certainly not stupid. Climate Change is real is a no brainer. “It is caused by …” is without evidence (in fact the only evidence I can find is against – would anybody like to site any evidence?). My guess would be that Lomborg realises this but makes these statements because otherwise the people who need to listen to him wouldn’t.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Mike
November 28, 2020 7:03 am

“Climate Change is real is a no brainer.”
A trivial increase in temperature isn’t really a change in the climate. If a desert becomes a rain forest or vice-versa, I’d say that’s true but that isn’t happening. Here in cold/damp New England, that trivial increase in temperature and slightly drier seasons (some but not all years) is fine by me and most people I know living here.

Maybe Lomborg meant- that those who think such trivial changes in the weather- are something to be worried about are people with little or no brains. Probably not- but that’s what he should have said.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Mike
November 28, 2020 7:02 am

“So we have now moved from hypothesis to fact have we?”

No, there is still no evidence establishing that Humans are causing the Earth’s climate to change by burning fossil fuels.

Anyone who claims Human-caused Climate Change has been established doen’t know what they are talking about, or they are deliberately lying. Even Lomborg. Lomborg doesn’t have any evidence, yet he talks like he does. He, himself, is buying into the “consensus”. Without evidence the “consensur” has it correct.

It’s pretty amazing to me to see otherwise intelligent people ignore the fact that there is no evidence for Human-caused Climate Change. I can see where your average person would not even be aware of these arguments, but I can’t see a person like Lomborg, who is intensely focused on this issue, make the unsubstantiated statements he makes about Human-caused Climate Change.

Apparently, a lot of otherwise intelligent people accept a lot of things on faith, and look no farther.

Lomborg apparently has never asked anyone to provide evidence for Human-caused Climate Change because if he had, he would find there is no evidence. Guesses and speculation are not evidence, Bjorn, and that’s all the alarmists have. All you have to do is ask them and you will see that all they have are guesses and speculation and a ton of unsubstantiated assertions based on those guesses and speculation.

Bjorn, you need to do more homework. Don’t make statements you can’t back up. You can’t back up the statement that Human-caused Climate Change is real.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Mike
November 28, 2020 9:14 am

I don’t think Lomborg actually believes that but I think it’s useful for him to say it to inoculate himself from charges of being a denier.
His well reasoned argument is that if the alarmists arguments are correct the measures they promote will reduce the future temp by a fraction of a degree by 2100, essentially throwing the climate Scientology argument back in their face that even if you fully buy in the solutions are useless.

Lomborg instead promotes adaptation (if needed), nuclear to clean the grid, then massive R&D spending to find and commercialize the next REAL “clean” energy source.

Instead of wasting trillions on already known failures like wind and solar

Joseph Bastardi
November 27, 2020 3:44 pm
Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Joseph Bastardi
November 27, 2020 8:46 pm

With all respect, Joe. I have to agree with one of the commenters on the Washington Times piece. the cover for the book doesn’t look at all serious, so why should people take the contents seriously?

November 27, 2020 3:47 pm

I hope you were given the books for review. There would be nothing worse than rewarding the majority of the authors for their unscientific bunkum than actually buying a book. Their publishers deserve to go broke for perpetuating drivel.

Nick Graves
Reply to  RickWill
November 28, 2020 10:15 am


I objected to giving Schellenburger and Schwab money for their books, but no was necessary in order to inform myself of the enemy’s position.

Reply to  Nick Graves
December 2, 2020 4:43 am

With “An Inconvenient Truth” I waited until I could buy a second hand copy in a cancer charity shop. That way I gave no money to Gore and still helped a good cause.

Peta of Newark
November 27, 2020 3:50 pm

As per Lomberg stating flat out that CO2 is a Green House Gas and thus is changing the climate – he is agreeing with the warmists/alarmists

So what *exactly* is the point of going any further into his book?

Only 1 significant point that need to be reinforced

We get ‘summer’ and we get ‘winter’

Summer is a time when temperatures are above the annual average and the weather is pleasant.
If the weather persisted like that, folks would reasonably assert that the Climate is affable.

Winter is a time of below annual average temperature and the weather is unpleasant. If it persisted, folks would say that the Climate has taken a turn for the worse and is inclement.
Winter has a double whammy in that the Death rate goes up.

Surely no argument there

So along come Climate Scientist who asserts that average temperature is gong to rise AND that the long-term weather (climate) is going to get worse

Has or has not the Climate Scientist ridden roughshod over everything that everybody knows about weather and climate?

So what justification does Climate Scientist have for saying what he says?
‘Trapped Heat’ you will be told

If you the ask “What *is* trapped heat and how & where does it happen” you are regarded as something sticky & stinky he’s just trodden on and in no uncertain terms, told as much.

Lets try to hold our tongues about who is paying to maintain the Climate Scientist in his very comfortable position next the very bosom of Government.

There’s no need for books. Life’s short enough as it is.

Reply to  Peta of Newark
November 27, 2020 4:14 pm

The good (skeptics), the bad (i.e. Humpty Dumptys), and the ugly (alarmists), always and forever.

Reply to  Peta of Newark
November 27, 2020 5:56 pm

“Summer is a time when temperatures are above the annual average and the weather is pleasant.”
“Surely no argument there.”

It might be at your latitude, but not where I live. Summer is searingly hot and humid and awful; as it is for all the billions who live in the tropics and hot sub-tropics. Temperature rise is the last thing they want. Right now here in the SH its 32C (90F), then 34C most of next week and its not even Summer yet. I long for the mild, clear days and cool nights of Winter. Don’t let your latitude bias what is good or bad.

“There’s no need for books.” Maybe there is.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Loydo
November 27, 2020 7:04 pm

Loydo, I’m guessing you live in Australia.
If so and you take the time and effort to compare the BoM summer isotherm map (C) with the 1890 isotherm map for December (F) you will see little change:
“I long for the mild, clear days and cool nights of Winter …” then move.

Reply to  Chris Hanley
November 29, 2020 1:03 am

You’ve misunderstood. “mild, clear days and cool nights of Winter” is what I have here. I”m not longing for anywhere else, I live on the Sunshine Coast in Queensland, one of the most beautiful, easy to live in places. I count myself extremely lucky. The point is that not everyone wants the climate to become warmer, like if its already hot. Its a trivial point but just take a look at the fwits getting triggered by it.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Loydo
November 29, 2020 8:57 am

“The point is that not everyone wants the climate to become warmer, like if its already hot.”

Sounds like you’re the fwit getting triggered.

‘“mild, clear days and cool nights of Winter” is what I have here. ‘

So, when winters are “mild” that’s when warmer is ok. But when summers are hot, that’s not ok.

Doesn’t the IPCC say that tropical zones won’t warm nearly as much (if at all) as higher latitudes?

Maybe it’s not really getting hotter, maybe you’re becoming more sensitive to heat. Or, maybe you’ve been told it’s getting hotter, and you believed it.

Yeah, you’re the fwit.

Reply to  Loydo
November 27, 2020 7:28 pm

Ever heard of Polar Amplification?

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Loydo
November 27, 2020 8:14 pm

“It might be at your latitude, but not where I live. Summer is searingly hot and humid and awful”

And yet, thousands of people in the US move from colder climes to warmer (Florida, Arizona, So Cal, etc) every year. Maybe you should move to Saskatchewan.

Reply to  Loydo
November 27, 2020 9:59 pm

So you HATE normal Australian WEATHER.

Let us know when you move to Siberia, dolt !

Reply to  Loydo
November 27, 2020 10:01 pm

““There’s no need for books.” Maybe there is.”

Maybe if you read enough of your science fantasy books, you can find the answer to these two questions….

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human causation?

Reply to  Loydo
November 27, 2020 10:08 pm

I live in Canada, if you’re yearning for sometimes icy freezing wet cloudy cold days and nights of winter, have I got a treat for you. In these parts we yearn for summer and sunny skies.

Reply to  Loydo
November 27, 2020 10:19 pm

Cell of hot WEATHER crossing Australia at the moment.

Sunday could be very warm across the Eastern states.

…. could challenge November records in some places.

While uncomfortable, it is just WEATHER.

And again I challenge Loy-dumb to prove that there is any causation due to enhanced atmospheric CO2.

He/she/it is STILL batting ZERO when it comes to actual EVIDENCE.

Reply to  Loydo
November 28, 2020 12:18 am

Loydo you don’t even understand your own religion…what a moron.

Reply to  Loydo
November 28, 2020 9:53 am

The small amount of global warming that we have seen in the last century (1 degree C in the last 100 years) has shown up mainly in winter and overnight temperatures. Summer high temperatures are NOT noticeably warmer. It takes a network of extremely precise thermometers to see any difference at all and even then the differences don’t show up until temperatures are measured for decades. It is dishonest to suggest otherwise, Loydo’h.

Reply to  Loydo
November 28, 2020 2:05 pm

“Summer is searingly hot and humid and awful;”


Let’s all cry for poos widdle Loy-dumb !

ALWAYS the victim , aren’t you, petal !

Reply to  Peta of Newark
November 28, 2020 9:49 am

Peta ==> Intelligent, well-educated, and well-meaning people have different opinions and understandings on “CO2 is a Greenhouse Gas”. I myself, a long-term author here, understand that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (without the Initial Caps). I have been vilified on various skeptic-hating blogs nonetheless.

The narrower one reads, the dumber one gets.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Kip Hansen
November 28, 2020 1:04 pm

Kip-You understand? Or you tentatively accept for the sake of discussion?

My view is that the alarmist theories are clearly exaggerated but there is some core of plausible hypothesis worthy of consideration. I understand what they claim to know, but I’m agnostic about how significant it is. It might be a good approximation of reality and it might be a very poor approximation. The climate system is exceedingly complex and their hypothesis is overly simple.

From a practical perspective, it’s not clear how significant the aspect they are focused on is to the overall system response. I often use the analogy of a mouse scurrying through an unheated room in winter. The mouse heats the room, but it is not significant. You could also fill the room with people and significantly warm the room. Alarmists are too quick to extrapolate effects that may actually be insignificant and offset by negative feedbacks.

I’m not able to speak for Lomborg or Curry or any other “lukewarmers”. But to me it is a reasonable tactic to suspend disbelief in order to demonstrate that if the alarmist hypothesis is right, their remedy is inadequate and extremely harmful.

Reply to  Rich Davis
November 28, 2020 1:26 pm

Rich ==> This comment and reply thread is about READING . . .to cease reading because an author states that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and affects he climate is, to be blunt, silly. At least if one is trying to understand the situation regarding the Mad Mad World of Climate Change beliefs and how those beliefs may impact our society.

For those interested in the science of climate change, it is imperative to understand the subject from all viewpoints — or one is just pretending interest and pretending to approach the subject scientifically.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Kip Hansen
November 28, 2020 1:55 pm

I agree with the point that we should always read and understand at least the main viewpoints on any controversy.

But my question was how to interpret your use of the phrase “I understand that CO2 is a greenhouse gas”.

I understand the theory of how CO2 can absorb IR photons and re-radiate some downward. I do not acknowledge that the effect is significant enough to be harmful or that there are not offsetting effects.

There is a big qualitative difference between accepting for the sake of argument that there is a meaningful concept of ECS and that empirically it seems possible for it to be in the range of 1.2-1.7 K versus being convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that it is a real and controlling factor that may exceed 5-6 K.

So I’m just asking where you stand in that spectrum.

Nick Schroeder
Reply to  Rich Davis
November 28, 2020 3:29 pm

“I understand the theory of how CO2 can absorb IR photons and re-radiate some downward.”

You do?

Can you explain that?

Demonstrate it in the lab?

Rich Davis
Reply to  Kip Hansen
November 28, 2020 4:51 pm

Nick, I understand the hypothesis that a witch’s incantation can summon an evil spirit that can snuff the breath out of me. That doesn’t mean that I give it any credence, or that I can demonstrate it in the lab.

In the case of CO2 bonds vibrating from the absorption of a photon and theoretically emitting a photon to return to “ground state”, I’m aware that at least in the lower troposphere the probability of the activated molecule colliding with another molecule and “thermalizing” is much higher than to randomly emit a photon which may return to the surface. I suspect that most of the IR photons are absorbed by water vapor and then thermalized by collisions. So, I don’t give the hypothesis a great deal of credence. On the other hand, I don’t “know” it’s completely wrong as I would say about the witchcraft hypothesis. I don’t have a problem with accepting the premise for the sake of argument, because if the hypothesis turns out to be valid, but its significance is in line with empirical estimates of less than 2K, then the effect is benign and there can be no justification for dismantling modern civilization to combat it.

I’m much more concerned with persuading people that the proposed remedies are worse than the disease than I care about proving an arcane technical point.

In my view, it is better to be able to focus on and prove the big point by overlooking the small error than to spend all our time bickering over the small point while the huge big error leads to our society’s destruction.

Nick Schroeder
Reply to  Rich Davis
November 28, 2020 5:37 pm

Einstein’s award winning photo-electric equation is hardly in question.
However, per that equation the photon that leaves must be at a lower energy than the photon that entered by the difference of the work function.
RGHE theory per K-T diagram and clones requires 100% efficiency, same energy in and out.
If not the “balance” gets even more messed up than it all ready is.
That might be an arcane theoretical point.

But RGHE theory is the lynch pin & keystone of the entire discussion.
Demolish it and the entire edifice collapses.

The K-T diagram and similar clones require the surface of the earth to radiate as an ideal black body.
Because of the non-radiative processes of the contiguous atmospheric molecules this upwelling BB radiation
And I have demonstrated this by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.

1) Because of the 30% albedo the atmosphere makes the earth cooler not warmer.
2) the GHG up/down, trapped/”back” radiation loop requires “extra” energy
3) which it gets from the theoretical “what if” BB calculation
4) which I have demonstrated cannot be.

And the alleged measurement of these up/down energies is an illusion created by “tweaking” the instruments to get the required result.

0 RGHE = 0 GHG warming = 0 CAGW.

That is not an arcane theoretical point – it is a wooden stake straight to the heart.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Kip Hansen
November 29, 2020 4:06 am

How’s that stake-through-the-heart process working out for us, Nick? Wait, let’s ask President Harris, PM Johnson, PM Trudeau, PM Arden, Kanzler Merkel, and AOC if Nick Schroeder’s elegant proof has eased their concerns about a climate catastrophe.

What’s that? It’s not about the science, it’s about social justice? Thanks for clarifying, AOC!

Seems like the tactics of politics are more relevant then.

John Harrison
November 27, 2020 3:57 pm

Brilliant, I thoroughly enjoyed reading this post. More please!

Reply to  John Harrison
November 28, 2020 12:02 pm


Thank you


Peter W
November 27, 2020 4:07 pm

I came to my climate skepticism by studying both history and science. My first, and very important history lesson was my visit to Glacier Bay in Alaska, where I learned via a map handout that the glacier which originally occupied that 65 mile long bay had started melting prior to the year 1800 (population of entire earth about 1/7 of today and transportation by horse, foot and wooden sailing vessel) and was well over half melted by the start of 1900, prior to the invention of the airplane, the mass production of the auto, and with earth population on the order of 1/4 of today. As of now, only some small left-over glaciers in some of the small offshoot bays. And with this reality, we are supposed to be able to stop the warming today?

I also read the classic “Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years” by Singer and Avery. The problem here is that a basic knowledge and understanding of physics is almost required in order to accept all the book tells you. I have that knowledge and understanding, having graduated in the top quarter of my class as a physics major, and will vouch for the book, having checked many of it’s references and found additional references to further support it.

Last, and certainly not least, is “Climate Change in Prehistory” by Burroughs, an established writer on the subject of climate change. Among the listings for suggested additional reading in the appendix are three additional books of his. In spite of the fact that it has an appendix with over 270 scientific references plus a ten page glossary of terms it is really quite readable. Each “term” is defined when first used, and many of them are merely abbreviations such as “kya” for “thousands of years ago.” The first 73 pages cover relatively recent (past 10,000 years or so” climate change. Most of the rest discusses climate change during the 90.000 years or so of the most recent ice age. Burroughs was from England, so the metric system is used consistently.

I also have several other book references, but they are typically 2 to 4 pages from various miscellaneous books.

Reply to  Peter W
November 27, 2020 6:01 pm

Peter W.
I also visited Glacier Bay and that is correct what you have written .
I have written about this before here on WUWT.
I met John Maunder a New Zealander who taught climate related subjects around the world and he attended the first UN climate meeting in Villach in Austria and the second one on Rio de Janeiro in Brazil.
He was a member of the WMO and he was very skeptical of the claims that were being made about warming at that time .
Since then the fear has been ramped up with no proof ,no tropical hotspot ,no proof that water vapour is a positive feed back and climate models that all run hot .
If any one cannot see for themselves that activist scientists and activist politicians are pushing this to enrich themselves and cripple western civilization as we know it .
What convinced me that global warming climate change was a scam is that it is supposed to be about extracting fossil fuel and limestone for cement manufacture that has been locked up for millions of years , which must add some CO2 and methane to the atmosphere .
But it has never been proven how much the doubling of CO2 will have on the worlds temperature .
Then activists attended the Kyoto meeting and introduced Enteric methane emissions from farmed livestock and also timber extraction from plantation forests .
Both of these are cycles and neither add any CO2 or Methane to the atmosphere .
How did they get included ?
All fodder consumed by farmed animals has absorbed CO2 from the air and the methane emitted soon breaks down into CO2 and water vapour.Absolutely no carbon release that was not already in the atmosphere and soils under farmed pastures are a carbon sink.
Plantation forests here in New Zealand are harvested at between 28 and 30 years so at least 3 rotations per century and a lot of construction timber would last well over 100 years in buildings so they have to be a net carbon sink as two more rotations of forests are growing .
New Zealands emissions are dominated by enteric methane and the logging and exporting of logs and sawn timber which is crazy and extremely unfair .
We have tried to persuade the politicians that this is stupid and defies all logic .
Last year this government held select committee hearings thru out the country on their Zero Carbon Bill before they passed it but ignored what so many of us had put before them .
There is no logical reason why any country should have to count enteric methane and plantation logging as emissions .
This is why I am very skeptical of the unsubstantiated claims about climate change .
I would welcome any comments that could try and convince me otherwise .
Farming to feed the world and soon to harvest my first forest rotation .

glen ferrier
Reply to  Graham
November 28, 2020 12:38 am

Chainsaw fuel?


Reply to  Graham
November 28, 2020 1:02 am

During the last several decades, Alaska has warmed twice as fast as the rest of the United States. Alaska’s glaciers are in steep decline and are among the fastest melting glaciers on Earth… 9%5 of Alaska’s approx 100,000 glaciers are melting or thinning. The increase has accelerated in recent decades (it isn’t some long slow decline over hundreds of years)

Reply to  griff
November 28, 2020 1:49 am

Meanwhile Canada is COOLING.

comment image

Yes the Alaskan TOWNS are warming as they grow, and the data is spread like butter over the whole of Alaska.

But just for griff, let’s look at the current temperatures in Alaska

comment image

Those are in Fahrenheit.

Let us all know when you move up there to enjoy all that warmth, idiot !!

Did you know that they often find tree stumps under naturally treating glaciers, griff-idiot/

And yes it has warmed since the COLDEST period in 10,000 years.

We should all be very thankful for that NATURAL warming…

Let’s watch you RUN AWAY again, shall we.. 😉

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human causation?

Reply to  griff
November 28, 2020 2:47 am

“twice as fast as the rest of the United States”

The USA has COOLED since the 1940s, dolt !

And has had ZERO warming since USCRN was installed in 2005.

So , You seem to be saying that Alaska is either cooling or has a zero trend.

Would be interesting to see what raw, non-UHI affected data says.

Even Hadcrud4 shows no Arctic warming since the 1940s

comment image

Tom Abbott
Reply to  fred250
November 28, 2020 7:10 am


I see what you did there. 🙂

Reply to  griff
November 28, 2020 2:56 am

The whole Arctic region still has a LOT of recovering to do from the anomalous cold of the LIA, griff.

Still no new trees growing to replace those destroyed and buried by glaciers.

Still WAY TOO COLD for that.

Wouldn’t you agree, griff. !! 😉

Reply to  griff
November 28, 2020 3:01 am

And of course REAL data (ie not GISS et al), shows similar temperatures now as in the 1940s.

comment image

Please show us the CO2 warming signal in that data.

Maybe try removing the AMO and PDO cycles first 😉

We are waiting !!!

Coeur de Lion
Reply to  fred250
November 28, 2020 6:18 am

Griff – my bet about four Arctic Wadhams is still open for September 2021. Hundred quid?

Reply to  griff
November 28, 2020 9:51 am

griff ==> A better understanding of the climate of Alaska is available here: Baked Alaska

Reply to  griff
November 28, 2020 9:57 am

Alaska warming was noticed in the 1700’s already. Explorers who had gone before and mapped the extend of glaciers found that they could sail into bigger harbors years later. The ice had already retreated. This is because the world is still recovering from a mini ice age. Stop your fear mongering and learn some history and science.

Reply to  griff
November 28, 2020 10:49 am

Cripes Griff you are a dim troll.
Peter W just laid out the timeline for the melting of a mighty glacier in Glacier Bay in Alaska ‘
The glacier retreated 65 miles in just over 100 years from 1785 to 1900.
Fossil fuel was hardly even used then except for some small amounts of coal .
We were all being told that the world was heading into another ICE age in the 1970s.
The warming was natural climate variability and no one can prove that the small amount of warming since 1980 is not natural climate variability .
There is an urban heat island effect and the millions of miles of black top highways constructed retaining the suns heat is showing up in temperature records .
There is no proof that CO2 will cause runaway warming .
Amazed at how people can believe propaganda .

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Peter W
November 27, 2020 8:19 pm

My skepticism was there from the start.

It was reinforced with each post by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, and their examination of proxy studies, and their unveiling of the shenanigans by the likes of Mann, Jones, Briffa, etc.

It became clear to me that we don’t really know much about the distant past, definitely not enough to know if what we’re seeing now is unprecedented in any way.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
November 28, 2020 7:24 am

My skepticism about Human-caused Climate Change started not long after some climate scientists were claiming that humans were causing the Earth to cool into another Ice Age, back in the 1970’s.

When I first heard about this theory, I did not reject it out of hand, I didn’t know one way or another if it was true, and of course, I was very eager to know how the scientists had determined that human activity was causing catastrophic cooling.

Well, I waited for some evidence to be produced, and I waited, and I waited, and I waited, and I waited. But no evidence was ever produced, and as we now see, the theory was flawed and there was no evidence of Human-caused Global Cooling. All we got was a lot of speculation..

So, when the temperatures started warming up in the 1980’s, and the climate scientists switched from Human-caused Global Cooling to Human-caused Global Warming/Climate Change, I was naturally skeptical about whether they had any evidence of such, and to this day I have never seen one shred of evidence that would back up the claims of Human-caused Climate Change (cold or hot).

I remain skeptical. For good reason.

November 27, 2020 4:11 pm

The end is Nye (pun intended). Save the birds, whack a wind turbine. Save the environment, clear the Green blight. Finally, with the persistence of a healthy polar bear population, the seal population are at progressive risk. Donate to World Walrus Foundation (WWF). It’s for the pups.

Reply to  n.n
November 27, 2020 5:27 pm

Your comment reminds me of a George Carlin routine on the topic.

Reply to  Scissor
November 27, 2020 6:25 pm

catastrophic anthropogenic, perchance global, classical comedy. thanks

November 27, 2020 4:17 pm

A man convinced against against his will,
is of the same opinion still.

November 27, 2020 4:18 pm

Seems like my fireplace could use some of those books, especially if soaked in kerosene.

November 27, 2020 4:20 pm

Ellan, nice summary of the last 45 years. A book that solidified my convictions about climate denial is the book “The Deniers” by Lawrence Solomon. About 10 years ago my wife gave it to me. If you haven’t already read it, you might like it.

Chris Hanley
November 27, 2020 4:29 pm

“… ‘If we don’t want our grandchildren to curse us we had better read this book’ Timothy Snyder …”.
Timothy Snyder is a respected historian specializing in the some of the grimmest episodes of the last century, particularly in Eastern Europe and Russia (USSR).
However he also compared Trump to Hitler and I suppose by extension Stalin claiming ‘Trump’s campaign for president of the United States was basically a Russian operation’ leading to tyranny (Wiki).
I guess some personality types are naturally prone to hysteria.

Chris Hanley
November 27, 2020 4:45 pm

“Lomborg remains a Luke warmer …”.
I’m not a scientist and my interest in climate change™ goes back to the late 1990s and has always been its use as a commercial, social and political tool.
At this stage skeptics and ‘luke-warmer’ arguments around the degrees of human influence etc. are strategically useless or counter-productive.

November 27, 2020 5:22 pm

My recent purchases:
Climate Change The Facts 2020 – Jennifer Marohasy (Ed and contributor)
Reef Heresy? Science Research and The Great Barrier Reef – Peter Ridd
Mirrors and Mazes: A guide through the climate change debate – Howard Thomas Brady
The Art of the Deal – Donald Trump
The last is a latter day version of Sun Tzu and Machiavelli, but with a lot more jokes and witticism. Some useful advice even if your deals are not on the same scale.

Reply to  Martin Clark
November 28, 2020 3:09 am

Amazon UK has still not fulfilled my advance order for Climate Change The Facts 2020

November 27, 2020 7:09 pm

A climate of denial, but no one denies the climate, which has been changing since the world’s been turning. h/t Springsteen

November 27, 2020 7:17 pm

Sounds like the nuclear book is one that needs to be written. Ideally it will be short, clear and definitive.

Reply to  Mike
November 27, 2020 8:50 pm

“Sounds like the nuclear book is one that needs to be written. Ideally it will be short, clear and definitive.”

Let me try: Nuclear power, is too expensive, produces too much waste, and is is too unpopular to use.

To expand- nuclear remains the most expensive form of power, it produces isotopes that last 10 thousand years plus, and on decomissioning, requires herioc effort to dispose of thousand of tons of irradiated plant. In contrast to renewables that have declined about 80% in cost per kwh in the last decade, nuclear is getting more expensive per kwh. SMR’s promise to be even more expensive. It’s hopeless.

Reply to  Tony
November 28, 2020 12:23 am

The Greenies make it expensive.

Nuclear power is the way forward with fossil fuels.

Reply to  Derg
November 28, 2020 1:05 am

You should look at the eye watering cost of decommissioning nuclear plant…

Iain Reid
Reply to  griff
November 28, 2020 1:32 am


I really do not understand why this decommissioning should be so expensive. Yes, with current procedures it is but why?

Nuclear reactors are relatively small buildings and surely it is not too expesnive to simply and safely cover them and leave it at that. Fuel rods can be removed, recycled or stored as the volume is tiny. Shut it up and leave it alone.

To me the problem of safely storing high level nuclear waste is a walk in the park compared to the challenge of carbon capture and storage, which has it’s own deadly risk should this CO2 escape, depending on the geography of where it could leak?

Reply to  griff
November 28, 2020 2:14 am

And the eye-watering costs of decommissioning each wind turbine.

Oh wait, they send most of the blades to landfill,

…. and leave all the concrete and steel in the ground to destroy the water table.

Reply to  griff
November 28, 2020 2:30 am

Well the approach does seem to be ‘dismantle’ not ‘shroud’. I have no idea why… I’d be interested to hear from anyone who knows.

It will cost current and future generations of UK taxpayers £132bn to decommission the civil nuclear sites, with the work not being completed for another 120 years a report to MPs said this week.

and the general mess around the whole thing revealed in the report is horrifying.

Climate believer
Reply to  Tony
November 28, 2020 2:01 am

Including taxes and subscription, French households pay on average € 0.1913 including tax per kilowatt hour of electricity in 2019 according to Eurostat, i.e. 11% less than the average for the European Union (27 countries). This also includes investment in unreliable energy production.

60% nuclear, 1 reactor 900 MW enough for 400,000 households, 24 hrs a day everyday.


Reply to  Tony
November 28, 2020 2:33 am

It seems to me that if all the taxpayer money wasted on trying to get renewables to work and trying to eliminate (non-harmful) CO2 emissions was used instead for research into safer and cheaper nuclear power we would soon (a decade?) be at the point where nuclear could provide the 24/7 power we need: cheap and reliable and safe. E.G Terrapower, RollsRoyce investing in small nuclear plants etc.

Climate believer
Reply to  Kirschberg
November 28, 2020 8:56 am

I agree, especially as the “climate crisis” is upon us.

The Finns, heroically, have dug their first-ever deep geological repository for used nuclear fuel in Olkiluoto, Finland.

“In Finland, the state’s energy policy, the will of the owners and skilled personnel are all in the same package,” said Janne Mokka, president and CEO of Posiva Oy. “This kind of project is great to lead. Our expertise is also available to industry players around the world.”

Bonus level up for Finland.

Even the incompetent British government realise Nuclear has to be in the mix.

In its infrastructure strategy, the (UK) Treasury says: “Nuclear is a proven, value-for-money source of reliable low carbon power which can complement renewables. The government is pursuing large-scale nuclear projects, subject to clear value for money for both consumers and taxpayers and all relevant approvals, with further details to follow in the Energy White Paper.”

glen ferrier
November 28, 2020 12:55 am

Chainsaw fuel?


Dudley Horscroft
November 28, 2020 1:00 am


Nuclear power is in fact the cheapest form of power, as the fuel cost is negligible for the amount of energy produced. The cost is as near to zero as is the cost of wind power, or solar power. There is very little waste, and depending on the type of reactor used, the radioactive materials produced are in fact consumed by the reactor. The isotopes produced vary in their half lives – the most dangerous are the ones with the shortest half life – the ones with the longest half life are the least dangerous. The short lived ones can be safely stored until the radioactivity becomes very low. The long ones produce such little radioactivity that there is little problem in their storage.
While it is true that the cost of renewables has markedly declined in recent years, mining for the rare earths used is environmentally bad, and it is reliably reported that children are used as miners – this in countries where children are treated worse than cattle.
The cost of nuclear power stations can be magnified by adding layer after layer of necessary and unnecessary safety arrangements. But nuclear power is no more than another means of boiling water.

Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
November 28, 2020 2:26 am

The UK is building a new nuclear reactor at Hinkley point…

Prices for new wind power delivered by 2025 were this year set at prices as low as £40 per megawatt hour. By comparison, power from Hinkley Point C is expected to cost £92.50 per megawatt hour and that price is guaranteed for 30 years.

The reactor is costing between £21.5bn and £22.5bn and will take 10 years to build (its first delay already announced).

2 other reactor projects have stalled because nobody can find a way to fund them and produce a return on investment.

Reply to  griff
November 28, 2020 3:04 am

“nobody can find a way to fund them and produce a return on investment.”

Oh you mean that don’t get a huge subsidy and a mandates first call on supply or get paid for not producing electricity….

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  griff
November 28, 2020 9:27 am

Subsidies Griff

Try this
Can the grid survive without wind and just nuclear? Of course, and thrive

Can the grid survive without nuclear and with only wind? Absolutely not.

Therefor there is zero need to waste money on wind
A pointless exercise in futility, which should show up in dictionary discussion of “virtue signaling”

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  griff
November 28, 2020 9:37 am

Or try this:

Wind power at supposedly low rates can only exist BECAUSE the nuclear (and gas/coal) is present to pull its jewels out of the fire.
Left on it’s own, wind means economic collapse and astronomical costs.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  griff
November 28, 2020 9:39 am

Or try this:

Nuclear is only expensive due to fiat government policy

Wind is only “cheap” due to the exact same fiat government policy
And willful ignorance to all the other costs that accrue to wind with which wind power cannot exist

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
November 28, 2020 9:40 am

Meant “without which”

Fat thumbs

November 28, 2020 2:21 am

Tony Brown asks about books discussing renewables. How about: The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, Alex Epstein

Reply to  Kirchberg
November 28, 2020 6:08 am

Thanks for that. I will have a look


Dave Yaussy
Reply to  Kirchberg
November 28, 2020 11:32 am

it’s an excellent book.

Climate believer
November 28, 2020 3:30 am

From Asia Times:
“The Hualong One, deployed at a plant in east China’s Fujian province, will be put into commercial use by the end of the year after undergoing tests.”

“The reactor, which was connected to the national grid on Friday, can generate 10 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity each year and cut carbon emissions by 8.16 million tons, according to China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC).

“China has 47 nuclear plants with a total generation capacity of 48.75 million kilowatts – the world’s third highest after the United States and France.”

November 28, 2020 8:04 am

I read “Apocalypse Never” several months ago and found it a very worthwhile read. While he does believe that climate change is an issue, he is refreshingly non-alarmist, and makes a lot of good points that the “climate emergency” crowd never even thinks about. I knew of Shellenberger because of his advocacy against the early decommissioning of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant, the only remaining nuclear generating facility in California, where I once worked.

Nick Schroeder
November 28, 2020 8:25 am

“…in contrast to those that boldly claim that (door 1) ‘climate change is rubbish’ or that highly qualified scientists are idiots who (door 2) don’t know what they are doing.”

Refer to the K-T atmospheric heat/energy/power flux balance diagram which can be found here:
TFK_bams09.pdf (

160 W/m^2 net reach the earth’s surface.

The energy upwelling from the surface can be calculated by a simple energy conservation balance or as Kirchoff observed, emissivity = absorptivity, more energy cannot leave than arrived. 100% is ALL you get.

1) Leaving the surface are 17 W/m^2 sensible, 80 W/m^2 latent and by arithmetic difference 160-17-80 = 63 LWIR aka 100%.

A second method of calculating the upwelling energy is by applying the theoretical S-B BB radiation equation, i.e. any surface radiates at its temperature. A black body is, by definition, a surface that absorbs all and emits/radiates all, i.e. 100%, of the involved energy.

2) At 16 C or 289 K the S-B equation for a 1.0 emissivity black body yields 396 W/m^2.

But the 63 W/m^2 LWIR appears in both methods and it cannot be in both places at once.

So, it disappears from method 2 and remains with method 1.

The difference of 333 W/m^2 remains in the atmosphere as the up/down welling, trapped/”back” radiating GHG “extra” energy loop.

Adding the 333 W/m^2 to the upwelling (17+80+63+333)/160 generates 308% of the incoming 160 W/m^2.

But the GHGs radiate in ALL directions so only half can “back” radiate.

So, 166.5 W/m^2 “back” radiate to the surface and 166.5 W/m^2 continue to ToA where (240+166.5)/240 = 170% more leaving than arrived from the sun.

Before you flail the air mansplaining how the GHG “extra” energy loop circumvents the LoT perhaps you should ‘splain where that “extra” energy comes from in the foist place.

BTW I pick both doors.

Pat from kerbob
November 28, 2020 9:21 am

Landscapes and Cycles by Jim Steele

Well argued positions, makes clear how climatology became so corrupted with PAL review

Well written, easily accessible to non-scientists (like Michael Mann)

November 28, 2020 9:43 am

Tony ==> I applaud your effort to get readers here to read more and read more widely — absolutely imperative if they are to come to any real understanding of the true width of the Climate Divide.

Reply to  Kip Hansen
November 28, 2020 12:05 pm


Thank you. Under Biden you will all be under a much more climate anxious regime than under Donald Trump and understanding the climate divide becomes ever more important.


November 28, 2020 2:28 pm

St Greta’s school has been identified (I think by Rebel News) as a special school with flexible attendance. The notion that she’s been truanting or ‘striking’ is open to question.

Nick Schroeder
November 28, 2020 3:36 pm

“…highly qualified scientists are idiots who don’t know what they are doing.”

Highly qualified scientists were wrong about: phlogiston, luminiferous ether, spontaneous generation, humors, water filled Martian canals, planet Vulcan, trepanning, …….

The young doctor who recommended antiseptic practices, the guy who proposed plate tectonics, the gal who suggested black holes were all roundly abused by their colleagues – and in the end they were correct.

History is replete with examples of unqualified amateurs upsetting consensus science.

Perhaps there should be more open mindedness and stick to science based arguments instead of knee-jerk emotions and appeals to authority.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
November 28, 2020 8:14 pm

“…highly qualified scientists are idiots who don’t know what they are doing.”

Poor assumption.

People like Mann, Briffa, Jones, Santer, etc knew exactly what they were doing.

Mann knew that if he didn’t grossly overweight the Bristlcone pine series, he’d have no paper, no hockey stick. Briffa knew the same, so he had his One Tree in Yamal to Overwhelm the other proxies, again, fake hockey stick.

It’s all been very calculated.

Rich Davis
November 29, 2020 5:17 pm

Agreed. This not just some innocent misunderstanding. It’s fraud.

Nick Schroeder
Reply to  Rich Davis
November 29, 2020 7:48 pm

The lynch pin of the entire man caused climate change/global warming fiasco is the radiative greenhouse effect which posits that the atmosphere makes the earth warmer by the GHG’s trapping/”back” radiating/perpetually looping energy.

The absolutely incontrovertible proof of RGHE is the following equation which compares the earth’s GMST with and without an atmosphere.

288 K w – 255 K w/o = 33 C cooler. That is C NOT K. 33 K is -240 C or 33 K above absolute 0.

288 K or 15 C can be found in the IPCC AR5 glossary.
BTW from IPCC AR5 glossary the “surface” is 1.5 m above the ground/soil NOT the ground/soil per se aka the near-earth AIR temperature.
Select USCRN data records (e.g. La Junta) actual ground/soil temperatures which are predominantly hotter than the IPCC near surface air temperature. Ground is warmer than air contradicting RGHE.
The K-T diagram uses 16 C, 289 K and UCLA Diviner mission uses 294 K.
Not exactly consensus.

The 255 K assumes a naked earth keeps its 0.3 albedo.
1,368 / 4 = 342 * (1.0-0.3) = 240 + S-B = 255 K
BTW dividing by 4 to average the discular ISR over the spherical ToA is impure crap!!! That’s not even close to how the terrestrial system is heated.
Me, Nikolov, Kramm and UCLA Diviner all agree that a naked earth would be much like the moon, albedo 0.1 with no clouds, water vapor, snow, ice, vegetation, oceans and 20% to 30% more kJ/h. That’s hotter not colder.

The notion that the naked earth would maintain the 0.3 albedo is scientific if not criminal malfeasance.

Dennis Kelley
December 1, 2020 11:40 am

First, I would like to second the recommendation for the novel “The Denial”. I got a Kindle version of the book after I read this post, and find it very entertaining. It is both funny and sad in that the absurdity of the Climatistas is so true to form that it will cause one to chuckle, but at the same time one wants to cry because it is so sadly real. I highly recommend this book.

Second, I question the need to read the drivel from Greta, et al. We are exposed to this crap on an hourly basis from the pathetic media merchants of doom. We know from this what our family, friends, and community are hearing. We need no reminder. What we need is to arm ourselves with the facts – the truth – of climate change science. Not Joe Biden’s “truth”, but the real thing. There are many great books out there from wonderful scientists such as Roy Spencer, Roger Pielke, Andy May, Bob Tisdale, and others. These books are chock full of facts about climate, and these are what we should be reading – not wasting our time with leftist drivel that we are already more than familiar with.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights