Biden policies already creating job losses, energy costs will skyrocket

Reposted from ICECAP

Tuesday, January 19, 2021

Joseph D’Aleo, CCM

Just hours after an inauguration took place, executive orders are issued to stop the Keystone Pipeline and to rejoin the Paris Accord – which is just an attempt to extort money from countries like the US while allow other volunteer countries like China to set a goal to join to pay in a decade or more or never. The U.S. has the cleanest air in the world thanks to natural gas, while the green countries use coal to keep the lights on and have poorer air quality. The Paris Accord is just another leftist wealth transfer program.

We are told that major changes to our energy policies are necessary to move away from carbon based fossil fuels to wind and solar to save the planet from carbon pollution and resulting catastrophic climate changes. We are told that green energy will save us money because the sun and wind are free and that removing carbon dioxide from the air will save lives. Each of these claims are easily proven wrong with real world examples. The science is seriously flawed and the policies produce the exact opposite, costly even dangerous results. Already many in the oil sector are losing their jobs.  Biden suggests they should consider learning how to code. Kerry suggests they build solar panels, hoping you forgot Solyndra and dozens of other renewable bankruptcies when Obama tried that. The media has hyped significant natural events and changes and blamed them on claims of record warming as advertised by the segment of activists in the once honest universities and professional societies, and in the no longer trustworthy climate groups at NOAA and NASA and too many in the public believe it is real.

But the linkage is not to be trusted. What is ignored is the lack of long term global temperature data to make any reasonable assessment. Data before the 1980s was primarily in the US and Europe and parts of Australia and very little data in the oceans which cover 71% of the globe.

Enlarged

The first attempts to assess global trends recognized that data was an issue and the analysis was confined to northern hemisphere land areas (mostly U.S. and parts of Europe). It showed strong warming and then a corresponding cooling trend during the period from the 1880s to 1970s.

Enlarged

The number of stations increased in the 20th century though they increasingly were located in urban areas or nearby airports subject to local urban heat island contamination.

Enlarged

You see in the U.S. high density data set with the longest history of record, the temperatures changed in the same direction with CO2 only 40% of the time.

Enlarged


Enlarged

After 1980s satellites began sensing ocean surface temperatures when clouds permitted and later after 2000 a network of global buoys provided real time accurate ocean temperature. It was the first time we could claim true global coverage but other problems developed and models were incorporated and when you combine varied data with models, there is opportunity for mischief. We discussed the global data issues here and long ago here.

A rigorous peer reviewed analysis here failed to find that the steadily rising atmospheric CO2 Concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 13 critically important temperature time series analyzed.

The climate changes in multidecadal and longer cycles related to the sun and oceans and influenced by volcanism. As for claims that extremes of weather are increasing as the earth warms, they can be easily refuted with real world data and natural factors as we did here.

One of the biggest threats to our countries economy will be skyrocketing energy costs and through that further loss of jobs, with the economy already reeling from shutdowns and COVID and radical rioting related small business failures and now executive orders. In this country, the early previews of this is in the states with early green energy commitments and carbon reduction or hidden taxes. California is the best known example but the northeast (red on the table) with the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative show the highest electricity prices by far.

Enlarged

Enlarged

Enlarged

Globally our countries average electricity prices have been the lowest with the heavily invested green countries up to 5 times higher. Renewable states are subject to brownouts and blackouts (California leads the states as blackouts are implemented during wildfire threats). Globally blackouts and brownouts are common as the wind and sun are not reliable. The high cost of electricity drives industry to countries like China and India where costs are low because they use coal, reliable and cheap.

Enlarged

Enlarged

You may recall that the economist Gabriel Calzada Associate Professor of Economics at the King Juan Carlos University in Spain in 2010 estimated every green job created cost Spain $774,000 in subsidies. But resulted in a loss of 2.2 real jobs. Only 1 in 10 green jobs was permanent. Industry left and Spain and unemployment rose to 27.5%. In Italy 3.4 real jobs were lost. 

The energy costs are not limited to electricity as the elimination of fossil fuels would lead to a forced transition to electric cars further increasing the demand on electricity. Obama had gasoline prices up to $5 and predicted within 2 years everyone would be driving electric cars with his administration predicting $8/gasoline. Instead thank to fracking and then in 2020 COVID forced work at home, gas prices dropped instead to $2 or lower during President Trump’s term, when we finally achieved true energy independence. But that will soon disappear.

Enlarged

Many ‘green’ countries were forced to slow or even halt the move to green and build coal plants to provide energy when the sun doesn’t shine or wind blow.

Enlarged

Enlarged

When the power is out, people are subject to the danger from winter cold. The danger associated with a ‘heat kills’ misdirection is that cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analyzing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries. The findings were published in the Lancet. Many households are said to be in “energy poverty” (25% UK, 15% Germany). The elderly forced to “choose between heating and eating” as they sit in their home in their coats and sweaters.

Enlarged

Canada, United States and the UK Winter Mortality is very real.

Enlarged

It is very clear the people who get hurt the most are those who can least afford it. Households with income of less than $20,000/year spend over 40% of their income on energy.

Enlarged

Enlarged

The Chamber of Commerce’s Global Energy Institute concludes “simply put, a ban on fracking in the United States would be catastrophic for our economy”.

“Our analysis shows that if such a ban were imposed in 2021, by 2025 it would eliminate 19 million jobs and reduce U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by $7.1 trillion. Job losses in major energy producing states would be immediate and severe; in Texas alone, more than three million jobs would be lost. Tax revenue at the local, state, and federal levels would decline by nearly a combined $1.9 trillion, as the ban cuts off a critical source of funding for schools, first responders, infrastructure, and other critical public services.

Energy prices would also skyrocket under a fracking ban. Natural gas prices would leap by 324 percent, causing household energy bills to more than quadruple. By 2025, motorists would pay twice as much at the pump ($5/gallon +).”

In the last few years, the average household thanks to lower taxes, record low unemployment, and cheap energy averaged increases of $4500/year/family. Now the cost due to the new policy driven increases for electricity, heating fuels and gasoline – families will see losses as high as $10,000/year by 2024. Working from home would limit this some for the immediate future but it is clear the forced move to green energy comes with a huge price. This is true even before we consider the huge cost of the materials to build turbines and solar farms. It has been even suggested by a Biden appointee we build the wind and solar plants in the country’s beautiful national parks.

I have influential friends and leaders in many countries in five continents, where the greens have run wild. They envied our country and hoped their countries would see our advantage and reconsider and instead adopt our approach. They are shocked our country did not recognize how good we had it. One friend posted on a fellow site: “… We stand at the abyss. A Biden regime will be the end of freedom. Europe and Canada have already fallen far down that “poverty road to Venezuela”. If America falls, there will be nowhere left to run to.”

4.9 18 votes
Article Rating
79 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
leowaj
January 29, 2021 2:09 pm

Can we impeach Biden yet?

Pauleta
Reply to  leowaj
January 29, 2021 2:34 pm

To get Kamala?

Ron Long
Reply to  Pauleta
January 29, 2021 2:57 pm

Ouch! Nowhere to run to!

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Ron Long
January 30, 2021 4:35 am

I think the next verse is “nowhere to hide”.

Reply to  Pauleta
January 29, 2021 3:17 pm

Will be impeached later 😀

commieBob
Reply to  Pauleta
January 29, 2021 6:32 pm

I am the first to admit I have problems with foreign languages but …

The correct pronunciation of Kamala sounds to me exactly like the Finnish word for ‘horrible’ … and she insists on that pronunciation.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  commieBob
January 29, 2021 8:39 pm

Non-sequitur. She’s not Finnish.

john
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
January 30, 2021 4:28 am

Let up pray she will be Finnish-ed…

starzmom
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
January 30, 2021 9:16 am

That doesn’t matter. We are not allowed to use an imported Swedish word meaning “parsimonious” because it sounds like a racial slur.

beng135
Reply to  commieBob
January 31, 2021 9:22 am

Commie is appropriate.

Kevin R.
Reply to  Pauleta
January 30, 2021 9:46 am

Biden’s impeachment insurance.

Scissor
Reply to  leowaj
January 29, 2021 5:04 pm

You know the thing.

Doc Chuck
Reply to  Scissor
January 30, 2021 12:07 am

Now boys, boys, do settle down. Kamala is from the govament and she’s ‘here to help’ . . . herself. Surely you know by now that all that campaign puffery about championing the common man was just discharging the obligatory seductive political crepe. And how’s she going to understand being called a hypocrite considering she recognizes no such thing any truth to live up to? So after all among her warm inner circle of comrades she’s really just engaged in some admirably crafted deceit in replacing ‘frack on’ with ‘freeze on’.

By the way, I do apologize for the gender references above, which are hereafter to be summarily stricken from all American legislative expression. And am I ever glad that I didn’t choose a gynecologic practice or I’d now be bereft of a professional identity too!

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Doc Chuck
January 30, 2021 4:36 am

No, you’d be dealing with male parts on pain of losing your license!

Doc Chuck
Reply to  Jim Gorman
January 30, 2021 9:23 am

Well I should probably add here (while I’m still able to employ the very ‘Alphabet’ that is lately itself being withdrawn from non-conformists by Orwell’s anticipated ministry of permitted information) that anyone content to participate in a 4 year long false smear of a political opponent with preposterous claims of his Russian collusion to gain office while her own team was doing exactly that, lately capped off with lies of his intentional incitement of violent insurrection while her party shamelessly indulges the very same in city after city, has certainly given notice of her candidacy for the proverbial (Proverbs 11: 22) golden ring in a pig’s snout award for any public service she can reliably be expected to provide either to me or to my fellow citizens who may have stooped to hire her.

RockyRoad
Reply to  Doc Chuck
January 30, 2021 2:28 pm

Some things always change for the worse.

Tom Halla
January 29, 2021 2:14 pm

Perhaps a successful recall of Gavin Newsom, governor of California, would cause the greens to consider the effects of their folly. One major reason for the recall would be the energy prices and blackouts last year.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Tom Halla
January 29, 2021 3:17 pm

Don’t hold your breath. The Dems won’t blame it on Newsome’s poicies. They will blame it on white supremacists and just keep on believing as they do today.

Ron Long
Reply to  Tim Gorman
January 29, 2021 5:13 pm

Trying to divert attention from Gov. Newsome might be harder than we think. HIs comment about “permanent drought” in Kalifornia now looks (what’s the polite word for stupid?), given that Los Angeles has had a serious flood and the Sierra Nevada Mountains have tremendous snow pack.

starzmom
Reply to  Ron Long
January 30, 2021 9:18 am

A flood just washed out part of highway 1 near Big Sur. They could use more drought there.

RockyRoad
Reply to  Tim Gorman
January 30, 2021 2:33 pm

I”m a white supremacist based on the workbook they use to “correct” the problem.

That designation is shocking to me and everybody who knows me!

I think it’s a subversive technique to train the most independent to be good, obedient little commies.

What else could convince movers and shakers to willingly work against their self interests?

kakatoa
Reply to  Tom Halla
January 29, 2021 8:08 pm

No question that the costs for energy has gone up in CA recently-

The pain at the electrical meter/pump is getting a bit noticeable across all the sectors of the economy these days in CA (especially compared to TX). 

Residential prices were up 10.7% year over year in CA vs TX residential prices going up 1.8%.

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_5_6_a

young bill
January 29, 2021 2:17 pm

HIgh quality data? Australia? You must be joking.

Bill Taylor
January 29, 2021 2:19 pm

claiming carbon is “pollution” is rather silly and the opposite of science.

leitmotif
Reply to  Bill Taylor
January 29, 2021 2:37 pm

Sorry to break it to you, Bill, but it’s statutory law on Venus. 🙁

Last edited 2 months ago by leitmotif
Tim Gorman
January 29, 2021 2:23 pm

Very well researched and presented article. I especially like the graph showing the percentage of household income spent on energy. That graph should be plastered like a billboard on the wall of the House Chamber!

Nick Schroeder
January 29, 2021 2:25 pm

By reflecting away 30% of the ISR the atmospheric albedo cools the earth much like that reflective panel behind a car’s windshield.

For the greenhouse effect to perform as advertised “extra” energy must radiate upwards from the surface. Because of the non-radiative heat transfer processes of the contiguous atmospheric molecules such ideal BB upwelling “extra” energy does not exist.

Backed by an experimental demonstration, the gold standard of classical science.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/nicholas-schroeder-55934820_climatechange-greenhouse-co2-activity-6749812735246254080-bc6K

There is no “extra” energy for the GHGs to “trap” or “back” radiate or “delay” and no subsequent greenhouse type warming.

With no greenhouse effect what CO2 does or does not do, where it comes from or where it goes and its climate sensitivity value becomes moot.

Equally moot are temperatures, ice caps, glaciers, polar bears, sea levels, hurricanes, nuclear power, solar minimums, CH4, ….

WUWT Bastardi loop.jpg
leitmotif
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
January 29, 2021 3:09 pm

+100 Nick

Earth + Sun + ghgs = 288K
Earth + No Sun + ghgs = 33K

Simple back radiative physics. If back radiation deserts us, WUWT is doomed. Oh …. and the rest of us, too.

We need back radiation to ….. have our back. Yeah.

Scissor
Reply to  leitmotif
January 29, 2021 3:51 pm

I doubt that physical law will dessert us, but I’m pretty sure our understanding of it and its effects can get better.

RickWill
Reply to  leitmotif
January 29, 2021 6:33 pm

The ocean temperature is stuck between 30C and -2C. Cannot get warmer than 30C in open ocean because persistent cloud prevents that. And cannot get colder than -2C because it is no longer water but insulating ice.

While all three tropical oceans have ice at least at one end, the global average temperature will be very close to the numeric mean of the two extremes or 14C; no “Greenhouse Effect” needed. That is a fairytale for people unable to see the obvious.

I can pick the sea surface temperature chart for any day of any year and it will look much the same with the ITCZ moving about a bit as it follows the sun. By August parts of the Atlantic will also reach the limit of 30C.

Screen Shot 2021-01-30 at 11.25.37 am.png
Jim Gorman
Reply to  leitmotif
January 30, 2021 4:44 am

Why do you choose “No Sun”? Without a sun, who cares? The Real Answer is

Earth + Sun + No GHGs = 288 K

I hate to break it to you, but when the earth radiates IR to CO2, it cools. When it receives it back, it warms to original temp. Actually since, only <50% is returned, the earth would never reach the original temp.

OR, did you forget the /sarc?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
January 29, 2021 3:15 pm

Nick,

Anything that gets radiated away from the earth cools the earth. Some of that radiation escapes to space and some gets sent back. Since the amount sent back cannot be as much as was originally radiated the back radiation simply can’t raise the temperature of the earth back to where it started. That radiation/back radiation cycle continues until the sun comes up. If the sun was extinguished tomorrow that cycle would eventually result in the earth reaching an equilibrium temp somewhere north of absolute zero.

The atmosphere cannot generate heat and generating heat is the only way it could raise the temperature of the earth.

Your experiment shows that the earth cools in a manner other than just radiation. It’s all so simple that I don’t understand why more people misunderstand it.

leitmotif
Reply to  Tim Gorman
January 29, 2021 4:09 pm

Tim

“Since the amount sent back cannot be as much as was originally radiated the back radiation simply can’t raise the temperature of the earth back to where it started.”

But, according to lukewarmers, back radiation slows down the cooling of the planet surface. What it does with the 71% of the planet surface which is covered in water nobody knows anything. Real Climate put out some BS in 2006 about heating of the ocean skin causing less evaporation (inverse temperature gradient of the ocean skin) therefore less cooling. As far as I know no paper was published

The StefanBoltzmann law describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature but, what is often omitted, into a sink at 0K. Planck shows much the same

Does an object radiate at it temperature or do other less warm objects slow down that radiation? The GHE is based on the answer to this or similar questions.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  leitmotif
January 29, 2021 5:14 pm

Slowing down cooling at night raises MINIMUM temperatures. That does nothing for maximum temps. Maximum temps are determined by the sun’s energy input during the day, not by the starting temp at sunrise.

The earth and the atmosphere exchange radiation energy all the time, even during the day, But that exchange represents a damped sine wave over time. The atmosphere can’t send back more than it gets and, in fact, since it can’t capture all the earth’s radiation it can’t send back as much as the earth radiates.

Remember also that the earth radiates at all kinds of IR wavelengths. CO2 can only reflect back a small portion of that radiation. So overall the earth radiates away more heat energy than ever gets reflected back. That’s why we haven’t seen even minimum temps go up any more than they have.

In any case, raising minimum temps is *good*. It gives longer growing seasons, more plat growth at night, and fewer deaths from cold at night.

RickWill
Reply to  Tim Gorman
January 29, 2021 6:40 pm

To be very clear, the maximum sea surface temperature is thermostatically controlled to 30C. I got the attached data from the moored buoy at 0N, 156E. You could get the same data from any moored buoy in any warm pool of any of the three tropical oceans. They all achieved the same thermostatic control. A slight overshoot to 31.5C before the cloudburst begins to cycle but then very well behaved.

You could not devise a better Earth temperature control system if you spent all the capital from human endeavour for the next century.

Temp_Regulation.png
Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Tim Gorman
January 29, 2021 4:57 pm

Tim Gorman posted: “The atmosphere cannot generate heat and generating heat is the only way it could raise the temperature of the earth.”

That is not true. There is an approximate balance of the thermal energy from the Sun that is absorbed by the Earth’s atmosphere and surface (which necessarily excludes the amount reflected by Earth’s albedo) and the amount that is emitted directly back to deep space from the Earth’s surface and its atmosphere. This energy balance sets the “average global temperature” of the Earth’s lower tropospheric temperature.

Therefore, if (1) Earth’s average albedo (mainly from cloud and snow coverage fractions) decreases over time, and/or (2) the solar spectrum absorption of the atmosphere increases over time, and/or (3) the LWIR emission from land surface/sea surface/lower troposphere layer decreases over time, and/or (4) the atmospheric convective transfer of heat from the land/sea surface to the top of the troposphere decreases over time, then the temperatures of the Earth surface and lower troposphere will certainly increase to restore the overall energy exchange balance.

Generating heat to “raise the temperature of the earth” is not the only path to raising its sensible temperature . . . Basics of Heat Transfer 101.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
January 29, 2021 5:33 pm

The atmosphere does *not* generate heat. If it were to do so you could go outside, look up, and see the atmosphere burning!

Your 1. I see the big “if”. If the earth was turning into a cinder then you would see *MORE* water vapor in the atmosphere and albedo would go up, not down.

Your no. 2: The sun sends lots of IR to the earth that is *not* intercepted by water vapor or CO2.

Your no. 3: If the earths temperature goes up then it radiates MORE, not less. And, just like the sun, the earth radiates IR at lots of wavelengths other than that of water vapor and CO2. So much of the IR radiated by the earth gets through to space.

Your no. 4: Why would there be less convective transfer of heat from the surface to the top of the troposphere? The temperature differential is between the earth and space. That differential would go up if the earth warms thus leading to *more* convective heat transfer!

I don’t see anything that you are asserting that matches with the laws of thermodynamics. The truth is that if the sun stopped shining the earth would not continue to exist at some liveable temperature. It would cool over time to something just above the temperature of space.

So there can’t be any “overall energy exchange balance” other than that created by the sun.

As Planck explained our system is a three body situation in a closed system. The sun and the earth makes up one pair with the sun providing heat input to the earth. The earth and the atmosphere make up a separate pair. Since the atmosphere cannot generate heat itself, any warmth it has comes from the earth and the only heat the earth has comes from the sun.Now you might try to say that the sun warms the atmosphere but that is not a stable situation. Any warmth in the atmosphere from the sun soon disappears via radiation or the lapse rate. The atmosphere can’t warm and stay warm because it is not a heat generator.

I’m not the best at explaining this but Planck’s paper on radiation does a very good job.

William Haas
January 29, 2021 2:55 pm

The reality is that, based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, the climate change we have been experiencing 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. There is also plenty of scientific rationale to support the conclusion that the climate sensitivity o CO2 is zero. So reductions in CO2 emissions will not effect our climate. Reducing domestic production of fossil fuels means we will have to start importing to fulfill our needs. If Biden were really serious about conserving on the use of fossil fuels then he would push for the replacement of ageing fossil fueled power plants with nuclear power plants but he is not doing that. He does not appear to care about what his actions do to the economy.

January 29, 2021 2:58 pm

There are too many in power who just don’t care.

gringojay
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
January 29, 2021 5:04 pm

Gary Varvel pictures one of them below who ascended rather than got elected. [For those unfamiliar with USA personages it is presumably a caricature of the marriage partner of president Biden* holding a sheaf of “executive orders”.]

0A08796A-D52A-493E-8948-E65CD4AF7D9B.jpeg
Last edited 2 months ago by gringojay
Steve Case
January 29, 2021 2:59 pm

7th line in the above article: “… to save the planet from carbon pollution …”

Stop buying into the bullshit! “Carbon” i.e., Carbon dioxide, is NOT pollution ! ! ! ! !

I stopped reading at that point. Honest to God, the people on the skeptical side of the “Global Warming”, “Climate Change”, “The Climate Catastrophe” bullshit just don’t seem to understand that what’s going on is, among other things, a war of words, and words mean things. Using their language is a road to defeat. And we are losing!

CO2 is NOT a pollutant, The polar ice caps are NOT melting, Methane and the Global Warming Potential numbers are bullshit, Wild fire is a scary term a la Stephen Schneider’s scary scenarios for what used to be called forest fires, Lowering ocean pH is NOT acidification. Average temperature is a meaningless statistic compared to maximum and minimum temperatures, and consensus is not science.

Tom
Reply to  Steve Case
January 29, 2021 3:55 pm

The “Ocean Acidification” terminology is a big one. The proper term (even if it were happening, which is impossible due to the huge buffering reservoirs and maximum carbonic acid levels being dependent on temperature) is “Ocean Neutralization”.
If you reduce the acidity of an acid, it’s called neutralizing.
If you reduce the alkalinity of an alkaline substance, it’s called neutralizing.
The ocean is alkaline; and what we are arguing about with the alarmists is whether or not it is neutralizing

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Steve Case
January 29, 2021 4:40 pm

Can you repost the graph of changes to the GISS record by NOAA over last 15 years?

Steve Case
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
January 29, 2021 9:58 pm

GISS by NOAA??? I did one 2015 vs 2005 and just the other day 2020 vs 2010 and both are a comparison of the GISTEMP Land Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) for the previous 10 years not 15. Here’s 2020 vs 2010:
comment image

The actual changes if you check out the Y Axis are small, but over time they add up. Here’s 2018 vs 1997 showing that rewriting historical data has changed the global warm-up from 0.75° to 1° per century:
comment image

Here’s the GISS web page
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
Here’s the current table data for their LOTI:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
The historical data for comparison has to be dug out of the Internet Archive WayBack Machine:
https://archive.org/web/
Apparently Dr. Hansen and the Current Dr. Schmidt have a policy of blocking the WayBack Machine from archiving of their data. But a diligent search will find a few that have been saved. It’s a matter of opinion why they have done that. It’s also a matter of opinion as to why the data is changed in a manner that cools the past and warms recent data. However, it’s a matter of fact that the data has been changed in that fashion.

The number of changes every month is staggering.
Here are the numbers for 2020:

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
319 240 313 340 298 404 319 370 303 389 381 370

That ‘s for the monthly data from 1880 to 2021 i.e., 1680 monthly entries.

Steve Case
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
January 30, 2021 5:22 am

Pat, I posted the graph and some links last night, but it’s still awaiting for approval.

Ron Long
January 29, 2021 3:01 pm

Very good article by D’Aleo. Many obvious bad policy decisions that will hurt the largest group that voted for Biden, however. this whole election was dominated by voting against Trump, not for Biden/Harris, and we have the mainstream media and the tech billionaires to thank for that. Doesn’t matter, the persons who can least afford it are going to get hammered.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Ron Long
January 29, 2021 4:45 pm

Ron
I think that is a good analysis of what might have happened. However, to reinforce the role played by the MSM and Silicon Valley CEOs, the media continually attacked Trump for even petty things that had nothing to do with his ability to lead the country, in an attempt to get people to dislike him. Further, the MSM suppressed news about Biden and his son that was of actual importance for the ability to lead. The MSM managed to convince many voters that Trump was racist, and a dictator that would have to be pulled from the White House kicking and screaming. Unless journalism is reformed to make them accountable for their ‘hate speech,’ we are lost.

n.n
January 29, 2021 3:04 pm

Single/central/monopolistic solutions forced through regulatory excess are, in principle, suboptimal choices to their market/democratic/diverse (individual, not color) counterparts.

Last edited 2 months ago by n.n
Rud Istvan
January 29, 2021 3:43 pm

Agree with all, Joe.

But there is a problem. Your solid facts DO NOT matter to those in charge of DC now. So other means are now required. Beyond (perhaps) the scope of WUWT. Suffice to say, I have mobilized my own considerable (for me) other means.

Some real examples for context. My 3x alma mater hired Naomi Oreskes. So I finally told them (after annually flying down in search of a portion of my small fortune at my lunch/dinner expense) nothing until she is fired. Went Florida (closed primary) NPA in 2008 after the McCain abomination. Can always switch back and out on line depending on who is being primaried.

Get active. That is more than blog posts here.

Med Bennett
January 29, 2021 3:56 pm

In the meantime, doofus John Kerry has already admitted that destroying the US energy industry to “save the climate” will actually have zero effect on global warming. “Let them make solar panels”. https://nypost.com/2021/01/27/kerry-zero-emissions-wont-make-difference-in-climate-change/

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Med Bennett
January 29, 2021 9:53 pm

These people lie like they breath
$2trillion is barely a fraction of what it would cost to get to net zero.
Problem is people believe this crap.

Here in canada, we have a federal carbon tax that supposedly gets refunded to people ie costs nothing and yet somehow it will change people’s behavior?

How can people believe that

RickWill
January 29, 2021 4:27 pm

But the linkage is not to be trusted. What is ignored is the lack of long term global temperature data to make any reasonable assessment. 

Linkage – you are kidding! There is NO direct linkage between CO2 and temperature on this Earth. Be very clear, the “Greenhouse Effect” is a fairytale.

Take a close look at the attached image – what is the highest temperature on all three oceans.

When you can answer why the peak temperature across all three oceans is 30C give or take a degree at any time of the year for the past 10 million years, you will have a clue. Until then please desist from perpetuating a fairytale about CO2 having some linkage to climate on Earth other than the life it spawns.

Screen Shot 2021-01-30 at 11.25.37 am.png
January 29, 2021 4:42 pm

Biden’s climate plans are energizing national security problems. Emulating California’s energy mistakes will weaken America as the country will be increasing its demands from foreign countries for crude oil supplies and for the materials needed to support the electrification of America. Published Jan 26, 2020 at CFACT https://www.cfact.org/2021/01/26/bidens-climate-plans-are-energizing-national-security-problems/
 
Summary: Biden’s climate plan may be energizing national security problems with his efforts toward discouraging U.S. energy independence and place the country’s reliance, like California has done, on foreign countries for America’s energy needs. And, as he moves to electrify virtually everything, America’s needs for the exotic minerals and metals that China controls, to support wind, solar, and EV battery construction, will have America beholden to China and other developing countries for our “clean” energy supplies.

Mike Dubrasich
January 29, 2021 5:04 pm

Biden policies are so wrong-headed that it’s hard to know where to start.

1. Cancelling the Keystone Pipeline will increase CO2 emissions because the oil will be (is now) delivered by rail, pulled by diesel locomotives. The pipeline would have lessened emissions.

2. CO2 is good for the planet. It is the fundamental building block of life and current concentrations are less than half of normal levels over the last 250 million years.

3. We live in the Ice Age, the coldest geologic epoch or period since the Permian. Normal temps are much higher than today. Warmth is beneficial to life. Far from being a catastrophe, a warmer planet would be a blessing and a boon. If CO2 warms the planet (most likely it does not, or at best marginally), it would be a good thing.

4. Very few people are concerned about global warming. It ranks last in every poll ever taken regarding important issues. What ranks first is the economy, stupid. Unemployment and a faltering economy due to lockdowns are paramount concerns. The Biden Executive Orders harm the economy, increase unemployment, reduce GDP, and cause inflation, the opposite of what most people want.

It’s bad enough that the election was stolen. The new rulers are without shame or virtue. Their policies are unbelievably brain dead. This fiasco is not going to end well for anybody.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
January 29, 2021 5:46 pm

Very few people even believe in global warming any more. Only far left Democrats.

We’ve been told for 20 years that the earth is going to turn into a cinder in the next five years. Hasn’t happened. Go read the story of Peter and the Wolf!

Then people see, even though the MSM will not report it, that we continue to set record global harvests almost every year even though we keep getting told that climate change is going to kill all the grains and we are all going to starve. Starvation has gone down globally over the past twenty years, not up! Widespread starvation hasn’t happened over 20 years of predictions. Peter and the Wolf again.

Every year more and more people look around and say “Wow, we are doing better and better every year!”. The lies simply can’t convince those willing to look around at reality. All the Dems have is “Don’t believe your lying eyes, things are getting worse!”.

MarkW
Reply to  Tim Gorman
January 29, 2021 7:13 pm

I believe you are thinking of the boy who cried wolf

Tim Gorman
Reply to  MarkW
January 29, 2021 8:01 pm

Yep. Senior moment.

January 29, 2021 5:31 pm

America is on the eve of destruction….the dark cold Biden winter is descending across the land….Joey’s cognitive decline is getting worse….he wants Solyndra to hire people ….sez earth is losing 1.2 trillion tonnes of ice per year….and ….gulp….sez it’s getting worse. Joey believes…..believes he can cause more destruction than the Great Obomba.

Peta of Newark
January 29, 2021 5:36 pm

Yesssss, (mostly) all very lovely..
but..
Quote:
“”What is ignored is the lack of long term global temperature data””

This has Got To Be The Biggest Flaw in this entire Climate Boondongle.

a) Tempertaure is NOT any true measure of Climate
b) The main part of it is actually the Warmists blasting both their feet off in one fell swoop.
They talk about Trapped Heat
Even if there was a scintilla of truth in that such stuffcould actually exist, ‘heat’ is referring to Energy
Temperature is NOT = Energy or energy content strictly
Yes OK, it gives a measure of energy content BUT ONLY if all else remains the same.
Warmists then proceed to, having blown their feet away, then blow their heads off by asserting that extra atmospheric water vapour is required to provide any extra warming

And when you’re dealing with water, of all things, very modest changes in the amount of the stuff will give large temperature changes (given a fixed amount of energy)

To attempt to link Global Temperature to Climate is perfectly futile.
Global Energy Content maybe yes, but not temperature unless you are 100% sure everything else remains the same
Yet the very theory of CO2 induced change says things do not remain the same.
sigh

Quote:
“”After 1980s satellites began sensing ocean surface temperatures“”

No they did not.
Star Trek technology does not exist and I’m sure even if it did, it would struggle to do what’s claimed

The Sputniks can only see the atmospheric gases – that is how they ‘see’ temperature.
They do it by looking at resonances of Oxygen molecules in the frequency range of 55 thro 60 Ghz
Such resonances being temperature dependant but also, pressure dependant.
So, if one variable is known, the other can be deduced.
(Via a haha Computer Model. What Could Possibly Go Wrong)

What the Sputniks do is not any sort of absolute recording of temperature, such as a proper gas thermometer would provide.
Gas Thermometers being based on the calculable, from 1st principle, Gas Laws and are what Real Scientists used, 2 and 3 hundred years ago.
(To lay the foundations for this crap. Enough to make a grown man cry)

The Sputniks have to be calibrated somewhow – the only way to do that is by flying them over reference thermometers on the ground – hence why any/all new Sputniks need 2 or 3 months flight before anything even remotely useful comes out of them.
Even then, best accuracy is plus minus 2 Celsius
So straight away, if the ground thermometers are in any way ‘compromised’ so are the Sputniks
They cannot tell us anything really genuinely new
And we know they cannot – the radiations from the GHGE cannot penetrate the first millimetre thickness of liquid water and Cold Things do not radiate into warm things
Is there really that much point in flying them?

But worse, the air temperature over the water is not a true reflection of the water temp.
Else how do anticyclonic storms and weather systems bring huge blobs of warm air to place like the UK. How do they do that?
So, air temps over the water are influenced by air currents (winds) coming from warmer places.
Thus, the Enquiring Mind would like to know, why doesn’t the UHI effect get carried out over the water, especially as most very large cities are on coasts.
What about the albedo reduction caused by tillage, creating vast plumes of warm air?
How do Saharan Plumes of air nearly at 40 Celsius get across the Med into France and then continue on to cross The Channel to appear, at over 35 Celsius in the UK
What do the Sputniks make of them?

Not a bad effort otherwise, 97 out of 100

Last edited 2 months ago by Peta of Newark
n.n
January 29, 2021 5:44 pm

Biden policies already creating job losses, energy costs will skyrocket

50 shades of violet. Don’t be green, embrace the Rainbow, go Green for green[backs].

Last edited 2 months ago by n.n
WXcycles
January 29, 2021 5:55 pm

If the millions of Doom claims worked even once you would not be reading this now.

QED

Joel O'Bryan
January 29, 2021 6:15 pm

“A Biden regime will be the end of freedom. Europe and Canada have already fallen far down that “poverty road to Venezuela”. If America falls, there will be nowhere left to run to.”

Myself and many other have been saying this for more than a year now. The problem is that Biden is just a puppet. All the things he’s signed are just EO’s put in front of him by his “advisors” doing the bidding on behalf of Dementia Joe’s puppet masters.

At this point, buying gold, dried rice, and ammo seems like the only logical thing remaining.

commieBob
January 29, 2021 6:24 pm

… Europe and Canada have already fallen far down that “poverty road to Venezuela”.

The Canadian economy benefits hugely from being closely tied to the American economy. That condition is also a bit terrifying. The father of Dances with Unicorns, Pierre Trudeau, once quipped that living next to the United States was like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how even-tempered the beast, you notice every twitch.

Canadian statesmanship is about compromise. The oft stated joke is that the Liberals run from the left and rule from the right. (it’s not actually that much of a joke) Somehow Canada has managed not to turn into Cuba in spite of (or maybe even because of) decades of unemployment insurance and government medical care.

The biggest danger to Canada’s oil industry is pressure from the United States. If China were smart, it would play nice with Canada. Many Canadians would be delighted at the chance to reduce American economic influence. Fortunately, or perhaps unfortunately, China isn’t that smart.

I would say that if you liken Canada to Venezuela, you don’t know much about either.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  commieBob
January 29, 2021 6:28 pm

The US and Canada are family. China is only a fair weather friend.

As the saying goes, “You can choose your friends, but you’re stuck with your family.”

commieBob
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
January 29, 2021 7:15 pm

I couldn’t have, and indeed didn’t, say it better.

MarkW
Reply to  commieBob
January 29, 2021 7:19 pm

He didn’t “liken Canada to Venezuela”. He said that Canada is taking the same road to poverty that Venezuela has taken.

commieBob
Reply to  MarkW
January 29, 2021 8:05 pm

Canada isn’t a lot more socialist than it has been in the past. If it were on the road to ruin on that account, it would be there already.

Kramer
January 29, 2021 6:40 pm

Yellow vests.

RelPerm
January 29, 2021 9:01 pm

Why is Australia energy cost higher than Italy. It should be lower than US based on low cost available energy supply!

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  RelPerm
January 29, 2021 9:55 pm

Tax and stupidity

Ben Vorlich
January 30, 2021 1:22 am

That picture of working by lamplight sent shivers down my spine. Anyone who grew up off grid not from choice would feel the same. Gas lights, oil lamps and candles for light, having to light a fire for heat and to cook makes life too difficult and consumes too much time and leaves little time to improve life. Fossil fuels give humans time to develop ; subsistence living stops progress

Rod Evans
January 30, 2021 1:39 am

Thanks for a great overview of interesting data. It is such a pity no politician on the Left will read it and if they did they would just dismiss it at unimportant.
Their ambition is clear. They are fixed on the path of destroying capitalism. The number of casualties along the way is of zero concern to them. The ongoing number of casualties and suffering once collectivism has been achieved is also of no concern to them.
The political class on the Left believe they will be survivors because it will be they who hold the resources and decide who else is allowed to survive.
If they only studies history as carefully as they study anarchy they would realise, the anarchists never survive past one lifetime.

leitmotif
January 30, 2021 3:32 am

According to the Guardian, Biden is doing a great job.

“Dizzying pace of Biden’s climate action sounds death knell for era of denialism”
When do you think Biden will run out of Kool-Aid?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jan/30/joe-biden-climate-change-action

griff
January 30, 2021 3:47 am

‘Many ‘green’ countries were forced to slow or even halt the move to green and build coal plants to provide energy when the sun doesn’t shine or wind blow.’

No they weren’t. Absolutely none have been forced to do that.

Japan’s drive on coal was because it shut down so many reactors after Fukushima… but! It is retiring so many inefficient coal plants there is going to be a net reduction in coal power.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  griff
January 30, 2021 9:23 am

“https://www.americanexperiment.org/2020/05/germany-just-built-a-brand-new-clean-beautiful-coal-plant/”

Then why did Germany start up a new coal plant mid-2020?

Poland has turned up a new coal plant in recent years (2017 I think)

——————————-
No they weren’t. Absolutely none have been forced to do that.
Japan’s drive on coal was because it shut down so many reactors after Fukushima
—————————————-

Cognitive dissonance at its finest.

rd50
Reply to  griff
January 30, 2021 3:41 pm

You should look at the country who is not green: China.
Do you have any idea of how many new coal burning power plants are planned to open in China?
Then look at China again. Do you have any idea of how many new coal burning power plants China is financing to help Africa constructing such plants?
And the “green” countries are simply replacing coal with natural gas!

Kevin R.
January 30, 2021 9:48 am

President Trump at the last presidential debate: Joe Biden is going to cause a depression.

Biden: No I won’t.

Yes, he will.

Last edited 2 months ago by Kevin R.
PaulH
Reply to  Kevin R.
January 30, 2021 1:43 pm

…but he’ll blame Trump.

February 1, 2021 8:03 pm

“Hanoi John’ Kerry is being nailed for gross exaggeration or worse:
https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2021/01/29/wapo-two-pinocchios-kerrys-wind-solar-jobs-claims/

Standard ‘alternative energy’ activist method of course.

%d bloggers like this: