Reality Cannot Penetrate Into The Fantasy World Of Climate Campaigners


Francis Menton

It was only a few weeks ago when the UN’s International Energy Agency issued its Report on “CO2 Emissions in 2021.” (The Report does not bear a precise date, but only “March 2022.”) I covered the IEA’s Report in my previous post a few days ago. The Report gives detail as to the obvious fact that world CO2 emissions, after a downward blip in 2020 due to the Covid pandemic, have resumed their rapid increase, mostly attributable to massive deployment of coal-fired electricity generation resources in large-population developing countries like China and India.

In any rational world, this Report would have to have dashed any remaining dreams of climate campaigners that overall world CO2 emissions would see anything but large ongoing increases for the foreseeable future. The climate-obsessed jurisdictions in the U.S. and Europe already represent only a shrinking minority of world energy consumption, headed for insignificance as the large-population countries of the developing world join the fossil fuel age. For example, why would a small-population jurisdiction like New York — with about 20 million people, compared to about 2.8 billion for the combination of China and India, and with existing fossil-fuel electricity generation capacity of about 25 GW — struggle to reduce its fossil-fueled electricity generation by, say, one GW per year, when China alone is adding 38 GW of coal-fired power plants this year, and another 47 GW next year, with hundreds more gigawatts worth of coal plants already in the pipeline?

The answer is that reality just can’t penetrate into the fantasy world of the climate campaigners.

To prove my point, another UN agency, the IPCC, came out just yesterday with its own Report with the title “Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change.” This is the output of the IPCC’s so-called Working Group III, the portion of the “AR6” assessment report that deals with “mitigation” strategies. In the aggregate, this new Report has some 3000 pages. For those without the tolerance to wade through that kind of volume, here is the Summary for Policy Makers; and here is the press release; and here is a piece over at Bloomberg titled “Five Takeaways from the UN’s Latest 3,000-Page Climate Report.”

Let’s start with the press release. The headline is “The evidence is clear: the time for action is now. We can halve emissions by 2030.” A few pithy excerpts:

Without immediate and deep emissions reductions across all sectors, limiting global warming to 1.5°C is beyond reach. However, there is increasing evidence of climate action, said scientists in the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report released today. . . . “We are at a crossroads. The decisions we make now can secure a liveable future. We have the tools and know-how required to limit warming,” said IPCC Chair Hoesung Lee. “I am encouraged by climate action being taken in many countries. There are policies, regulations and market instruments that are proving effective. If these are scaled up and applied more widely and equitably, they can support deep emissions reductions and stimulate innovation.

OK guys, how exactly are you going to “halve emissions by 2030” with China going all-out to build new coal plants on a scale far beyond anything the world has ever seen, and India (with population almost as large as China) not far behind, and the rest of Asia and all of Africa waiting in the wings? You will not find the answer. Go through the press release and the SPM and all you find is studious avoidance of any mention of the development plans of places like China and India. Even the names “China” and “India” appear to be on some kind of taboo list. For example, here from the SPM is a chart of total world GHG emission since 1990:

Eastern Asia? I wonder who that could be.

As you would expect from these people, there is the usual assertion, based on the completely deceptive “levelized costs,” that wind and solar electricity generation are now as cheap or cheaper than generation by fossil fuels. Four “renewable” technologies are considered: onshore wind, offshore wind, solar photovoltaic, and concentrated solar. From page 14 of the SPM:

In 2020, the levelised costs of energy (LCOE) of the four renewable energy technologies could compete with fossil fuels in many places. . . . LCOE . . . includes installation, capital, operations, and maintenance costs per MWh of electricity produced. The literature uses LCOE because it allows consistent comparisons of cost trends across a diverse set of energy technologies to be made.

The SPM does mention that LCOE “does not include grid integration costs,” but fails to note that those are almost certainly a large multiple of what is included in the LCOE measure.

So perhaps you might think, this can’t possibly be fooling anybody. If so, you are not understanding the depths of ignorance and incompetence that pervade our governing class here in New York. As I previously reported back in December, our City Council had just passed a new local law banning any new building from using natural gas for heat or cooking starting in 2024 for smaller buildings and 2027 for larger. That was just the City, but now the entire State wants to get in on the game. From Reuters yesterday:

New York Governor Kathy Hochul will soon release a budget that likely will include a plan to make New York the first state to ban natural gas and other fossil fuels in new construction, according to Food & Water Watch and other environmental groups. . . . In her State of the State address in January, Hochul committed to “zero on-site greenhouse gas emissions for new construction no later than 2027.”

Read the full post at the MANHATTAN CONTRARIAN

5 24 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 6, 2022 6:09 am

Nope it must be able to finally able to penetrate … this just in from the UK and even reported by the gruntard

Poor old Griff will be furious.

Reply to  LdB
April 6, 2022 6:57 am

Poor old griff might well be apoplectic

“Ministers launch fracking study, paving way to end moratorium in England”

Last edited 1 month ago by fretslider
Reply to  LdB
April 6, 2022 7:52 am

I’m pretty sure griff and the other alarmists will tell us that it’s always been known that we will need fossil fuel plants as back up to the unreliable renewables, and he just can’t understand why anyone is making a big deal about these announcements.
After all, they are still committed to wasting money on wind and solar.

In other news, we have always been at war with EastAsia.

Last edited 1 month ago by MarkW
David Elstrom
April 6, 2022 6:14 am

For all leftist obsessions and fetishes, reality is at least optional and more likely forbidden/illegal.

Andrew Wilkins
April 6, 2022 6:15 am

“market instruments”
In other words, govt telling private companies what to do.
Or, in other words, command economy communism

April 6, 2022 6:21 am

By banning natural gas use in new buildings, NY city and state have actually made “net-zero” even harder to obtain by increasing the future demand for electricity that renewables have to catch up to and storage has to provide for.

Or, is it really harder, let’s say twice as hard if renewables have to provide for heat as well as electricity, in the far future when all old buildings have been replaced and/or current buildings cut off from gas – is it really hard-DER if it was impossible to begin with? After all, 2x infinity is still infinity, and 2x zero is still zero.

Last edited 1 month ago by PCman999
Andrew Wilkins
April 6, 2022 6:24 am

Just the other day on this site Nick Stokes admitted to us all that the predictions of thermal doom are numbers unscientifically plucked out of thin air.

In the same way, the greenie mugwumps who scream, “listen to the science!!!!” never admit to the general public that the magical 1.5 degrees is yet another number plucked out of thin air. It has no basis in science.

Nick is an intelligent (and very polite) person, so I’ve no idea as to why he goes along with this CAGW nonsense.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
April 6, 2022 7:01 am

Follow the money…

Ron Long
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
April 6, 2022 7:31 am

Andrew, I agree that Nick is an intelligent person, and behaves reasonably, which leads me to wonder: How does anyone reconcile the natural variation of sea level, which variation is due to climate cycles, of 140 meters, against fretting over 20 cm? This lack of a signal against the background of normal variation demands the null result for CAGW.

Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
April 6, 2022 7:44 am

I suspect he’s concerned about contradicting his politics. The left considers net zero to be their most supportable cause, which says a lot about the rest of their agenda, which many on both side agree is even more self destructive. If real science could be restored to climate science and the MSM acknowledged their complicity in the deception, even California would flip to red.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
April 6, 2022 8:09 am

“ even California would flip to red.”

WOW! I just can’t fathom it.

Reply to  Derg
April 6, 2022 8:35 am

A truth that reveals purposeful deception has this kind of power. People don’t like being deceived. The fact that many don’t know they’re being deceived is what needs to change and the ubiquitous deception by the left and its MSM partners is starting to be exposed. A Grand Jury now knows that the big guy is Brandon, and it looks like Sussman will be going to jail for his part in the Russian collusion hoax.

Reply to  Derg
April 6, 2022 7:05 pm

I doubt ink nor pencil will stick in the California ballot boxes next to Republicans.

Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
April 6, 2022 8:07 am

“ why he goes along with this CAGW nonsense.”

Maybe his paycheck depends on it? 🤔

Reply to  Derg
April 6, 2022 12:47 pm

I believe he used to work with CSIRO, so the AGW myth will be ingrained in his very pores.
Plus he probably doesn’t want his ex-workmates, some of whom may be still at CSIRO, to see hims breaking away toward reality.

Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
April 6, 2022 10:03 am

Lots of intelligent people go along with the CAGW nonsense. Many are ignorant of the actual data and go along with the narrative pushed by the press. Some don’t have a math or science background and can’t see through the alarmist’s obfuscations. However, to a knowledgeable person with either a scientific background or common sense there’s no case in which AGW will be catastrophic in the next few hundred years. We’ll run out of fossil fuels well before a climate catastrophe could possibly happen. Warmer, maybe. Catastrophe, no.

Nick doesn’t fit the profile of a typical sheep like most of the Climate Alarmists that post here. Nick is either brainwashed by his politics or he must have an agenda.

April 6, 2022 6:43 am

“ban gas and other fossil fuels” – article

Unless I missed something, that doesn’t say anything about banning the use of wood as a fuel source. 🙂 But then, wood is not a fossil fuel, so….

Their lack of logic escapes me, but I think the people who espouse this idiocy should be forced to participate first, and just as quickly, find that the power grid can’t carry the load or there’s a terrible storm (whatever!), shuts down quickly, doesn’t go back up until long after these geniuses have been found buried under snow that they could not dig their way out of.

What? I can dream, can’t I? Maybe we need more volcanoes like Tonga going off, sending massive shock waves in the atmosphere around the globe that have an effect on weather patterns, even if we poor souls down here on the ground don’t feel them.

Ir’s a shame these people are so completely uninformed that the only way they can be snapped out of their idiocy is to suffer the consequences of such folly.

Rick C
Reply to  Sara
April 6, 2022 7:15 am

I do not live where natural gas is available. I wish I did as it is by far the cheapest and most efficient way to heat buildings and water. There is a lot of new NG pipe line being installed in my area, but there are too few potential customers in my neighborhood to justify the cost so I’m stuck with more expensive LP.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Rick C
April 6, 2022 9:29 am

I’m in the same boat, though I have oil as opposed to LPG. Of course, with the Eco-Nazis firmly in control of local politics, I wouldn’t want to be dependent on the gas supply even if a hook-up WAS available in my area at this point. Piped gas runs out the moment supply is disrupted; at least you have a tank full to keep you going with LPG (or for that matter with oil).

Reply to  Rick C
April 6, 2022 9:58 am

Rick C, don’t scoff at LPG costs. 😉 Our house located in the mid-Atlantic, and built in 1999-2000 is totally LPG, water heater, clothes drier, cooking, and EmHt when when temps are too cool for heat pump. We burn well less than a 400 gallon tank annually. If LPG cost is computed monthly it is still 1/3 or 1/4 of the electric bill.

Reply to  CoRev
April 6, 2022 12:49 pm

Unfortunately one needs a sizeable investment fund to install such a system.

Reply to  AndyHce
April 7, 2022 4:55 am

Andy, correct if converting, but not so if building new. The large unique cost is for the tank. It is usually cheaper to buy it than to rent, so that one can buy LPG via annual pre-paid contract. Rental users are usually limited to on-demand delivery at the then going price. Prices fluctuate greatly during the season.

Ron Long
Reply to  Sara
April 6, 2022 7:32 am

Sara, sounds like you’re advocating for the return of burning buffalo chips? Special Smokey Flavor?

Reply to  Ron Long
April 7, 2022 5:51 am

Well, they would add some unique flavor to the food you cook, wouldn’t they?

Really, I’m advocating for the greenies/greenbeaners/climate idjits to have a real-time, real-world experience with no electricity to supply anything, including heat. We all know how vulnerable the electric grid is to bad storms, and how that can be the most dangerous event in the winter. The greenbeaners/ecohippies are not living in the real world, and that is the real problem. Take away the electronic junk they depend on, put them into the low, low tech, non-electric, non-fossil fueled world of reality and I do not believe they would last more than (maybe) 72 hours, max, especially in the winter.

Just saying they all need a strong does of the harsh reality of it all. Wind power is unreliable – we all know that – as is solar. So let’s say another Tonga-type eruption goes off, with a much larger dust cloud that blocks sunlight, affects the atmosphere severely, interferes with electronics and electricity. Volcanic winter, so to speak. I believe most of us could handle it, but the ecohippies? Doubtful, in my view.

And it can happen. I don’t know if eruptions have a pulse rhythm of some kind, but the Atlantic ridge seems to be waking up, and that is not the only place on the planet. That’s one reason alone that I’d prefer building more nuke plants: less likely to be affected by such things as major burps by the planet. 🙂

I think natgas is fine, but again, it’s a finite resource. It is reliable, and the solar/wind stuff is not. Nuclear power is a better alternative, and most of us know it.

Last edited 1 month ago by Sara
Brian Jackson
Reply to  Sara
April 7, 2022 7:40 am

The planet is virtually made of natural gas, a gigantic colossal energy resource, vitually inexhaustible. It occurs naturally in shales everywhere, under all continents and continental shelves. With fracking this monumental energy store is easily tapped with proven technology. According to Prof Gold, NG is constantly being made deep in the mantle and migrating upwards.
Only the econutters stand in the way.

lee riffee
Reply to  Sara
April 6, 2022 3:25 pm

I’ll say one thing – if this fossil fuel ban insanity spreads out of NYC to the rest of the state, I can see a real boon for wood stove dealers coming up. People who want to build homes in rural or even suburban areas may decide to install wood-fired heating if that’s going to be the only real heating option for new construction.
Wood stoves and wood fired furnaces/boilers will become very popular in NY, as will used car dealers and auto repair/restoration businesses in California and Washington state.

Reply to  lee riffee
April 7, 2022 6:03 am

I would not mind using a wood-fired stove, and having a real fireplace in my home would make me very happy. Even my cat would love it. Until the Industrial Revolution brought closed stoves and other such “luxuries” into being, less-wealthy people cooked and baked in the fireplace in their homes. Those who were better off had kitchens, which had wood-fired ovens and stoves, and frankly, if you let the fire go out in the fireplace in a small 3-room house, you had to restart from scratch.

What we take for granted now didn’t exist in its modern before the Industrial Revolution. The cast-iron wood-fired cookstove not only cooked and bake food, but also heated the kitchen, and if the “kitcehn” was part of the living area, then that was heated, too.

We are about two steps away from reverting to that, so those people in NY state who install wood-fired stuff will be better off than their electric grid neighbors, by a long shot.

And before I forget, the ashes from wood-fired stoves and fireplaces/furnaces can be plowed into garden soil to enrich it. We just take too much for granted these days.

Reply to  lee riffee
April 7, 2022 6:43 pm

wood burning at home has been banned in many places for decades and more bans are easy to install when the banners don’t have to answer to anyone.

April 6, 2022 6:48 am

Model exclusions are everything.

April 6, 2022 6:53 am

“Reality Cannot Penetrate Into The Fantasy World Of Climate Campaigners”

There’s always 10 years left – if we act now etc.

“UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.”

Had Putin not invaded Ukraine this alarmism would be getting more traction, but it isn’t outside the bubble – and that’s where most people are.

The fact that the UK is only ~1% of global emissions is waved away by Parliament, such is the self-loathing in the upper middle and upper class elites.. No, we must buckle down and take it, show the world, and remember the Light Brigade.

Reply to  fretslider
April 6, 2022 7:55 am

I don’t think it is self-loathing. Quite the opposite; I think they have a grossly exagerated sense of our (the UK’s) importance to the world.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Quelgeek
April 6, 2022 9:31 am

Like all of the climate faithful. The notion that humanity has any effect on the climate that you can measure, and can direct by how much it will change, is pure hubris.

Reply to  AGW is Not Science
April 6, 2022 9:49 am

Yeah, that too.

Reply to  Quelgeek
April 7, 2022 11:54 pm

I think it’s more that Arts grads can’t add up.

Rud Istvan
April 6, 2022 7:07 am

Reality has nothing to do with climate alarmists worldview.
In their imaginary world:

  1. Climate models are right.
  2. Arctic summer ice has disappeared.
  3. Polar bear population is in steep decline.
  4. UK children have never known snow.
  5. Sea level rise has accelerated.
  6. Maldives has drowned.
  7. Renewables aren’t intermittent
  8. Battery storage is both feasible and economic.
  9. Paris Accord is working.
  10. China and India will go green.

And so on.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
April 6, 2022 8:01 am
  1. Battery storage is feasible, economic and already being installed.
Rud Istvan
Reply to  MarkW
April 6, 2022 8:05 am

NOT on the scale that ruinables already require. And NOT anywhere.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
April 6, 2022 8:10 am

I think Mark was adding to their imaginary world.

Ian Magness
Reply to  Rud Istvan
April 6, 2022 9:11 am

It doesn’t state in the article either way but do you think I am right in assuming that battery storage and other back-up costs (like keeping other power stations running) are NOT included in the LCOE calculations?

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Rud Istvan
April 6, 2022 9:32 am

What Derg said…

Reply to  Rud Istvan
April 6, 2022 7:11 pm

I believe MarkW meant to start his comment with “11.”.

Reply to  MarkW
April 6, 2022 9:29 am

MarkW, you’re right that battery storage of electrical energy “is feasible, economic and already being installed”.

Submariners are mighty grateful for this.

Ordinary households and industry relying on continuous utility power however, not so much 🙁

Reply to  MarkW
April 6, 2022 9:50 am

The storage is barely enough to stabilise frequency – it cant keep the grid up more than a few seconds. And that is itself ruinously expensive…

Last edited 1 month ago by Leo Smith
John Aqua
Reply to  MarkW
April 6, 2022 6:55 pm

We might have a new Griff?

Reply to  John Aqua
April 6, 2022 8:08 pm

No. MarkW was adding to Rud’s list of climate alarmist facts they know that just aren’t so in reality.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
April 6, 2022 9:37 am

“…In any rational world, this Report would have to have dashed any remaining dreams of climate campaigners that overall world CO2 emissions would see anything but large ongoing increases…”

It does not matter. It is not about CO2, GMT, the environment or anything else. It is about the left having narrative to campaign on. The narrative is everything, until it isn’t, and then they just change the narrative.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
April 6, 2022 11:07 am

And we’re at a crossroads, where if we make the ‘wrong’ decision, we’re all going to die. This is just the latest in a long series of ‘crossroads’ and ‘tipping points’ we’ve read about for forty or so years. Apparently, all the previous ‘wrong’ choices we made at those crossroads and tipping points have already destroyed ‘the planet,’ and humanity is extinct…

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Dave
April 6, 2022 6:01 pm

It’s even worse than that: We only have three years left according to these people.

When this tipping point doesn’t happen, will they admit they were wrong? My guess is no, but we can still have a lot of fun with this ridiculous prediction.

Three years is just around the corner. Trump might be president by then.

These alarmists forgot the first rule of alarmist propaganda: Don’t make short-term predictions, because they may cause embarrassment when they don’t prove out.

Reply to  Dave
April 6, 2022 8:12 pm

Dave: Apparently, all the previous ‘wrong’ choices we made at those crossroads and tipping points have already destroyed ‘the planet,’ and humanity is extinct…

Now that you mention it, I was feeling a bit out of sorts this morning. That’s probably the reason.

April 6, 2022 7:20 am

The answer is that reality just can’t penetrate into the fantasy world of the climate campaigners.

Not surprising when you look at who leads them all-
‘The guy looks lost’: Biden seen wandering around aimlessly at White House event (
Welcome to their guiding light on the hill.

Dave Fair
Reply to  observa
April 6, 2022 9:04 am

I’m sure I’m not giving a new idea to the Democrats, but this event seems to be the ramp-up to Obama running in 2024; the Constitution be damned! VP?

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  observa
April 6, 2022 9:33 am

He’s kind of like a cadaver on strings controlled by Crazy Eyes.

Reply to  observa
April 6, 2022 12:53 pm

what is a puppet to do while no one is pulling its strings?

R Taylor
April 6, 2022 7:21 am

The governing class of NY is anything but “ignorant” in understanding its interest in the Climate Fantasy and, so far, has been anything but “incompetent” in selling it to enough voters.

Joe Crawford
April 6, 2022 7:24 am

Climate change (aka. ‘Global Warming) has become a religion for a certain segment of the population. And, as anyone with any common sense knows, you can’t argue with religion. However, if, according to Herbert Simon’s theory of “bounded rationality”, you can present the ‘true believer’ with the occasional illogicality of his/her belief. When too many examples no longer fit their belief system they may eventually restructure it to be more inclusive and rational… We can always hope :<)

Reply to  Joe Crawford
April 6, 2022 12:32 pm

When too many examples no longer fit their belief system

What I have found is that they just dismiss the examples as “made up” or lies. Or they simply don’t acknowledge them.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  TonyG
April 7, 2022 7:48 am

Tony, that is their normal reaction. But, eventually (it may take several years) the ‘bad’ examples add up and their belief systems become very uncomfortable. So, they go through a paradigm shift and change them to something more inclusive of current knowledge and experience. Thus the old adage that “If you are under 30 and not a liberal, you don’t have a heart. If you’re over 30 and not a conservative you don’t have a brain.” (or something close to that).

Reply to  Joe Crawford
April 8, 2022 10:35 am

I must not have a heart then.

If it takes several years, it’s more years than I’ve ever seen in person, and I’m in my 50’s.

Reply to  Joe Crawford
April 7, 2022 12:11 am

Well nice idea. Won’t work though. While they remain insolated from the personal consequences of their illogic they will virtue signal to their hearts content

April 6, 2022 7:59 am

Exactly. Same thing with UK Net Zero. What on earth is the point of it when China is adding, every year, in coal fired generation, the UK’s total electricity generation from all sources?

Its an exercise in expensive futility, even could it be done, it would be pointless.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  michel
April 6, 2022 9:35 am

Further, it would be pointless because CO2 does not drive the effing climate. Never has, isn’t now, never will.

They might as well be campaigning to stop the Sun from rising to save us from skin cancer.

Reply to  michel
April 6, 2022 12:57 pm

Many magics depend on symbolically representing to thing to be acted upon, such as a voodoo doll standing in for a human person. It doesn’t have to actually match the real object in any particular way, especially not in scale.

April 6, 2022 8:08 am

Most people have no problem believing contradictory things. E.g., Most climate alarmists simultaneously believe all three of these things:

1. Global Warming is BAD; and

2. All (or nearly all) warming which the Earth has experienced since the “pre-industrial” 1700s (mid- “Little Ice Age,” 1400s-1800s) is due to human “greenhouse gas” emissions (mostly CO2); and

3. The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a nasty cold period.

Never mind the obvious contradiction, it doesn’t faze them, or perhaps never occurs to them.

#3 is one of those things that “everybody knows.” So they believe it, too.

They have to believe #1 because otherwise the whole “climate movement” is a lie. So they believe it, too.

They have to believe #2 because, if little of the warming was anthropogenic then “carbon emissions” obviously don’t have enough effect to be worrisome. So they believe #2, too.

Never mind that at least one of those three beliefs must be false; if you doubt them you are a “science denier.”

comment image

Last edited 1 month ago by Dave Burton
Reply to  Dave Burton
April 6, 2022 9:54 am

Great observations, Dave.

It’s also perplexing that acolytes of the AGW dogma accept unquestioningly that global-scale wind & solar electricity generation is the only possible response to their belief in (not so) imminent climate catastrophe.

Have you ever tried to engage in a civil discussion with an AGW disciple by suggesting to them that just for the sake of discussion, let’s de-couple the issues of atmospheric studies / reportage, and adoption of utility-scale wind & solar power generation, these subjects being entirely different disciplines?

My experience with this has been that for most Klimate Kool-Aiders, the issues of CO2 > AGW > wind & solar are absolutely inseparable.
You have to buy their whole package, or you’re clearly a “climate denier”.

‘Nuance’ for them is solar system far, far away.

Bjorn Lomborg is a telling example of someone who makes the mistake of attempting to arrive at rational positions with the topics of AGW and power generation & supply, but because he challenges the “whole package” mantra, he gets sent to the ‘naughty corner’ consistently.

Peter W
Reply to  Dave Burton
April 6, 2022 10:05 am

Liberal philosophy – Everybody is supposed to be equal. In order to be equal we have to all think alike. And just like the proverbial lemmings, it is everybody over the cliff together.

Gordon A. Dressler
April 6, 2022 8:15 am

Francis Menton: very nice article, thank you!

In particular, I much appreciate your inclusion of the graph of “Global net anthropogenic GHG emissions by region (1990-2019)”.

I combine the noted increase in anthropogenic GHG emissions with the recent article by Christopher Monckton titled “The new Pause lengthens: now 7 years 6 months” (see ), which statistically shows no increase in global mean lower-troposphere temperature since October 2014, and come away concluding anthropogenic GHGs (predominately CO2 and water vapor) have no significant effect on global warming.

The experiment has been run and the resulting empirical data is in . . . and available for all to see.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
April 6, 2022 9:16 am

More importantly, other than a double-Super El Nino at the end, there has been negligible global warming since the end of the 20th Century in the atmosphere, where CO2 warming originates, according to UAH6; 24 years and counting. Over that period warming has been far less than that predicted by UN IPCC CliSciFi models. They can’t hindcast (especially early 20th Century warming) nor do they reflect current temperatures. Yet drive them with wildly excessive projections of atmospheric CO2 concentrations and you get catastrophe according to the UN, Western governments, Leftist NGOs and (more importantly) the slobbering media.

Last edited 1 month ago by Dave Fair
Richard Page
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
April 6, 2022 9:45 am

While we’re on the subject of GHG’s – can I ask about the slight downturn due to COVID? Am I right in thinking that that slight downturn only ever appeared in the modelled output of emissions, not in the measured concentration of CO2? So models not real world data once again?

Reply to  Richard Page
April 6, 2022 10:19 am

There was a significant, measurable decrease in human CO2 emissions during the covid lockdowns. However this decrease did not show up in the global measurements at all. To me this completely destroys the idea that human emissions are the driver of atmospheric CO2 increases.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Richard Page
April 6, 2022 11:27 am

Please note that the graph presented in the above article shows there was a slight downturn (“dip”) in total global net anthropogenic GHG emissions in the 2015-2016 timeframe, well before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The cause for this is not given, but I suspect it may have been due to large-scale, worldwide switching from coal to cleaner-burning natural gas occurring during this time period.

In any event, this dip apparently had no effect on the rate of rise of atmospheric CO2 concentration as measured at the NOAA Mauna Loa observatory . . . see attached graph.

Go figure.

Richard Page
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
April 6, 2022 11:46 am

Right – so I am correct in thinking that this was from the modelled output not from Mauna Loa data. Wishful thinking on the climate zealots part again, I shouldn’t wonder.

old engineer
Reply to  Richard Page
April 6, 2022 1:25 pm


Something a lot of people miss, when talking about CO2: Sometimes the discussion is about EMISSIONS. Which is the amount of CO2 put into the air by a source (car, powerplant, etc.) over time, with units of mass/time (like tons/year). and sometimes it is about the CONCENTRATION of CO2 in the atmosphere, Generally expressed as
parts per million (ppm).

So, while there was a slight decrease in emissions of CO2 due to COVID, there was not a corresponding decrease in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Richard Page
Reply to  old engineer
April 6, 2022 2:04 pm

I do understand that actually, old engineer. However while CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere can be measured, and have been for some years now, at Mauna Loa and therefore constitute a body of real world data, CO2 EMISSIONS are not measured. CO2 emissions are estimated from amounts of hydrocarbon fuels burnt and CO2 emitted in other forms and the results modelled. In other words, while there was a decrease in the estimated figures in the models, there was no actual decrease in the real world data of CO2. That slight decrease may have represented an actual decrease in estimated man made CO2 or it might have been wishful thinking on the part of the climate zealots.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  old engineer
April 6, 2022 2:59 pm

What you say is true, but the real issue at heart is that the rate of change of CO2 anthropogenic emissions (e.g., megaton CO2-equivalent per year, something like that) should be reflected in the rate of change of total atmospheric CO2 concentration (e.g. ppm increase per year) IF mankind’s emissions were a significant component of such.

This correlation is not apparent: Mauna Loa-measured CO2 is on a relatively-smooth, ever-increasing trend line when examined at a yearly-averaged resolution, whereas there are distinct “dips” seen in fossil fuel use (and consequently in anthropogenic CO2 emissions) when examined at yearly-averaged resolution. . . the period of 2015-2016 and the period of 2020 thru 2021 (the “COVID lockdown interval”) being two such cases.

Going even further, look at the Mauna Loa curve and reflect on the fact that it is continuing to growth at a relatively-small-but-smooth, positive exponential rate despite the past 7 years 6 months having no significant increase in measured global mean lower-troposphere temperature during that time.

There is a conclusion (perhaps several) that can be drawn from these observations. 

Last edited 1 month ago by Gordon A. Dressler
Richard Page
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
April 6, 2022 3:46 pm

Yeah I was trying very hard to restrict my post to just the basic difference between the estimated emissions and the measured data, not the fact that the two do not seem to have a correlation, least of all any form of causative link as climate zealots would have us believe.

Dennis G. Sandberg
Reply to  old engineer
April 7, 2022 12:44 am

Exactly right Old Engineer, no way that little covid blip down in emissions would show up in concentration. 0.000 something maybe. Not everyone understands that.

April 6, 2022 8:33 am

No climate campiagner apart from the very young and green believes in man made ClimateChange. They either believe in making fat profits out of renewables or a global economic revolution and the Down Fall Of Capitalism (whatever that means)…

Last edited 1 month ago by Leo Smith
Richard Page
Reply to  Leo Smith
April 6, 2022 10:01 am

As far as I can make out this ‘downfall of capitalism’ is a fairly rigid dogma – industries are all about profits and nothing else, industries are therefore destroying our planet, are very bad, run by bad people and therefore all industries must be stopped. They don’t appear to be against money or eco-friendly industry, just the ones that they and their friends have identified as being bad – these ones are to be taken over by responsible, good people who will then gradually remove them from the world, making it a better place. It’s a bloody odd way of thinking quite frankly – because government’s obviously haven’t done enough to stop this from happening then these government’s are working with their friends in the bad industries and not for the good of the people. I’m really not kidding on just how delusional and backwards this misanthropy is, nor do I think I’m exaggerating or overemphasising the points of their dogma – even when we get this climate change kicked into touch, it’ll need more effort to reverse this delusional thinking.

April 6, 2022 8:53 am

You know, it doesn’t bother me a bit to see any blue state committing economic Seppuku.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Rah
April 6, 2022 9:39 am

It bothers me, because I unfortunately live in one, and it’s also contagious – they tend to get others to jump on the mass stupidity bandwagon with them. The effect of their mass stupidity will also be felt in red states, who will ultimately be the only ones supplying reliable electricity to the grid – which will become increasingly unreliable as more worse-than-useless wind and solar is added to it.

Last edited 1 month ago by AGW is Not Science
April 6, 2022 8:56 am

Facts and reality never intrude upon religious dogma

Michael in Dublin
April 6, 2022 9:21 am

It is bad enough trying to reason with men but when it comes to women it is often worse.
The world is well aware that the climate crisis is one of the main stumbling blocks to sustainable development. We also know that climate stabilisation depends on a whole-of-society response; on all citizens’ equal and fair participation in governance. That has not happened: women have been underrepresented in climate decision-making.” (my emphasis).
This statement was made by this pair:
Laura Chinchilla, a former president of Costa Rica
María Fernanda Espinosa, a former president of the UN General Assembly

Take the huge continent of Africa. The failure of sustainable development is due to governments preventing a functioning free market and because of incompetent and corrupt governments. Zimbabwe is once again facing drought and widespread food shortages. Climate is not the problem but the failure to allow competent farmers to produce abundance during the good years to carry them over the dry years. These women ignore the fact that the country coped surprisingly well before they opted for the Marxist Mugabe and that he was responsible for the first huge wave of hyperinflation which is now being repeated by his successor.

CD in Wisconsin
April 6, 2022 9:30 am

“In 2020, the levelised costs of energy (LCOE) of the four renewable energy technologies could compete with fossil fuels in many places. . . . LCOE . . . includes installation, capital, operations, and maintenance costs per MWh of electricity produced.”

I don’t see any mention of fossil fueled power plant backup costs or the cost of battery storage for wind and solar. Or am I missing something here? Deceit and bias by omission?

Richard Page
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
April 6, 2022 10:06 am

Good – time to get rid of those green levies, start-up bonuses, preferential price guarantees and all other artificial ‘levelling up’ costs to get these industries off the ground. They are obviously mature industries now that can compete with fossil fuels on their own with absolutely no need to have their hands held financially. Let the slaughter begin!

Dennis G. Sandberg
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
April 7, 2022 12:50 am

Yes, slight of hand by Lazard, the holy grail for alarmists Lazard states battery/backup is required, but they don’t include it in their table. See my comment above.

AGW is Not Science
April 6, 2022 9:42 am

Basically, New York is passing a moratorium on new construction into law for anyone but loons. Who the hell wants a house in NY that you can’t reliably heat in winter?!

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
April 6, 2022 10:16 am

Fair point. If you already have a house that will likely have a ‘grandfathered’ fossil fuel heating system, what better way to increase its value than to use climate alarmism to minimize the increase in housing stock.

Nicholas McGinley
April 6, 2022 9:57 am

I urge the rest of the Democrat run hellholes to pass similar laws.
Should help control prices for the rest of us.
If you are sane and live in one of these places, the writing has long since been on the wall…so move already.

April 6, 2022 10:59 am

There is no evidence whatsoever that limiting human emission of CO2 will result in lower global average temperatures. That experiment has not been done. So far, all attempts at promoting the experiment have failed. So have any desired results.

What we have seen is long pauses of any warming broken by steps of sharp warming, but only following ENSO events. ENSO are completely natural events outside of human control.

April 6, 2022 1:52 pm

Why do the hooples think that we can just shut off one thing and turn on another source of energy without major upheaval in society.I will tell you why because they “think” they will have the money and power to withstand the change,. they do not, and when the suffering begins i will laugh my arse off as my fire dies and i say goodbye to the lie tellers, eat crow

Matt G
April 6, 2022 4:29 pm

They really don’t like reality.

Claim Little Ice Age was only regional when it was global.
Try and change history to what it wasn’t to support their agenda. (usually in small steps over longer periods so not as noticeable)
Blame warming only on CO2 and claim natural cycles have little or no influence.
Threaten climate disaster from severe weather within natural variability or from worse case scenarios on failed models.
Failed to support that CO2 has anything to do with lower global cloud albedo or increased sunshine hours that changed with ocean cycles.
Failed to show that CO2 had any influence between the global cooling period between the 1940’s and 1970’s.
The AMOC warmed the Arctic ocean during this warm ocean cycle phase declining sea ice and failed to show that CO2 has an influence on both poles.
Claim water vapor will increase when it has failed to do so.
Failed to show increase in global temperatures that have not relied on step ups from ocean cycles.
Failed to show that CO2 has anything other than an insignificant influence on global climate.

Between the 1980’s until the 2000’s when this warm ocean cycle phase occurred, there was a decline in global cloud albedo by 4%. More sunshine heating the land and ocean results in the warming we are seeing and is the inbalance that has occurred recently. More sunshine equals lower humidity giving higher temperatures.

The global temperature using satellite data pre 2017 has no trend when the change in AMO is removed.

The graph below shows how sea ice declined after the Great Pacific shift had occurred in 1976/77 with the AMO and PDO changing to there warm phases ever since.

Global temperatures won’t step down until the AMO moves into its cool phase.

Dennis G. Sandberg
April 7, 2022 12:35 am

Lazard is a favorite source for alarmists because reading the tables suggests that wind and solar are competitive with conventional sources. I go back and forth with them on Quora, but they refuse to respond to my pointing out a Lazard statement they insist on ignoring;

the Heading on the LCOE that states that, “wind and solar without storage lacks the flexibility of conventional power” in other words, because it is only available 1/3rd of the time it cannot work without storage and or conventional backup, but that cost is not included in the table. Grid penetration from RE can never exceed 1/3 of required demand, storage would be too expensive. It’s not complicated.

April 7, 2022 8:14 am

Or indeed of climate skeptics who think it is all a leftist plot…

April 7, 2022 9:53 am

Its so true that reality cannot touch these people.
I used to look at the boards on Weather Underground before it went defunct and the founders ran off to hide behind the walls of Yale.
Its not science, its much more like a cult without a secret truth.

Reply to  matt
April 7, 2022 9:54 am

Or Princeton. I forget. One of those fake intelligence schools.

%d bloggers like this: