More on Energy Fantasy Versus Reality in Woke-Land


Francis Menton

It’s official: the world is committed to rapidly reducing CO2 emissions. Just look at the the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, or President Biden’s April 22, 2021 press release, or California’s SB 100 climate act, or New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, or Germany’s Energiewende, or the UK’s Net Zero pledge, or any of many other such pledges.

And essentially all of woke corporate America is on board with the program. Consider the tidal wave of so-called “ESG” investing, focused on re-organizing corporate activities to reduce carbon emissions. Super-woke banking giant JP Morgan is leading the charge. From a recent JP Morgan press release:

JPMorgan Chase aims to finance and facilitate more than $2.5 trillion over 10 years – beginning this year through the end of 2030 – to advance long-term solutions that address climate change and contribute to sustainable development. . . . This long-term target complements the firm’s Paris-aligned financing strategy and will help accelerate the transition to a low-carbon economy by encouraging actions that set a path for achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.

And yet, somehow it just doesn’t seem to be happening. Australia’s ABC notices the disconnect in a June 3 piece with the headline “Climate scientists warn of increased climate change events as carbon emissions fail to drop.” Key point:

Emissions across the globe continue to rise despite nations committing to cut them.

All those many official pledges and commitments don’t seem to be having any effect whatsoever. The IEA reported in March that global CO2 emissions increased by a remarkable 6% in 2021 over 2020 (some of that representing rebound from the pandemic). The ABC piece is filled with wailings and lamentations of “climate scientists” about the impending disaster if emissions aren’t promptly slashed. (E.g., from University of Illinois professor Donald Wuebbles, “[W]e will see ever more damaging levels of climate change, more heat waves, more flooding, more droughts, more large storms and higher sea levels.”)

So what is the problem here? Isn’t reducing CO2 emissions down to about zero just a matter of building a few more wind turbines and solar panels?

For a serious dose of reality from an unexpected source, I highly recommend the 2022 Annual Energy Paper, released by none other than JP Morgan in early May. The author is a guy named Michael Cembalest, identified as Chairman of Market and Investment Strategy for J.P. Morgan Asset & Wealth Management. I previously covered the 2021 version of Mr. Cembalest’s annual report in this post from May 6 last year.

Here are a few highlights from Cembalest’s latest report. First, one of my favorite charts:

When the demand is there and the product works, it takes off. Not so for wind and solar for energy generation, nor for that matter for electric vehicles. Nobody buys these things unless subsidized, and as soon as government subsidies are reduced or go away, they disappear.

Next, Cembalest is totally on to the “levelized cost of energy” scam:

“[L]evelized costs” comparing wind and solar power to fossil fuels are misleading barometers of the pace of change. Levelized cost estimates rarely include actual costs that high renewable grid penetration requires: (a) investment in transmission to create larger renewable coverage areas, (b) backup thermal power required for times when renewable generation is low, and (c) capital costs and maintenance of utility-scale battery storage. I am amazed at how much time is spent on this frankly questionable levelized cost statistic.”

I would only quibble with Cembalest’s use of the word “questionable” to describe the levelized cost statistic. A more appropriate adjective would be “fraudulent.” But utilities in the real world need to grapple with real costs, including costs of additional transmission and storage, and can’t really be fooled by the misleading “levelized cost” comparisons.

Next, Cembalest has figured out that developed countries like the U.S. and Europe have manipulated their “carbon emissions” statistics by shifting high-energy-consuming manufacturing to developing countries, where the products are then produced mostly using coal:

Over the last 25 years, the developed world shifted much of its carbon-intensive manufacturing of steel, cement, ammonia and plastics to the developing world. While the developed world is projected to continue reducing its energy consumption, developing world energy consumption is projected to keep rising . . . . And as a reminder, coal is still widely relied upon in many developing countries, and also Japan. . .

Cembalest has the best brief summary of the impossibility of “carbon capture and sequestration” that I have seen:

The infrastructure required for meaningful geologic carbon sequestration would be enormous. In addition, the energy and materials requirements for direct air carbon capture are essentially unworkable. Here’s a quick summary of our conclusions on the topic from last year.

  • To sequester just 15%-20% of US CO2 emissions via traditional carbon capture and storage, the volume of US carbon sequestration (1.2 billion cubic meters) would need to exceed the volume of all US oil production in 2019 (858 billion cubic meters)/ That’s a LOT of infrastructure that does not exist.
  • Gathering and storing 25% of global CO2 through direct air carbon capture could require 40% or more of global electricity generation, even when assuming the presence of waste heat to power the carbon capture, requiring ~1,200 TWh per Gt of CO2. This is clearly an absurd proposition.

Here’s a great quip on the CCS fantasy:

One of the highest ratios in the world of energy science: the number of academic papers written on carbon sequestration divided by the actual amount of carbon sequestration (~0.1% of global emissions at last count).

Here’s a short paragraph on New York’s particular energy fantasies:

Since the shutdown of the Indian Point Nuclear Plant, coal- and gas- powered electricity imports from PJM have closed most of the gap. This fall, construction is set to begin on a 339-mile high voltage transmission line transporting Canadian hydropower. It has taken 17 years to get to this point, and the power line may not be completed until 2025. To conclude: the disconnect between transmission grid assumptions in Net Zero plans and what’s happening on the ground is almost as wide as the chasm between expectations and reality on carbon sequestration.

“PJM” is a regional interconnect facility that enables New York to import power from nearby states including Ohio, Pennsylvania, and even Tennessee, where they have many fewer compunctions about using fossil fuels.

There is much more of interest in the Report, which is 47 pages long. I should note that I don’t by any means agree with everything in it.

Read the entire article here.

4.9 30 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 7, 2022 2:12 am

The headline of this post reads, “More on Energy Fantasy Versus Reality in Woke-Land”, which is read as Moron Energy Fantasy Versus Reality in Woke-Land.
And that made me smile first thing this morning. Thanks, Francis Menton.


jeffery p
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
June 7, 2022 8:33 am

Beat me to it!

Bill Toland
June 7, 2022 2:14 am

I think that this report from JP Morgan is a sort of insurance policy. When the shit inevitably hits the fan in the future, JP Morgan can point to this report and say we warned everybody about the problems. We were not fooled by all of the climate propaganda; this proves that you can trust us with your hard earned money and we will invest it responsibly and give you a good return.

Reply to  Bill Toland
June 7, 2022 5:19 am

Actually it opens them up to liability for continuing to push the ESG nonsense on their portfolios against published acknowledgment that it is all based on false premises. The salient phrase is “JP Morgan knew”:.

Reply to  OweninGA
June 7, 2022 7:15 am

Yes, any financial institution pushing the ESG BS is reneging on their fiduciary responsibility. The scientific truth will eventually win and when it does, their lawyers will become really busy.

June 7, 2022 2:32 am

1.2billion is much smaller than 858 billion. Do you mean 858 million?

Leslie MacMillan
Reply to  Harry
June 7, 2022 3:12 pm

US crude oil production was about 4 billion barrels in 2021. This is about 700 million cubic metres. So yes, I assume the report’s author made a typo.

Michael in Dublin
June 7, 2022 2:38 am

I would be quite happy for climate alarmists to spend their own money on reaching all their goals in their own homes they want to force on the rest of us. Once they have proved this works and is affordable, I will begin to consider their objectives but not before. I will consider going to pedal power as soon as they give up all their flying and holidays in exotic places. This too is a fantasy.

Reply to  Michael in Dublin
June 7, 2022 4:40 am

I would still like a magic carpet.

Reply to  Scissor
June 7, 2022 6:23 am

Heck! I’d just settle for a flying car in my garage.

When I was a kid, I was told there would be flying cars in every garage. I’m now retired and I’m still waiting.

Reply to  H.R.
June 7, 2022 7:30 am

When I was a kid, we were told we would be vaporized by a nuclear exchange between Russia and the USA.

Now kids are being told they will be fried by the climate warming by a couple of degrees.

One of these scenarios has a healthy degree of credibility.

Gunga Din
Reply to  H.R.
June 7, 2022 1:46 pm

Buy an EV. Move all the batteries to underneath the chassis.
VOILA! Flaming …er… Flying car!

jeffery p
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
June 7, 2022 8:38 am

I would be quite happy for climate alarmists to spend their own money on reaching all their goals in their own homes they want to force on the rest of us.

That’s not how these people work. They are religious fanatics that cannot tolerate other ways of doing things. While they claim to celebrate diversity, they demand absolute conformance from believers and non-believers alike. Forget about tolerance or acceptance of other lifestyles.

Reply to  jeffery p
June 7, 2022 2:39 pm

That’s it Jeffery.

Try saying to a green zealot-
“ok, let’s agree the world is warming up, but your base load wind & solar power supply response is arrant nonsense any way it’s looked at.”

You won’t get an adult discussion going, just a spittle – flecked rant in return about your climate heresy.

Reply to  Michael in Dublin
June 8, 2022 6:46 pm

They are too blessed to need this. #GreensGoByAir and all that. Obviously, those vengeful Maxwell Demons only get upset when the insufficiently holy people use fossil fuels. Or when the cows fart.

Rolf H Carlsson
June 7, 2022 2:55 am

The significant argument against sequestering CO2 is that it is futile. The oceans contain huge amounts of CO2 and the atmosphere is not a closed system. At every temperature, there is a balance between CO2 in the oceans and in the atmosphere. So, after some time that balance will be restored as it were prior to any sequestration.

Reply to  Rolf H Carlsson
June 7, 2022 4:00 am

“The oceans contain huge amounts of CO2”
but most of it is combined, as carbonate or bicarbonate. Its equilibrium state vis-a-vis air is determined by the acid-base balance, as well as temperature. When we emit CO2, we emit acid, and that shifts the equilibrium to favor the higher concentration in the air. When we sequester CO2, we are sequestering the acidity.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 7, 2022 4:29 am

Yes but life itself consumes CO2 as its basic building block of matter and some fraction of CO2 is being continuously used and sequestered because of it, not for the purpose of maintaining acid-base balance, but for living.

Old Man Winter
Reply to  Scissor
June 7, 2022 8:16 am

Some of that sequestered carbon looks really nice!

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 7, 2022 7:35 am

Is that CO2 acid why sea water makes my eyes sting, Nick?

And it’s a bugger when it gets up your nose.

How do those sea dwelling mammals like whales, dolphins seals, dugongs etc stand living their whole lives in an acid bath?

Where’s PETA on this?

Leslie MacMillan
Reply to  Mr.
June 7, 2022 3:16 pm

The pH of seawater is about 8, so alkaline. But CO2 forms a weak acid when it dissolves in seawater (or any water), so it does tend to make the ocean less alkaline if there is enough of it.

Fred Chittenden
Reply to  Leslie MacMillan
June 12, 2022 5:52 pm

Reality check — CO2 is a trace gas that makes up about 4 molecules per 10,000 air molecules. That’s like the same concentration as the ONE craziest crazy in the typical 2500 teenagers high school. There’s just not enough CO2 in trace air to do much just like the craziest HSer can’t win a tug of war with the rest of the HS student body.

It would require reasonably high pressure (like in soda pop) to for CO2 to create a significant acid in water. However, when exposed to regular air pressure, CO2 saturated soda water’s ph adjusts to about 5.7pH, which typically becomes flat and moves towards neutral pH 7 as the CO2 leaves the water.

That all said, much of any CO2 that enters water (the ocean) will be converted to O2 and carbon containing plant life. Photosynthesis in or out of water is very efficient at converting CO2 into O2 and Carbon in plant life and on into the biosphere. Carbon in plant and animal life regularly moves back and forth from water to CO2 to plant life. Same process happens in life above water. Some of the carbon in the water biosphere does end up as part of one or more rock like carbon forms like limestone, frequently with assistance from life’s activities.

There’s an equilibrium point with CO2 in the air and water that is generally reasonably constant, much of that is related to the activities of carbon based life in both air and water. There’s a lot of CO2 moving around the biosphere that is currently greening the planet and providing all sorts of food for critters (like people) at the same time…

This is happening WITHOUT a significant increase in overall CO2 concentration in the air. One more time — Photosynthesis of plant life in and out of water is very aggressive about moving free CO2 into plant life using the energy of the Sun.

Bottomline — Reducing the CO2 via artificial politically science based sequestration is likely to create all sorts of unintended, unresearched, NEGATIVE consequences to life on earth. Mankind doesn’t have the wisdom to properly manage this process any better than mother nature has been successfully doing for eons…

Fact — Life on earth is carbon based and removing carbon from the biosphere via artificial political ‘scienced’ based GND nonsense will reduce the health and diversity of life on earth in general.

Last edited 23 days ago by Fred Chittenden
Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 7, 2022 9:49 am

“Emit acid”
That is going full-bore alarmist. “Everybody! We need to stop the acid!!!!!”

Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
June 7, 2022 10:57 am

Be especially careful around hydrogen hydroxide as people are *killed* from it every day.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Scissor
June 7, 2022 12:18 pm

Or even, di-hydrogen-monoxide. Deadly stuff!

Gunga Din
Reply to  Harry Passfield
June 7, 2022 1:58 pm
We’re all going to die!!!!

Gunga Din
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 7, 2022 1:56 pm

No, Nick. When we (by breathing or whatever) or nature emit CO2, we emit … CO2.
Plants breathe it.
We don’t emit carbonic acid.

Richard Page
Reply to  Gunga Din
June 7, 2022 2:27 pm

Very true – it’s when the benevolent CO2 is hijacked by the deadly dihydrogen monoxide that it becomes an acid! Until then it’s fairly harmless plant food.

Reply to  Gunga Din
June 7, 2022 5:08 pm

Lots of bad chemistry here. CO₂ is a Lewis acid; it doesn’t suddenly become an acid when hydrated. But the distinction doesn’t matter here, as whenever CO₂ is involved in biological systems, it is in aqueous solution.

The thing is, it is acidification of the sea that lets it remain in equilibrium with higher CO₂ in the air. It doesn’t really matter how that is done. Putting a Gton of HCl in the sea would have about the same effect as emitting a Gton of CO₂.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 7, 2022 6:28 pm

Brønsted–Lowry theory is probably more applicable as HCl would completely dissociate. CO2 doesn’t dissociate and doesn’t have a proton to donate, so by definition it’s a Lewis acid but it is weak and buffered by carbonate system, whereas HCl is not.

I wouldn’t want you to make my eye-drops.

Richard Page
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 8, 2022 3:41 am

Acidification my arse – you are such an alarmist! Most normal people would refer to the process as carbon sequestration, perhaps – but I’m guessing that’s too difficult a word for alarmists to understand? Not enough fear and alarm in it for you?
You should know that the very word ‘acidification’ used in this context is a blatant and wilful lie – there is not enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that can turn the ocean into an acid; to reduce the pH balance to below 7. Stop lying Nick, it’s a disgusting spectacle.

Reply to  Rolf H Carlsson
June 8, 2022 6:54 pm

No, «it is futile» usually is the best argument for nonsensical megaprojects.

… So it is reality itself that progressivism attacks. Reality is the perfect enemy: it always fights back, it can never be defeated, and infinite energy can be expended in unsuccessfully resisting it.

― An Open Letter to Open-Minded Progressives

Ron Long
June 7, 2022 3:00 am

Another great Reality check from Francis Menton. Two things that are obvious, the majority of the world populations that need cheap, on-demand energy, aren’t about to cripple themselves for some virtue-signaling opportunity, and, who approves of removing plant food (CO2) from the atmosphere? Not me, and certainly not as we are nearing a return to a Glacial Phase of this Ice Age we live in. There should be the same type of activism against carbon removal as exists against pipelines.

tom hewitt
Reply to  Ron Long
June 7, 2022 10:29 am

The majority of the world populations need cheap, on-demand energy but generally they pay more for less reliable energy and use far less of it on a per capita basis. So they do things like ,a href=>this</a>. Everyone could be doing this but, of course, they won’t.

tom hewitt
Reply to  tom hewitt
June 7, 2022 10:30 am
Allan MacRae
June 7, 2022 3:10 am

These Net-Zero politicians, executives, media, green activists and politicians all belong in jail for Crimes Against Humanity.
The entire Global-Warming, Climate-Change and Green-Energy narrative is false nonsense, the prattling of woke scoundrels and innumerates.
By the end of 2020, the climate doomsters were proved wrong in their scary climate predictions 48 consecutive times. At 60:40 odds for each prediction, the probability of that being mere random ignorance is 1 in 13 quintillion; at 70:30 the odds are 1 in 13 septillion. It’s not just woke climate scientists being ignorant. They know they’re not telling you the truth.

“The ability to correctly predict is the best objective measure of scientific and technical competence.”
Our scientific predictions on Climate are infinitely more accurate than the mainstream narratives, which have been false and baselessly alarmist to date.

In 2002 and again in 2013 we published the earliest and most accurate predictions on climate and energy, as follows::
1. There is no real global warming crisis.
2. Green energy is not green and produces little useful (dispatchable) energy.
3. Climate is INsensitive to increasing atmospheric CO2 and the burning of fossil fuels.
4. Climate at the century-scale IS sensitive to small changes on solar activity.
5. Earth will start natural solar-driven cooling by ~2020 or sooner.
6. Grid-connected green (wind and solar) energy will prove a huge failure by ~2020.

The Global Warming and Green Energy issues that the greens fret about are not relevant and not even real.

The real issue now is natural global cooling that started circa 2016-2020, causing food and energy price inflation and shortages, exacerbated by the Ukraine War. Global famine is possible.

Told you so 20 years ago!

Regards, Allan MacRae in Calgary

Reply to  Allan MacRae
June 7, 2022 4:36 am

Very nice summary, Mr. MacRae.

There are those that say that global famine is part of some evil plan for a “Great Reset.” I’m not convinced that it isn’t just plain stupidity and ignorance.

In any case, we don’t need “build, back better” many just want it put back the way it was.

Old Man Winter
Reply to  Scissor
June 7, 2022 5:16 am

Why wouldn’t you want this “build back better”?

Reply to  Old Man Winter
June 7, 2022 11:30 am

Yes, there’s some serious rebuilding to be done.
Will cost $trillions apparently.

comment image

Allan MacRae
Reply to  Scissor
June 7, 2022 7:00 am

“In any case, we don’t need “build back better” – many just want it put back the way it was.” – Well said Scissor!

Let’s just state the obvious: Global Warming (aka “Climate Change”) alarmists are just blatant climate fraudsters.

Too many people are hopelessly stupid and believe every new lie from the woke left. Our Western societies are now submerged in a swamp of leftist falsehoods.
The OLD BIG LIE is Global-Warming-Climate-and-Green-Energy fraud.
The NEW BIG LIE is Covid-19-Lockdowns-and-Vaccines.fraud.
Each country also has its own “Regional Frauds” – we are all “Buried in Bullsh!t”.

I published this new “Law” in early 2020 and it was originally written as satire.
It is also the truth!
Update: Please delete the word “Virtually”.

Lenin wrote:
NNB #1 to 7 – the strategy to subvert our free society
NNB #2 – why alarmists don’t debate Climate science – they just shout-down realists.
NNB #5 – crush the middle class with taxation and inflation – what is happening now, via government over-spending, inflation & rising interest rates – it’s their Plan.

1 “People always have been and they always will be stupid victims of deceit and self-deception in politics.”
2 “It is, of course, much easier to shout, abuse, and howl than to attempt to relate, to explain.”
3 “Democracy is indispensable to socialism.”
4 “The goal of socialism is communism.”
5 “The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.”
6 “Trust is good, but control is better.”
7 “As an ultimate objective, “peace” simply means communist world control.”
Anyone who wants to argue these above points better bring facts, we’ve had it with leftist falsehoods. 

Last edited 28 days ago by Allan MacRae
Reply to  Allan MacRae
June 8, 2022 7:23 pm

Too many people are hopelessly stupid and believe every new lie from the woke left.

Are you sure about this?
After all, 10:10s demonstrated they don’t truly believe in Cow Fart Apocalypse. For the same reason O’Brien could not be confused as to how many fingers he shows. Obviously, anyone playing any version of good old Chinese game “Point Deer, Make Horse” does not have problems telling a deer from a horse.
And if even these stupid zealots are fake, can there be many real believers? Other than some very senile people and that one brain-damaged child (and even she requires a handler to stay on topic).

jeffery p
Reply to  Scissor
June 7, 2022 8:42 am

… not convinced that it isn’t just plain stupidity and ignorance…

I call it Mass Delusion Through Mutual Agreement.

Reply to  jeffery p
June 8, 2022 7:52 pm

It’s the same old «strain out a gnat but swallow a camel» mentality. Those who feel incompetent at dealing with real problems are tempted into playing at fake solutions of made-up problems. The common contemporary symptoms are:

  • anarcho-tyranny (“we have no guts or ability to chase the criminals, it’s much easier to bully some timid citizen”),
  • «the Anti Kitten-Burning Coalition», per Fred Clark, who identified the phenomenon as rock bottom level of desperate virtue signaling: “at least we are better than those kitten-burners/child-sacrificing sotonists/nazi hiding under each bed/milk-curdling witches/…etc !

Obviously, this usually produces great concentrations of smoke and mirrors, and those tend to create a hunting ground for various opportunistic thieves and psychopaths. Who in turn come with all sorts of limpets and minions. Then there’s a lot of people not really deluded, and not even pretend-deluded, but with incentives to aid and abet the pretend-delusion. Some of whom have power to trade. In bad cases, enough of power is involved to create entire sectors of snake oil economy (like those bird mills). Then it’s “we cannot just destroy so many jobs, right?”

Last edited 27 days ago by TBeholder
Reply to  Scissor
June 8, 2022 7:08 pm

There are those that say that global famine is part of some evil plan for a “Great Reset.” I’m not convinced that it isn’t just plain stupidity and ignorance.

Oh, well, then. One can’t fight Hanlon’s Razor. Surely the arrogant idiots are too holy to accidentally treat some of them as if they were determined enemies when they act the part. Huh.
Let me tell you an old Russian joke.
defendant: I just stand there peeling an orange, and this guy walks by, slips on an orange peel and falls, right on my knife. So unfortunate.
judge: And then he got up and repeated this… seventeen times total?

Reply to  Allan MacRae
June 7, 2022 4:52 am

‘One degree and we’re done for’27 September 2006 – New Scientist      

“Further global warming of 1 °C defines a critical threshold. Beyond that we will likely see changes that make Earth a different planet than the one we know.”
So says Jim Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.

Such changes may become inevitable if the world does not begin to curb greenhouse gas emissions within the next decade, Hansen says.

That would be 2016…

Old Man Winter
Reply to  dennisambler
June 7, 2022 6:45 am

They increased the fear factor with the 2°C limit, then backed off to 1.5° when people
weren’t buying it any more. I’m expecting it to rise to 2°-3°C the next time they crank up the
fear porn again. (Using 2.1°C & 3.2°C sounds more “scientific”!)

Reply to  Old Man Winter
June 7, 2022 6:50 pm

John Kerry needs his head pulled out of his… um… thin air.

Allan MacRae
Reply to  dennisambler
June 7, 2022 7:22 am

Good point Dennis.

Radical greens and leftists lie about everything – that is their core competence.
On Failed Global Warming Predictions:
By the end of 2020, the climate doomsters (aka the IPCC and their fellow-travelers) were proved wrong in their scary climate predictions 48 consecutive times. At 50:50 odds for each failed prediction, that is like flipping a coin 48 times and losing every time! The probability of that being mere random ignorance is 1 in 281 trillion! But no sensible person makes a 50:50 prediction – at 60:40 the odds against being this wrong are 1 in 13 quintillion; at 70:30 the odds are 1 in 13 septillion.
Let’s just state the obvious:
Global Warming (aka “Climate Change”) alarmists are just blatant climate fraudsters.

Reply to  Allan MacRae
June 8, 2022 8:11 pm

The entire point of “leftism”/“Whiggery” is growing a theocratic oligarchy and promoting of ideas that justify the use of power, as long as the power is friendly to them. The Cow Fart Apocalypse is no different.
So the journalists need horror stories to preach about. The bureaucrats need horror stories to “heroically fight” something at the expense of someone else and be lauded by the journalists, who steer them.
The clerks of the Church of Climatology (in this case), just like the Church of Anorexia and others before it, are downstream of all this. Their status entirely depends on the press and income entirely depends on the bureaucrats. Who are willing to pay for producing more horror stories, of course. For all their inflated status, these “scientists” are but camp followers.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  dennisambler
June 7, 2022 7:34 am

Those statements, like every utterance from warmistas, fail the laugh test with flying colors.
Anyone who cannot immediately realize that, should be always and forever be as far as possible from any ability to make any important decision whatsoever. Regarding anything.

Last edited 28 days ago by Nicholas McGinley
Old Man Winter
Reply to  Allan MacRae
June 7, 2022 6:20 am

“These Net-Zero politicians, executives, media, green activists and politicians all belong in jail for Crimes Against Humanity.”

While some may think this is hyperbola, it’s stark reality as they put us on a suicidal trajectory.

Here’s an overview of UK’s power generation (#s from noon UK):

solar 5GW (14GW capacity); wind <1GW (14GW capacity); bio 2GW; hydro 0.3GW; nuclear 6GW.

Solar’s up from 3.5GW peak yesterday; wind’s down from 3.5GW yesterday. It’s sunnier & less
windy which is reflected in their outputs. The reliable, “non-24/7 solar” is 8.3GW total. Current total
generation’s 35GW, with a daily 24 hr average of 30GW (720GWh/day). The UK has ~2.5GWh
battery storage- essentially 0!

In late March & late April, there were 5-7 day periods like now with little solar & wind generation.
While using 720GWh/day, 9 GW continuous generation (hydro redline @ 1 GW on meter) with little
battery storage is a recipe for disaster. If it weren’t for “evil” nuclear & hydro, they’d have nada, zip,
zilch- NOTHING!!! They probably have more storage in their EVs! Businesses can’t run on
intermittent power & for groceries, it’s back to Spam served with gravy over tasteless rice cakes!
Having equal wind & solar capacity was S-T-U-P-I-D since it’s so far north & a wind hotspot. An
80%/20% mix is much better!

Allan MacRae
Reply to  Old Man Winter
June 7, 2022 11:24 am

Agreed Old Man. NOT Hyperbole. Our society must pull out of this death spiral now.

By Allan M.R. MacRae and Joseph D’Aleo, October 27, 2019
by Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., October 1, 2019
By Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., September 1, 2019
By Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., July 19, 2019
By Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., July 4, 2019
by Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., June 15, 2019
By Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., April 14, 2019
by Joseph D’Aleo and Allan MacRae, September 4, 2015

Cathy Jones
Reply to  Allan MacRae
June 7, 2022 6:54 am

If only the right wing could ever get, “woke.” Heck they’ve been behind the eight ball since the inception of this nation. As the PEW survey showed at the end of GW Bush’s administration, only 6% of scientists in all fields of science claim the Republican brand. You can bet there are even fewer today and are overwhelmingly long in the tooth. As Max Plank once wrote, “Science progresses one funeral at a time.” We’ll be getting to a age of reason soon. We’ve seen the last couple of years the passing of the most respected “skeptics.”

Allan MacRae
Reply to  Cathy Jones
June 7, 2022 11:07 am

Hi Cathy,
Some old guys tell the truth because they can afford to – they have tenure, are retired or have significant savings. Some old guys are just solid gold. Two of my favorites are Will Happer at Princeton and Richard Lindzen at MIT – world-class intellects and men of outstanding integrity.
The young guys are jockeying for career, promotion, tenure, or just survival in a competitive and corrupted environment. Funding goes to those who toe the government line on all things woke – typically the Climate and Covid frauds. If they don’t lie, they don’t get research funds, publications, advancement, tenure, and all those yummy grad students.
Universities produce so little of value these days that they might just disappear, and the world would be a better place. The news media may miss their go-to-source of woke false opinions on all subjects, but the rest of us won’t miss these charlatans at all.

Last edited 28 days ago by Allan MacRae
Dave Fair
Reply to  Cathy Jones
June 7, 2022 2:14 pm

Your “age of reason” is actually the age of twitter mobs and crony capitalism. Woke and reason exhibit a vast gulf between them. Woke is fashionable feelings run amok.

June 7, 2022 3:11 am

Hubbert was never wrong. Everything followed the hubbert curve perfectly, libs are just too dumb to read.

Reply to  Joe
June 7, 2022 8:43 am

If Hubbert was never wrong, why have none of his predictions come true?

Reply to  MarkW
June 7, 2022 4:46 pm

Society is collapsing, production is falling. Whine all you want.

Saudi combined e.png
Allan MacRae
Reply to  Joe
June 7, 2022 11:34 am

Is M. King Hubbert on-topic? Not so sure.
If on-topic, I’d agree with you Joe. Within the constraints of what was known technology in his time, Hubbert was correct, and a true genius – that’s not a term I use often.

“The ability to correctly predict is the best objective measure of scientific and technical competence.”

Last edited 28 days ago by Allan MacRae
Reply to  Allan MacRae
June 7, 2022 4:46 pm

It’s off topic because this site only discusses mentally retarded issues and not the obvious social collapse.

June 7, 2022 3:16 am

And yet CO2 is increasing every time a volcano erupts, and every day the sun shines on swamps and marshes, and every time a person breaths. Nothing these moronic c*nts do is going to change reality.

Peter W
Reply to  2hotel9
June 7, 2022 5:37 am

Back in the 1960’s we were being told that by the 1980’s there would be mass starvation due to our inability to raise enough food. My observation is that the increase in CO2 from our emissions solved that problem.

June 7, 2022 3:23 am

Nuclear. Safe, clean, reliable. And apparently untouchable.

It’s time to take the “scientists” and politicians out of the equation and put engineers and economists and accountants in.

Michael ElliottMichael Elliott
Reply to  Speed
June 7, 2022 3:38 am

Do we have two separate atmospheres, one in the Western countries, & one with India, China plus SE Asia.

So we are told by our politicians, busy chasing every Greenish vote, to the so called Climate scientists to ignore our twin atmosphere, & to work hard to remove that good gas CO2 from ours.

Even if it were possible to do this with millions of windmills, the nation’s in our Twin Atmosphere will soon replace the CO2.

Never mind the economy will crash,
lblackouts will be normal, & our present politicians will blame others for one big mess.

Michael VK5ELL

Peta of Newark
Reply to  Michael ElliottMichael Elliott
June 7, 2022 4:38 am

Interesting, it sprung an idea in my head.
(Yes there’s something with ‘Western Atmosphere’ – it seems to have brought om a variation of mental derangement not dis-similar to Hypoxia, itself very similar to drunkenness (Don’t anyone tell Boris – he’ll have to invent Total Weather Atmosphere Tuesday in order to celebrate ##))

Is what’s happening that our leaders see a Bright New Future?
Yes they do, they tell us that any and every time they can.

Let’s pause for a minute, think back to let’s say 1850.
Didn’t The Leaders then see a ‘Bright New Future’ of jobs, unions (maybe not so much) prosperity, health and loveliness etc etc
(Somebody did, witness ‘Port Sunlight’ not least)

Our present day leaders have shredded that vision from 1850 thereabouts, would they not be well advised to ponder the future of theirs?

C’mon people, Play The Game.
Super and otherwise computers can see what the (climate) weather is going to be like that far ahead, why don’t they predict the (economic & societal) weather for 170 years hence

Please don’t be telling me that the Financial Weather is also ‘non-linear’ ‘coupled’ and ‘chaotic’

## Too late, everyday is TWAT day on Downing St.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Peta of Newark
June 7, 2022 7:42 am

Peta, although I get the Port Sunlight reference having grown up on the Wirral and now living in NE Wales (after a long time in London) I fear it will be lost on many of the readers here. 🙂

Reply to  Dave Andrews
June 7, 2022 8:27 am

That is frequently a problem for the two nations, separated by a common tongue. Cultural idioms sometimes don’t make it across the Atlantic.

Old Man Winter
Reply to  OweninGA
June 7, 2022 9:26 am

Beside cultural & national differences, sports & entertainment news &
stats are now filling the the usable memory space we used to fill with
history, geography & literature.

Reply to  Speed
June 7, 2022 3:56 am

On that score it seems the weather worriers are having some mixed success in Oz at present-
Poll reveals ‘widespread support throughout the community’ for nuclear energy (

Reply to  observa
June 7, 2022 4:40 am

I suspect that a VERY bold political candidate would have immediate success with a policy for SAFE-nuclear energy, with necessary continuous emphasis of the SAFE part. The policy would include:

  1. Accelerated building of SAFE new nuclear powerplants
  2. SAFE disposal of short life nuclear waste
  3. Segregation and SAFE storage of long life nuclear waste
  4. Rational acceleration of fusion power research

With a little bit of education, the Greens and the Deniers could be on the same page with a program such as this.

Reply to  Tom
June 7, 2022 7:25 am

The education part is key. Many think that nuclear power is synonymous with Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima.

The same people would be astonished to learn, for example, that the US currently has 92 operating reactors plus two more under construction. Astonished because they are safe, reliable and safe never gets into the news.

Reply to  Speed
June 7, 2022 8:32 am

Too bad we take so long between building reactors though. The workforce training aspect for the construction crews (plus convincing skilled tradesmen that drug use while employed on a nuclear site is a no-no) causes excessive cost over-runs in the building phase.

Then there is the management firms lack of skill that adds another layer of over-run, but that is what happens when all the folks who built the last one are now retired.

Of course all of that is after the ~4 Billion syphoned off by the legal profession to fight all the lawfare to even begin the project.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Speed
June 7, 2022 2:20 pm

“Man bites dog” is the only thing that gets into the news.

Reply to  Tom
June 7, 2022 7:58 am

Whenever I see any government program with “SAFE” or “FAIR” in the title, my bullshit detector shows 11 on the dial.

Reply to  Speed
June 7, 2022 8:07 am

I could add, ‘Coal. Safe,clean (except the dirty stuff used by Germany!), reliable. And apparently so radioactive it is verboten (except in Energiewende Germany!).’

Reply to  IanE
June 7, 2022 12:32 pm

Burning coal releases CO2 into the atmosphere and whether or not that causes warming is not material because a lot of vocal and monied and stubborn people believe it does. And there is a lot of money chasing wind and solar.

The future has always been nuclear power and there have always been poorly educated and stubborn anti-nuclear people. It would be nice to get back on the right track before we spend another 50 years defacing the countryside with short-lived and inefficient “clean” energy conversion systems.

The history books will not be kind.

Reply to  Speed
June 7, 2022 7:59 pm

The history books will not be kind.”

If there is anyone left to scribble notes in history books after 50 years of unreliables. Big if.

Reply to  Speed
June 7, 2022 2:56 pm

No nuclear is a very very very good indicator the whole AGW glowbull warming thing is a scam

Steve Case
June 7, 2022 4:25 am

When the demand is there and the product works, it takes off. Not so for … electric vehicles.

Electric cars have their niche, it’s just that nearly all manufactures ignore the obvious fact that a small two door hatchback for commuting and running errands around town would be ideal. Cooper Mini makes one. A two seat two door version would be better, but nobody makes one of those. No, we are bombarded with ads about how far these things can go as if the Great American road trip to Yellowstone in one is practical.

After a short search this came up from Car and Driver

   New EVs with the Longest Driving Range Ranked
   The car at the top of the list can travel an
   EPA-estimated 520 miles between charges.

The term, “Over Kill” comes to mind.

Reply to  Steve Case
June 7, 2022 5:50 am

Electric cars have their niche…

A milk float is a vehicle specifically designed for the delivery of fresh milk. A milk float travels fairly slowly, usually around 16 to 26 km/h (10 to 16 mph). Charged at the depot overnight they are very quiet, suiting operations in residential areas during the early hours of the morning – in time for breakfast.

And no, they were not lithium batteries in the 1940s to 1980s, they were flooded (wet) lead acid batteries.

Horses for courses.

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  fretslider
June 7, 2022 7:04 am

And were often seen limping back to the depot at the end of their shift at something less than walking pace. Or indeed, being towed back.

Reply to  Steve Case
June 7, 2022 6:23 am

The battery and management system immediately cost 40% more to produce than an ICE car so carmakers knowing their market segment immediately give them all the lux features. Having achieved market economies of scale and driven by Gummint mandates they’ve quickly plumbed the bottom of lithium battery resourcing and are now driving up EV prices faster than ICEs and general inflation. They can’t even satisfy the lux market demand and Gummint helicopter money so no chance they can ever satisfy the masses.

It’s all a bit of a posh man’s giggle really-
EV plug wars as Tesla and Polestar 2 owners dispute right to access fast chargers (

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Steve Case
June 7, 2022 7:53 am

China builds lots of small EV cars and three wheel electric vehicles. Not that I’m a fan of EVs and can see no way the current build out of EVs (16.5m) in the world are going to replace the over 1.4 billion ICEvs currently in the world by 2050

Especially as the IEA has recently said that the price of lithium has increased by 250% since the start of 2022 and by a staggering almost 750% since Jan 2021!

Last edited 28 days ago by Dave Andrews
Dave Fair
Reply to  Steve Case
June 7, 2022 2:31 pm

520 miles under what conditions? Bopping around town with no A/C or heating is alot different than trekking (No, not Star Trek.) around the U.S. Mountain West towing a load in either summer or winter conditions with a car full of cranky kids and a wife requiring maximum comfort. Try telling them that to make the next town you need to turn off the A/C or heat for the next 60 miles. Regenerative braking won’t solve that little problem.

One size fits all fits nobody.

June 7, 2022 4:48 am

I doubt anyone in the UK will take any notice of this – or of Stuart Kirk, for that matter.

Politically, net zero is coming no matter who is in power. There will be no public consultation and there will be little debate, given that they all agree on it.

The real argument here is still Brexit; 6 years on. They just can’t get over it. The fact is Boris Johnson has committed to getting rid of ice cars well before the EU will (2030 vs 2040). It’s the same story with gas boilers etc. But that just isn’t good enough for the Remainers:

“Brexit ‘may slow UK’s ability to tackle climate change’ “

<Limited access to the right labour markets could compromise our ability to move at the pace needed’>

In light of the facts that show we’re way ahead of the EU in the [virtuous] race to the bottom, they cling to the narrative. And lie.

Last edited 28 days ago by fretslider
June 7, 2022 5:04 am

There are approximately 4.5 billion people in the top ten most populated countries. The only one that really gives a flip about all this nonsense in this group is the US and my guess is this will change dramatically after this fall’s Congressional elections. It may not seem like it now, but maybe Biden will turn out to be the best thing that happens to the US. We couldn’t have asked for a better person (although he is not making the decisions) to actually effect common sense change.

To me the real indicator will be if California elects Michael Shellenberger over Newsom in their Governor’s race. You couldn’t ask for a more reasonable candidate than Shellenberger who imo represents a person with actual solutions running against the most stereotypical liberal politician in the US. Shellenberger is a former lefty that actually has a brain and realized how all this is destroying California. From an energy standpoint he understands the numbers and is pro nuclear.

Old Man Winter
Reply to  rbabcock
June 7, 2022 7:09 am

While the House will get much better, the Senate will still be a lot of “hogs at the trough” making $$$
from the “Green Machine”. Add to that the unelected Deep State & liberal bureaucrats along with
FJB executive orders, they’ll still find ways to cram most of their crap down our throats as the MSM
continues to provide cover for their misdeeds. Most Yank voters will revert to old habits after the
pain’s even slightly relieved or have been conned into believing that it is.

Reply to  Old Man Winter
June 7, 2022 1:15 pm

Yes,but after the Red wave in November comes Kamala’s takeover, which will set the tone for the next Red wave in 2024.

Coeur de Lion
June 7, 2022 6:41 am

It’s terribly important to remember that. Climate Change is not caused by Climate Change nor Carbon Dioxide. It’s caused by Global Warming which since the 1979 satellite era is 1.3degsC in a hundred years. And is currently paused for seven and a half years- tho’ that’s weather of course. Such tiny increments don’t produce extreme events. So relax.

Andy Pattullo
June 7, 2022 6:54 am

It is so much more difficult to work with reality than fantasy, but at least it provides the possibility of survival.

Gordon A. Dressler
June 7, 2022 7:52 am

From the above article:
“The IEA reported in March that global CO2 emissions increased by a remarkable 6% in 2021 over 2020 (some of that representing rebound from the pandemic).”

From the NOAA Mauna Loa monitoring and reporting database for atmospheric CO2 concentrations to high precision (to 0.01 ppm) and its daily-, monthly- and yearly-averaged bases:
monthly average atmospheric CO2 concentration for December 2020 = 414.26 ppm
monthly average atmospheric CO2 concentration for December 2021 = 416.71 ppm
change in 2021 over 2020 = 0.6%
(source: )

A 6% rise in atmospheric CO2 from 2020 would be equivalent to an increase of about 25 ppm, and such an annual increase has NEVER been seen by the laboratory going back to the start of its database, March 1958. The yearly increase in atmospheric CO2 has always been less than 3.2 ppm (source: )

These two organizations most certainly need to talk to each other.
{Actually, it seems obvious to me that the IEA botched the conversion of global CO2 emissions change between 2020 and 2021 to a percentage basis, being off a factor of 10}.

Otherwise, “Olly olly oxen free, come out, come out, wherever you are.”

What is indeed remarkable is that fact that apparently nobody in the IEA did a sanity check on the “6%” number.

Last edited 28 days ago by Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
June 7, 2022 8:00 am

No: the 6% refers to global CO2 emissions, not the amount in the atmosphere!

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  IanE
June 7, 2022 4:21 pm

First, neither I nor the above article refer to 6% as being “the amount in the atmosphere”. Good grief!

So where does that other 5.4% change of the “global CO2 emissions” go and how does it get there???

Does if get “emitted” directly into the oceans? I think not.

Does it get “emitted” directly into land? I think not.

Does it get “emitted” directly into space? I think not.

Also please note that there is a distinction between “emissions” and “use of” . . . and I seriously doubt CO2 “emissions” are recycled to the ratio of 9:10.

June 7, 2022 8:22 am

And here’s where “the plan” falls apart. They/Marxists thought by threatening extinction of everything on earth, including humans, the world would just fall in line with their proclamations. All that’s happened is countries/politicians giving them crumbs to get them off their backs. No one is willing to commit economic and lifestyle suicide today for a theory, no matter how grave the outcomes are forecast in a nebulous future that keeps extending. We can expect more trickling of renewable energy efforts going forward until some storage breakthroughs happen or the people just get fed up with the scam.

Reply to  markl
June 7, 2022 11:25 am

Sadly, however, plenty amongst TPTB are willing to commit economic and lifestyle destruction for the plebs!

Dave Fair
Reply to  IanE
June 7, 2022 2:45 pm

While lining their own pockets.

Linda Goodman
June 7, 2022 9:34 am

Tyrants are running the show and ‘Net Zero’ is the world’s greatest gaslight; it literally means DEATH.

Reply to  Linda Goodman
June 7, 2022 12:40 pm

Not many folks know what ‘NetZero’ actually means. Zero CO2 is a planet without life of most any kind. Very few understand that CO2 is actually required to keep everything on this planet alive and thriving. The grifters know, yet they persist. For the continuance of taxpayer money funding their lives.

Beta Blocker
June 7, 2022 12:14 pm

I want to explore some questions about how New York State’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act is being interpreted in practice by the state’s regulatory agencies.

In 2021, the New York State DEC denied regulatory approval for Danskammer’s application to construct and operate a new gas-fired power generation facility on its existing Newburgh site:

The basis for the 2021 decision from the DEC can be summarized as:

— Constructing and operating this new facility would add to the state’s greenhouse gas emissions in clear violation of the Climate Act.

— Danskammer has not demonstrated a need for this new 536 MW facility given that NYISO’s reliability strategy already includes 800 MW of power conservation by 2030.  

In its application, Danskammer had argued that power from the new facility would eventually displace power from other less efficient fossil-fueled generation sources which produce more carbon emissions per unit of power than the new plant would produce. The DEC rejected the argument saying that:

“The purported displacement of less efficient fossil fuel generators by the Project is based on electricity sector modeling performed for the Applicant by ICF. As with any such electricity sector modeling, its outputs are largely determined by chosen inputs and assumptions. The Department cannot address or evaluate all the methodological assumptions or analytical decisions made by Danskammer or ICF for purposes of their own estimates of GHG emissions associated with the Project. The Department will not rely exclusively on such electricity sector modeling for purposes of assessing compliance with Climate Act Section 7(2). Electricity sector Modeling, particularly to the extent it is utilized to project GHG emission from sources other than the Project at issue here, may not provide the level of precision necessary to serve as the primary basis for the Department to determine consistency with the Climate Act.

The fact that chosen assumptions used in electricity sector modeling can drastically change its results is illustrated by the fact that the Applicant itself initially projected the operation of the Project would result in Statewide GHG emission increases in 2030. The Applicant’s own analysis initially projected that, in 2030, the Project would result in 191,000 short tons of additional direct CO2 emissions in the State, along with 84,000 short tons of CO2e of additional upstream GHG emissions associated with the Project. Only after DEC’s Second NOIA did Danskammer update its modeling analysis such that the November 2020 GHG Supplement projected Statewide GHG emission decreases in 2030.”

TOPIC #1: Electricity sector modeling and long-range power planning

Those who control the project assumptions control the project decisions. Any outcome can be justified depending upon the assumptions made up front in the planning process. Here in the US Northwest, the regional power planning organization, the Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Council, uses extensive electricity sector modeling in making its recommendations to local and state governments. The council also uses modeling to forecast shortfalls in the region’s power supply. 

Within the last five years, the council has moved away from focusing on gas-fired generation towards wind and solar as the preferred replacement for coal-fired generation. The shift in focus reflects the priorities of the region’s politicians who are mostly all in for adoption of the renewables. IMHO, the council’s forecasts and recommendations are inherently suspect for many of the same reasons the New York State DEC gave in rejecting Danskammer’s model-based arguments for approving its new gas-fired power generation facility.

TOPIC #2: The transmission infrastructure of a regional power grid 

A wind and solar energy future requires extensive upgrades to the entire power transmission infrastructure of a regional power grid such as PJM, the regional grid which services New York State. However, that same upgraded infrastructure could also be employed for transmitting power into New York State from gas-fired generation resources located in other states willing to host them.

The Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act requires that compliance assessments of power projects for energy facilities constructed in New York State must include an assessment of upstream GHG emissions. A question … Should we conclude that upgrades and additions to power transmission facilities inside New York’s boundaries might be denied simply for the fact that other states might choose to host new-build gas-fired generation connected to the PJM grid?

TOPIC #3: Indirectly-enforced electricity conservation as a consequence of regulatory permitting decisions

As the reliability of the electricity supply in New York State begins to seriously degrade, it is possible that emergency authorization regulatory permits might be requested to install diesel-fired or gas-fired peakers inside the state boundaries.

Using the DEC’s denial of Danskammer’s application as a predictive template, it seems to me that the Climate Act ties the hands of New York State’s regulators in ways that would prevent them from approving permits for peaking-use diesel and gas-fired utility-scale gensets regardless of how dire the situation becomes over the next decade. Moreover, that the NYISO has a target of 800 MW of power conservation by 2030 can always be used as a further justification for denying permits for the peakers. 


The upshot is that for the next ten years or even longer, energy conservation is the only means New Yorkers will have for dealing with the serious shortages of electricity which are now developing. IMHO, the US Northwest will be facing a similar situation as the coal-fired capacity serving our region continues to be retired without adequate replacement either by natural gas generation or by wind and solar.

June 7, 2022 1:54 pm

This whole CO2 argument is inane. Of all the gasses and water vapor in the atmosphere, CO is currently 0.033% to – 0.04%

The more CO2 in the air, the better plants thrive and grow. This effect is self regulating over time. Even of there were a 100% increase in CO2, it is still under 8 hundredths of one percent.All we would notice is that crops and vegetation grows better and also over time, would re-balance itself.

One can argue with evidence that the globe gets greener as CO goes up, this benefits all of mankind where growing food is concerned.

I for one have zero respect or use for the planetary emergency religion, and that is all it is, a belief system with zero proof.of solidity.It is high time to point and laugh at these fools and if they have managed to get into any government position that affects society, they should be voted out or be completely de funded which amounts to the same thing.

Do not buy into the madness. Electricity has to be generated based on oil, gas, coal and fission, nothing else can provide what humanity needs to survive and thrive. This in no way precludes research into alternatives, but shutting down what keeps us alive for a technology that is incapable of replacing what currently works is madness..

Reply to  terrapod
June 7, 2022 4:20 pm

There’s the odd voice of sanity amidst all the headless chooks running the show in Oz at present-
Matt Kean has ‘disappeared’ on energy issue (
We just have to be patient and wait for the inevitable rolling blackouts to shock the majority out of their stupour.

Ulric Lyons
June 8, 2022 9:40 am

“Climate scientists warn of increased climate change events…”

Attributing a climate forcing to weather events requires a climate forcing which varies at the scale of weather events, like the solar wind. Though that would be a cause and not a product of climate change. Actual climate change events are not weather events or weather extremes, but rather climatic boundary events and the like, for example the 4.2kyr event, which would be about decadal changes in the solar wind strength. The slow rise in CO2 forcing doesn’t have the means to cause weather variability.

%d bloggers like this: