50 Reasons to Re-Think Climate Policy

When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?  –  JM Keynes

Barry Brill,

Climate Policy is in crisis.

This month, the G20 Climate Conference in Bali collapsed in confusion – preceded by the  flops of both COP26 in Glasgow and COP25 in Madrid. Three decades of climate talks (52 weeks of Conferencing) have failed dismally – and the global objective of stabilizing atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions is no nearer being attained than it was at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. 

The initial hopes engendered by the tepid Paris Agreement of 2015 (Paris15) have been dashed. No material forward progress  has been made during the past seven years. China has now broken off its climate policy co-operation with the USA. And Europe’s fickleness has been glaringly exposed by an energy price shock.

Human-related global CO2 emissions will probably reach all-time record levels next year. No developed country anywhere is even on track to meet its nationally-determined contribution (NDC) to the goals of Paris15. Voters’ appetite for more climate adventurism is probably at its lowest level in decades. 

It’s time for a re-think.


The marketing term “climate emergency” has been exposed as an outright deception:

1. Warming has paused: Global warming has unexpectedly stopped or paused. Over the last 7 years 10 months, NASA satellites show a slight decrease in the trend of the global average temperature anomaly (GATA)[i]. No such hiatus was forecast by the UN’s climate models.

2. Change has been trivial: The current GATA is only an inconsequential 0.2°C warmer than the 1979-2000 average, a change which is less than the margin of measurement error[ii].

3. Forecasts are mild:  IPCC scientists are currently forecasting that the GATA will rise by around 1.3°C during the whole 22nd Century, even on a “business as usual” basis (i.e. no more policy changes).

 That projected warming is broadly the same as the world has already experienced through  the past 100 years – an era that provided health and prosperity unknown to any previous generation. During that 1.1°C of warming, human life expectancy doubled; and the proportion of humans living in extreme poverty dropped from 72% to less than 10%. 

4. Climate models are unreliable: Even the UN’s IPCC itself now acknowledges that its computerized climate simulation models have been “running hot” since its AR3 report in 2007. While these models do provide useful heuristics for scientists, they clearly cannot foretell the future. None of them has ever been either validated or verified against real-world data[iii]

5. Vegetation is flourishing: CO2 has increased from about 0.03% of the atmosphere in 1900 to over 0.04% now, as a result of a major increase in the use of fossil fuels. This rise has caused mild warming, which extends growing seasons, and has also dramatically boosted global vegetation growth. CO2 is plant food. “Global Greening” has accounted for a 13% increase in food production, outpacing population growth, since the early 1980s.

6. Islands are expanding: The centuries-long gradual rise in relative sea levels has not accelerated at all during the past 100 years. This helps explain why over 78% of the measured islands in the Pacific Ocean have expanded their land areas during the past 50 years. The oft-repeated theory that small islands would be flooded by rising seas has been disproven by careful observation of real-world data.

7. Weather casualties are declining:  Deaths from global weather-related events have reduced by a staggering 91% over the last 90 years – showing that people get much more resilient when they get richer. Many more people now die from Climate Policy (e.g., unaffordable energy) than die from extreme weather events. The Lancet reports that 17 times as many frail people die from winter cold as from summer heat[iv].

8. Wildfires are receding: In the early 1900s, around 4.5% of the land area of the world would burn in wildfires every year. Over the course of that century, this steadily declined to about 3.2%. Over the last 20 years, satellites have tracked further declines – to a low of 2.5% in 2021.

9. Less damage from weather extremes: Over the past 50 years, official global weather data shows no increase in either the frequency or severity of droughts; or landfall hurricanes; or tornadoes; or floods. Economic losses from climate and weather-related events have been falling as a percentage of GDP during all that period[v].

10. Weather deterioration is unlikely:  The IPCC has expressed ‘low confidence’ in the media claim that these extreme events will materially increase in future decades. Heat waves are expected to become slightly more frequent, but no other material changes in global average weather extremes are predicted. (Of course, many changes will continue to occur from region to region, but they will likely continue to balance out overall).

11. Future prosperity is expected: Humanity is getting more prosperous every year. In a separate report, the United Nations estimates that without global warming, the average person (worldwide) in 2100 would be 450% better off than today. But, under a worst case scenario for Climate Change, the UN fears that people might only be 434% richer. That is far from being an “emergency”. On the contrary, it is great news for our grandchildren.

12. Misinformation is rife: Under-reported hard data has steadily exposed a great many climate-related fallacies:

  • Global glacier melt began in 1800 (after the peak of the Little Ice Age) and their retreat rate has not accelerated since the 1950s – when human-caused emissions began their sharp rise.
  • Global sea-ice cover has been stable for 50 years.  The predicted ice-free Arctic shipping routes have not materialized and are unlikely to do so.
  • The number of polar bears has trebled since 1983 to a record number of about 26,000.
  • Two-thirds of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef shows the highest coral cover seen since reliable records began in 1985. It is flourishing.
  • Air pollution was four-times more likely to kill you in 1920 than it is today.
  •  The trend of weather-related damages as between 1990 and 2020 declined from 0.26% of global GDP to 0.18%.

What the media and politicians and activists say about climate science has drifted so far out of touch with the actual scientific literature as to be absurdly and demonstrably misleading.


While ‘Net Zero by 2050’ (NZ50) may make a fine slogan for a bumper sticker, it is the antithesis of a rational, fit-for-purpose Government policy to take us all into an uncertain future.

13. NZ50 is a pipe-dream:  Vaclav Smil, a world-leading authority on energy, says the NZ50 target is ‘delusional’ everywhere; and his books amply demonstrate that its achievement is both physically and politically impossible[vi]. Nobody seems willing to debate Professor Smil’s conclusions.

14. Many if not most insiders agree with Smil.  India’s Minister of Power, Raj Kumar Singh, describes the whole NZ50 mantra as “pie in the sky” (and also unfair). BRICS[vii] and other ‘South’ countries see it as a devious political distraction which is designed to side-step more immediate needs. Elon Musk says the energy transition will have to take “several decades”. Even Greta Thunberg points out that it is “reliant on future, fantasy-scaled, currently-barely-existing net emissions technologies”.

15. NZ50 is a deception: The Paris Agreement documents that the consensus aim of 193 World Governments is to achieve net zero CO2 emissions “in the second half of this century” – i.e. before the year 2100.  But activists and the corporate media have worked to disappear the word “in” and invent “before” in its place – and many politicians have happily gone along with this deception.

16. NZ50 is not feasible:  No Government has ever investigated the actual feasibility of its NZ50 project. These blue-sky dreams reflect their authors’ preference for way-off goals (to be achieved well after they have retired) rather than unpopular policies to force down current emissions. There are no accompanying energy production plans, and no assurances of continuing affordable energy supply.  But a leading engineer has shown in both the UK and New Zealand that neither of those two countries have the physical resources to complete such a project – even if their citizens were willing to outlay the estimated costs of about $330,000 per household. Put simply: it can’t happen, so it won’t happen.

17. NZ50 is politically impossible: For many years, EU energy consumers have reluctantly invested vast sums in ‘Green Levies’ that have intentionally raised their power prices to be the highest in the world. But, over the 12-month period to August 2022, their Governments have allocated 236 billion euros to shield households and firms from rising energy prices.  Such self-contradictory policies provide proof positive of Vaclav Smil’s insight that NZ50 is a politically impossible fantasy.

18. Mind-boggling cost of NZ50:  If politicians were to stay on message, they would eventually discover that the global costs of NZ50 are at nosebleed heights. More than $5 trillion a year for 30 years according to the McKinsey consultancy – who dubbed it “the largest reallocation of capital in human history”.

In climate-related discussion, the word “trillions” tend to trip off the tongue. But McKinsey’s truly gargantuan figure would amount to one-third of total global tax revenue – which means Climate Policy would drive a 33% average reduction in all government spending on health, housing, education, social welfare, police, climate adaptation, defense, social justice, etc.  How long could that be tolerated in any genuine democracy?

19. No business case for NZ50: The quantified results of Climate Policy investments are all pain and no gain, because the unavoidable trade-offs are immense. There can be no forecast return on investment (ROI), because no quantified feasibility study has even been conducted. Obviously, no prospectus could ever be issued.

Yale economist William Nordhaus, who published a Nobel Prize-winning estimate of the economic benefit of slower global warming,  found that the costs of addressing climate change exceed the benefits[viii] unless and until global warming reaches 4°C.  Nordhaus also showed that a mild carbon tax would be sufficient to stabilize temperatures at this level at an overall cost of less than 4% of GDP in 120 year’s time.

All attempts to calculate a ‘Net Present Value’ of an NZ50 investment show huge negatives. There is no business case now, and there never will be one in the absence of unguessable technological changes.

20. ­NZ50 can’t get us there: The IPCC reports that NZ50, even if adopted and achieved on a worldwide basis (an impossibility), would still fail to meet the Paris15 target of limiting post-1850 warming to 2.0°C. That target would additionally require ‘negative emissions technologies’ (NETS) to be employed throughout the second half of this century. In the IPCC analysis, “bioenergy with carbon capture and storage” (BECCS) is integral to every plausible future scenario.

The poster child for BECCS is Drax, the UK’s largest power station,[ix] which annually burns  over 10 million tons of wood that is shipped across the Atlantic from the USA. Much of this wood is supplied by clear-felling old indigenous forest – which will take many decades, perhaps centuries, to replace. Stack emissions from Drax are 2% higher from wood than from coal.

However, fashions have moved on. Most climate scientists now believe that re-planted biomass will be far too slow to meet the perceived urgency of tackling Climate Change.  After years of controversy, the European Parliament has recently (14/09/22) voted to phase out the counting of primary wood as being ‘renewable’.

But without BECCS, the UN’s published plan to meet Paris15 targets is nullified. If the plan is unachievable, then what is the point of NZ50?

21. Technology, not austerity, is the solution: Although there was a huge slump in global economic output during the first Covid-19 year (2020), there was no – repeat no – measurable decrease in atmospheric CO2. This serendipitous real-world experiment highlighted the impossibility of the quest to reduce future temperatures by slashing current living standards. No silver bullets. We now know the goal cannot be achieved by taxes and austerity – only major technology change can engineer the gradual phase-out of fossil fuels.

22. Throwing money doesn’t work:  The hopelessness of the NZ50 cause is well demonstrated by the Schumer-Manchin $369 billion climate-fighting Act described by President Biden as “the most significant legislation in history to tackle the climate crisis.”  The UN’s own climate model (MAGICC) shows that the temperature impact of this massive spend will be impossible to detect by the year 2100 (theoretically, it will reduce global temperatures by 0.0009°F).

Despite being part of a touted multi-decade program, this “long-term investment” decision was uni-partisan – it did not attract a single un-whipped vote.  It may be gone by Christmas-time.

23. Failed template for NZ50: Major unprecedented investment proposals are seldom actually bankable unless a proof of concept has first been provided by a closely-monitored pilot project. The pilot for NZ50 (the largest investment proposal in world history) was a city – Denmark’s Copenhagen – which ostentatiously pledged in 2012 to become the world’s first carbon-neutral city by 2025. After 10 long years of greenwashing, Copenhagen confessed in August 2022 that it is reneging on its net zero pledge, which it has found to be unachievable.

Without benefit of a feasibility analysis, the Sri Lankan government in 2021 banned the import of fossil-fuel-sourced fertilizer, with the ambitious aim of promoting sustainable organic food with a lower carbon footprint. This move was cheered by the World Economic Forum (WEF) as a template for others. Within six months, both rice and tea production dropped precipitously by 20% and the economy went into free fall. Inflation is now over 50%, 9 out of 10 families are skipping meals, and the President has fled the country.

Hopefully, the fate of this unfortunate experiment will stand as a warning to others (such as The Netherlands) against reckless breakneck speed in moving towards long-term  environmental aims. And the eternal belief of politicians that they can pick future winners.

24. Volte-face in Europe: Despite the EU’s culture and politics of chronic self-deception, the gas-price-shocked EU countries are right now providing us with a telling window into the future:

  • the EU itself has abruptly reclassified both natural gas and nuclear power plants as “Green”, and therefore entitled to sustainability subsidies;
  • World-climate-leader Germany is re-opening coal plants; considering extension of its nuclear plants; and subsidizing the use of all energy;
  • World-climate-leader UK is about to legalize fracking for shale gas and re-drilling for oil in the North Sea; while suspending all ‘Green Levies’ and spending huge sums on subsidizing sales of gas and electricity;
  • France is urgently approving 14 new nuclear power plants; while the UK is promising to build a new nuclear plant every year for eight years; 
  • several EU maritime countries are competing to build new LNG receiving terminals at their ports, and are willing to enter 20-year gas supply contracts; 
  • so many European countries have asked Botswana to mine more coal that it expects to more than double its exports;
  • the EU (along with the USA) is currently pressing Arab nations to expand their oil production.

25. Asia is the key:  The real burden of mitigating Climate Change lies with only one continent – Asia – where over 80% of all increased global emissions will occur during the next 25 years. This inescapable fact is constantly misunderstood in the West:

  • continents of ‘the Global South’ (Asia, South America, Africa) will not only produce over 80% of future emissions, but will also represent over 90% of future increases in energy consumption for many decades to come;
  • this dynamic is essential to the unstoppable global trend (and the shared aim) of closing the affluence gap between rich and poor countries.  It is a feature, not a bug. Asia deserves and will have an ‘energy catch-up’.
  • conversely, most of the climate-related noise and breast-beating comes from politicians, activists and media within the continents of ‘the Global North’ (Europe, North America and Australasia). These noisy peoples are strangely self-obsessed – ever  looking inwards, rather than seeking ways to help the Asian countries who are on the front line;
  • the  handful of countries that have legislated a NZ50 goal collectively contribute less than 15% of global emissions[x] and this share will continue to dwindle.
  • the Western political emphasis on country-by-country mitigation competition is ill-conceived and counterproductive. A global problem needs a global solution. Competition inevitably produces ‘carbon leakage’ where each country tries to move its emissions on to some other country’s carbon balance sheet.  Despite major economic disruption, this course delivers no net gains. That is why the Paris Agreement contemplates a whole-world team effort;
  • put simply, Climate Change is no longer a ‘first world issue’, and its future pathway does not lie within the gift of the affluent OECD countries. Their only useful contributions lie in research, development and demonstration, along with data-sharing, technology transfer and financial assistance to those continents where emission volumes are exploding.

26. Volte-face everywhere?  Post-apocalyptic Climate Policy is not confined to Europe. Since  signing the Paris Agreement, China has built the equivalent of more than one large coal plant per week. India, Vietnam, Japan and Indonesia are currently planning to construct more than 100 coal-fired generation plants. Analysts expect 2023 to set a new record in global volumes of coal-related emissions.

Japan is re-opening 20 atomic plants, and even California is extending the life of its sole remaining nuclear generator. Pilot plants are currently testing Fourth Generation (4G) nuclear technology in at least four countries, and advanced SMRs seem very likely to proliferate through the 2030s.


27. Transition may take 80 years: Cheap and plentiful primary energy has utterly transformed living standards over the past 200 years. Since the industrial revolution, the major global energy transitions—from wood, to coal, to oil—have each taken around 80 years. The current move to natural gas[xi] will also take a long time, probably until 2070 or thereabouts.

Throughout history, the priorities of energy consumers (i.e. voters) have always been unmistakable. First, they want firm assurance of energy supply at all times and, secondly, the supply must be affordable – the cheaper the better.  Major wars have been fought to maintain secure and affordable supply of energy. While collateral considerations such as mine safety and environmental pollution are always relevant, they are an order of magnitude less salient.

28. Fossil fuels will continue to dominate; Global civilization still depends on hydrocarbons (oil, gas and coal) for 84% of all its energy requirements, which is only about 2% less than the level of dependence in the year 1990. The International Energy Agency (IEA) expects this percentage will be even greater in 2040 than it was in 2021[xii].

  The IEA is funded by all OECD countries to apply the expensive resources needed to make rational and explicable forecasts of future global energy needs. Despite being the soul of diplomacy, the IEA clearly disbelieves the high-sounding political rhetoric around NZ50. No responsible policymaker can claim to have better objective forecasts than those supplied by the IEA.

29. Nobody knows what’s next:  Nobody can foretell what energy source will dominate in future – just as nobody knew in the past. A truly massive political effort has been made to persuade us all that the future lies in wind; or biomass; or hydrogen; or solar photovoltaics; or tidal power, etc.  But it is well known that politicians have an abysmal track record in attempting to pick future winners. And for that reason alone, many believe the ‘renewables’ fad will stall and die before long – at least once those sources reach around 10% of any peak-load national supply.

The markets, and only the markets, will eventually decide– the aggregate of hundreds of billions of individual decisions taken over decades by consumers all over the world. Maybe nuclear fusion will come through – perhaps coupled with super-conductivity? Or maybe quantum physics will come up with a new and better answer.  As at today, distributed small nuclear reactors (SMRs) look rather more likely.

30. Energy use is growing: Energy is needed for everything that is grown, fabricated, operated or moved. Future closure of the economic gap between countries will require a whole lot more energy – over 80% of the world’s population are yet to take their first flight and only about 5% have ever owned a car. The greater complexity of the 21st Century will also require more energy per average household. Global smartphone production uses 15% as much energy as the automotive industry, although a car weighs 10,000 times more. The Cloud uses twice as much electricity worldwide as all of Japan.  The adoption of robotics, AI, IoT, 5G, etc. are expected to  maintain the upwards momentum

31. EVs may be limited: Electric vehicles currently offset less than 0.5% of world oil demand (60% of them are in China). After several years of impressive reductions, the cost of producing batteries is now rising sharply, due to resource constraints. A typical electric car requires six times more minerals than a conventional car. Storing oil costs about $1 per barrel per month, while storing the equivalent in lithium batteries (even after a 10-fold decrease) costs at least $30 per month. Economists estimate that fewer than 15% of the world’s motorists can actually afford to purchase an EV unless real-terms prices are slashed.

The whole-life carbon footprint of an average EV is only slightly lower than that of a fuel-economic ICE vehicle (e.g. a Prius).  If that difference were to be overtaken by further fuel-efficiency improvements by ICE/hybrid vehicle manufacturers[xiii], will there be any significant future for EVs?  Will hydrogen fuel cells prove to be a better answer? 


Since 1992, the UN’s endless climate conferences, treaties, protocols, etc., have failed to halt or even slow the steady increase in global emissions. While the rhetoric and hyperbole has ramped up exponentially, the results have been pathetic. The “greatest issue facing the human race” has been swamped and subsumed by self-obsessed virtue signaling:

32. Private jet picnics:  There were more private jets at the UNFCCC’s COP26 in Glasgow than at any other event in world history. Although some were used by Climate Change Ministers, most of them conveyed either billionaires (e.g. John Kerry, Tom Steyer) or celebrities (e.g. Leonardo de Caprio, HRH Prince Charles) who have a great deal to say about the necessity of making big sacrifices to ‘save the planet’. Most of the same people jet into Davos each year.

 Every owner of a private jet plane has a carbon footprint 483 times larger than that of an average US person. The rational conclusion is that these people do not believe a word they preach about climate change. Alternatively, they (or some of them), while genuinely worried, think that they should be personally exempt because their work is so important. However, all seem to agree that the other 99% of the human race really must dig deeper and try harder. Many are prepared to selflessly invest their own money and time lobbying for more regulations to force others to drop their living standards. 

33. Airlines’ believable surveys: Every week a new survey is published assuring us that 60% or more voters want to see their governments “do more” to combat Climate Change. But flyers on most of the developed world’s airlines are given every opportunity (and often pushed) to “do more” by buying carbon credits that offset the emissions created by their flights. Astonishingly, only 1.5% of the flyers on IATA airlines actually tick that box[xiv]. Here is a “money where mouth is” survey which provides a much more meaningful analysis of what people really think about the much-touted ‘climate emergency’. It turns out that 98.5% of flyers are not much concerned at all.

34. Paid lobbyists everywhere: In the last five years, just three US billionaires (Bloomberg, Bezos, Soros) have funded NGOs to employ at least 30,000 full-time-equivalent Climate Change campaigners. The numbers of NGO employees funded by wealthy individuals and charitable foundations worldwide runs into the millions[xv]. @SDGaction, an NGO, boasts that its members accumulated 100 million ‘transformative actions’ and stunts in 2021 alone, and thereby changed the world.

These activists work all day, every day, on lobbying the media, politicians, bureaucrats, teachers, academics and other influencers to demand more extreme and extensive Climate Policies. The planned outcome is to overwhelm and control the public debate – or to ensure that there is no public debate – and to spread cultures and politics of chronic self-deception in respect of all issues related to Climate Change.  They have been remarkably successful.

35. Ethical propaganda?  Diverse members of the mainstream news media have long collaborated to promote universal support of orthodox (i.e. IPCC) Climate Change science, seeing this as an ethical obligation. But this has now intercepted with a fashionable wave of “cancel culture”, which threatens the career prospects of any journalist who dares to raise doubts about any aspect of the climate narrative. Thousands of paid activists stand ready to pounce if a reporter anywhere deviates more than a millimeter from the party line promulgated by The Guardian and the New York Times. Sadly, much of the media has now accepted its role as the priesthood of climate orthodoxy – policy as well as science.

The endless coercion is also reflected in social media, where Nobel laureates are banned from Twitter for ‘misinformation’ when they attempt to correct junk science. Any criticism of any  Climate Policy (rational or not) is verboten and will likely induce the suspension of accounts.

The unfortunate consequence of this extreme bias has been that public debate has been muted and distorted; incoherent policies have gone unchallenged; the Overton Window has been strangled; propaganda has replaced investigation; and conformity of thought has been prioritized above truth. The horrible mess of OECD Climate Policies could never have happened if the Fourth Estate had fulfilled its normal function.

36. Weaponizing the finance industry:  The coerced media group-think is mirrored by conformity within and between the world’s powerful financial institutions (including Central Banks) and is openly orchestrated by the WEF in Davos. Under ‘ESG’ (Ethics, Sustainability, Governance), investors are pressed to pay extra fees to their bankers to divide all stocks between white hats and black hats[xvi]. BlackRock, iShares, etc. then vote the world’s pension funds to force the adoption of policies that the elected directors of an enterprise would not otherwise favor. Some trading banks charge higher interest to businesses that do not tick certain ‘Green’ boxes favored by the bank’s management.

The primary purpose of ESG is to deprive fossil fuel producers of investment capital. Insofar as this strategy is now proving successful,  it is delivering very few benefits to its investors – or to humankind in general.

37. The markets are seldom wrong:  Green-washing,  climate catastrophism and virtue-signaling (including ESG) are now de rigueur throughout the capitalist world – especially in the fields of finance, marketing and HR. When Stuart Kirk, global head of sustainable banking for HSBC, pointed out that none of these emperors has any clothes[xvii], his distinguished career came to a sudden end.

Kirk made the inarguable point: “The markets agree with me. Despite the hyperbole, the more people say the world is going to end… the more the words “climate catastrophe” are used around the world, the higher and higher the value of risk assets go up.”

38. Hypocrisy abounds: Hypocrisy is becoming a way of life:

  •  The market value of sea-level land has rocketed over the past 7 years, and both Al Gore and Barrack Obama have recently invested in seaside mansions;
  •  Most of the owners of massive diesel-powered super-yachts (e.g. Gates, Bezos) are climate alarmists/campaigners;
  • World Bank and G7 committees, sitting snugly in coal-power-heated boardrooms, have resolved to deny any funding for projects bringing fossil-fueled energy to the world’s most disadvantaged communities. An estimated 3.5 billion of the world’s poorest people have no reliable access to electricity.
  • Nigeria’s vice president makes the point: “No country in the world has been able to industrialize using renewable energy,” yet Africa is expected to do so “when everybody else in the world knows that we need gas-powered industries for business.”
  • Fueled by subsidies, the total amount of crops used annually for biofuels is equal to the calorie consumption of 1.9 billion people;
  • A wood-burning power plant in Britain (Drax) is to receive £32 billion in government subsidies over 25 years. Its imported wood pellets[xviii] produce higher levels of CO2 from its smokestacks than burning coal, its previous fuel.
  • Within six days after California loudly proclaimed a ban on fossil-fueled vehicles, it quietly requested EV owners to avoid charging during peak hours so as to avoid power blackouts.
  • Celebrities jet across oceans to accept environmental awards. Green Party MPs consistently have the highest taxpayer-funded air miles.

39. Carbon leakage is the norm:: Several EU countries (e.g. Germany, UK) set out to “lead the world” before New Zealand began its crack at the title 2018. They achieved their small gains by de-industrializing large chunks of their economies whilst escalating their imports of goods from China; and their energy from Russia[xix]. Manufacturing’s share of the UK economy declined from 27% in 1970 to around 10% by 2018,  In a nutshell, they off-shored their emissions from productive activity while maintaining their BAU levels of consumption. This kind of “carbon leakage” has been the hallmark of Climate Policies worldwide.

All this posturing and pain has had zero impact on the level of atmospheric CO2 – nothing has been achieved other than a disguised wealth transfer to China and Russia. But that does not hinder their politicians from preening at global Climate Conferences.   

40. Climate Policy offshores jobs: The much-advertised “Green Jobs Machine” has predictably failed to materialize. The opposite effect has occurred, and will continue to occur, as a result of decarbonization programs. China’s share of the global supply chain for solar panels increased from 55% in 2010 to 84% in 2022 – while Europe and North America, the major consumers, have only a combined 3% share across all stages. China currently manufactures nearly 60% of the world’s electric vehicles.  Countries pursuing Zero by 2050 goals are not only de-industrializing, but are constantly eroding their comparative advantage across all elements of world trade.

41. Perverse policy positions:  The USA, uniquely,  has genuinely delivered a reduction in global emissions in the last decade, mainly by switching from coal to natural gas for power production. This was the result of a plunge in gas prices arising from new technologies (“fracking”) for the recovery of shale gas. Yet those States which campaign most stridently for high-ambition Climate Policy (e.g. New York, California) have legislated bans against the production of shale gas. The same States have closed long-successful nuclear generation plants – despite the resulting increase in the national usage of fossil fuels. Whatever their agendas might be, it is not combatting Climate Change.

42. Politics trumps science:  Who determines the Green fashions de jour? Not scientists. While veganism and cycling are deemed to be universally virtuous, crypto-currency mining escapes serious criticism. Bitcoin mining alone consumes an estimated 150 terawatt-hours of electricity annually – more than the entire country of Argentina, with a population of 45 million – emitting some 65 Mt of CO2. Then there are another 19,000 crypto-currencies in circulation. But there are many vested interests in crypto-currency, so the outrage of ESG warriors is highly muted in this area. 

43. Renewables still uncompetitive:  Solar and wind technologies today supply about 5% of global primary energy. An onshore wind plant requires nine times more mineral resources and land per kWh than an equivalent-output gas-fired plant. Reliable time-of-use electricity from renewables still costs about three times the equivalent from a gas-powered generator.

Faith-based motivated thinking has led many politicians to claim that intermittent wind/solar power is very cheap, and will require no back-up by fossil fuels:

  • The claim is incompatible with the fact that all policymakers everywhere assume that wind/solar generation cannot be commercially viable without mandates or long-term taxpayer subsidies. Cumulative taxpayer/consumer subsidies for biofuels wind and solar already approach US$5 trillion globally, and very few renewable plants have ever been built anywhere without artificial aids. Subsidies began over 20 years ago, and have only increased
  • Domestic retail electricity prices are directly proportional to the percentage penetration of wind/solar on the relevant grid. With few exceptions, the higher the penetration, the higher the bills.
  • In 2019, German electricity prices were 45 percent higher than the European average. Electricity prices in renewables-heavy California have risen six times faster than in the rest of the United States since 2011.
  • In banning natural gas, New York State recently accepted that the future invention of something (undefined) called Dispatchable Emissions-Free Resources (DEFRs) will be essential to future grid reliability. Whatever they may be, presumably SMRs, these DEFRs are not part of any plan and might never happen. New York is planning for brownouts, blackouts and general grid disorder, in their absence.

44. Paris15 is a sham:  UN organizers of COP 20 in Paris recognized that many countries, especially the USA, would never agree to a legally-enforceable Treaty that mandated emission reductions. That would have comprised a politically impossible loss of national sovereignty. Consequently, Paris15 relies upon Nationally-Determined Contributions (NDCs) that are volunteered by member countries for the period up to 2030.

The outcome was foreseeably abysmal, and the UN’s own model now predicts that the collective impact of Paris NDCs would reduce the global average temperature by only 0.17°C by 2100 – even if every nation were to meet its commitments by 2030. However, in reality, not one developed country has been on track to meet its Paris offerings during the last five years. It all seems to be a big (very big) game.


Always and everywhere, the collective costs of planned rich-world Climate Policies are much higher than any forecast reduction in 2100 GDP that might conceivably be caused by scenarios of unmitigated Climate Change[xx].

45.  NZ20 already achieved: North America and Australasia have already over-achieved their Net Zero targets. Right now, these continents are net carbon sinks, and the vegetation in their National/Regional Parks alone absorbs more than all their annual human-related emissions. Alas, as a result of artificial, poorly-negotiated bureaucratic rules, their pre-1990 native forests are ignored in counting their National CO2 Inventories for UN purposes. But the scientific fact remains that, if either of these continents were to disappear under the waves tomorrow, there would be more CO2 (not less) in the global atmosphere.

46. The war on meat’ is ill-founded: Climate activists say that short-lived biogenic methane also adds to current global warming – but science has now exploded this claim. For every new molecule emitted today, an old molecule from the same herd/flock simultaneously disappears from the atmosphere.  Accordingly, inflows are matched by outflows, and there is no net addition to the stock of methane in the atmosphere – unless livestock numbers are increased.  Many vegans and public commentators totally misunderstand the physical distinction between flows and stocks.

47. Cap & Trade’ supplants other policies: Europe, the UK, New Zealand and others have ‘cap & trade’ systems in place. All of the budgeted taxpayer billions will make not a whit of difference to their future emissions tonnages. Those levels will be determined solely by the ETS “cap” which is fixed by decree of the government of the day. All the Government’s other subsidies and haphazard spending merely has the “waterbed effect” of reallocating the financial pain amongst sectors of the internal economy.

48. The ‘social cost of carbon’ is insignificant:  None of the countless climate-justified projects adopted by OECD Governments has ever been the subject of a standard Treasury cost/benefit study, which establishes a Net Present Value (NPV) of the investment using straightforward methodologies that are taught in every leading Business School in the world. This is extraordinary!  

Despite pouring millions of dollars into the project, successive US Presidents have been unable to nail the “social cost of carbon”. In the absence of creative or novel accounting, or truly heroic assumptions, the three integrated assessment models (DICE, PAGE & FUND) suggest that it is around a trivial $3 per ton.

However, in the Climate space, left-wing politicians regrettably demonstrate little interest in maximizing “bang for the buck” – their focus is on the exciting opportunity for “economic transformation” and/or the WEF’s “the Great Reset”.

49. Energy taxes no longer needed: Almost all Government mitigation projects rely upon artificially hiking the cost of everyday energy, thereby making it unaffordable for less affluent people to keep doing things that cause emissions[xxi]. But most of those Government’s price-hiking program for the next decade have already been coincidentally achieved by the market-driven doubling of oil prices – so the taxing Governments should now stand down, gather the data, and discover the actual price-elasticity of energy in diverse applications, and at each socio-economic level. Will high prices actually slash emissions? Or will it again be all pain and little gain?

50. Climate policies threaten stability:  A new fad of the world’s central banks (including the US Federal Reserve, the ECB and the Bank of England) is to quantify, with preposterous faux-precision, how global temperature variations in 100 years might affect financial stability today. These institutions, which have never once succeeded in producing an accurate 5-year economic forecast, seem sublimely confident in their ability to usefully model some 80 successive years of both future weather and economic change. But the real risks to financial stability are posed by Climate Policy and not Climate Change. As one topical example, some 20 years of “green” energy policies in Europe have enabled an energy price shock which is engendering a regional recession and posing “existential” risks to thousands of businesses.


After a global pandemic, which induced unheard-of levels of Government money printing/borrowing, followed by a wave of economic stress from a major energy price shock – the policymakers in most countries are now in a somber mood.

Over-the-top rhetoric has less appeal and hard information is in high demand. There is little time  for speculation regarding a possibly dystopian remote future, when the apocalypse is now!

For 20 years, Climate Policy has been steered by the fiction that action is desperately urgent; that decisions must be taken at breakneck speed; that doing anything is better than doing nothing; and that there is no time for debate; no time to plan; no time for normal prudent analysis. 

As Swedish teenager Greta Thunberg told the WEF: “I want you to panic. I want you to feel the fear I feel every day. And then I want you to act. I want you to act as if the house were on fire. Because it is.

Panic has led us into woefully bad decisions. The old fallacy of “build it and they will come” is reflected in “set future targets and they will be fulfilled”… somehow… by future inventions… by sheer collective willpower. Reason has been supplanted by faith.

Policymakers must use the pause imposed by the current energy price shock to review Climate Policy, root and branch. The would-be leaders must respect the formal 2°C target and 2100 deadline that all the world’s countries agreed upon in the Paris Agreement. That will reveal that there is no need for panic and disarray.

And there must be a change in direction. Surely it is obvious that:  If you always do what you’ve always done;  You’ll always get what you always got

There must be a new global consensus that advances in technology are the only possible solution – and then governments must get out of the way to allow market price mechanisms to sort out the winners from the losers. Above all, governments should be constantly reminded that the sole objective of any necessary economic sacrifices is to mitigate climate threats; and not to disguise their ‘economic transformation’ agendas.

Better still, policymakers should recognize that climate mitigation has had its best shot and been found unworkable. The focus should now turn to climate adaptation.

Note:  All facts and data mentioned in this article are fully documented; and links to relevant authorities (usually IPCC reports) can be provided on request.

[i] The leading land-based series, HadCRUT, shows a slight cooling trend for the last 7.5 years.

[ii] Although this merely emphasizes that, despite media rhetoric, any single year’s figures or events relate to weather and not to climate.

[iii] Further, public confidence in model-based fortune-telling has been undeniably dented by the recent Covid-19 experience.

[iv] In the US, about 20,000 people die from heat each year, but 170,000 die from cold

[v] Detection and recording of events have clearly improved, while population increase and monetary inflation have raised absolute numbers

[vi] [vi]  Smil: “After taking us from 86% to 83% during the last two decades, what are the chances that climate policies will take us from 83% to zero in the next two?”

[vii] Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.

[viii] The Nordhaus DICE integrated-assessment-model results fall between the results of the PAGE and FUND models. These are the only three IAMs accepted by the US government. 

[ix] Drax Power in Yorkshire, formerly a coal-fired station, now supplies about 6% of the total UK market,

[x] What is the actual point of small emitters committing to large long-term reductions in the living standards of their citizens?

[xi] Just beginning in Asia, South America and Africa

[xii] The assurances required for future fossil fuel investment will mainly come from the  largest emitters (China, India, USA, Russia, Indonesia, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mexico) none of which have adopted, or will adopt, the NZ50 slogan.

[xiii] Fuel-efficiency (mpg) of ICE has improved at an average rate of 3% pa over 35 years

[xiv] QANTAS claims to have cajoled and bullied up to 11% of its passengers to buy carbon credits 

[xv] “Charities” is now the third biggest employment sector in the UK.

[xvi] Proving that bankers make poor ethicists e.g. Tesla has a poor ESG score while ExxonMobil scores well.

[xvii] Kirk recognized the futility and inefficiency of attempted climate mitigation, and favored a shift of focus to adaptation 

[xviii] 4.6 million tons from USA in 2020, including native, mature, high bio-diversity value trees which allegedly include coastal hardwood forests

[xix] EU production of steel, zinc and aluminum has declined by approximately half.

[xx] The UN expects the average person in 2100 to be 450% richer than in 2010; but believes that Climate Change damage could reduce that increase to only 434%.

[xxi] Although mostly sticks, there are some carrots – e.g. for Tesla owners.

4.8 34 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 22, 2022 6:09 am

The article’s lead author, nuclear physicist Prof Gianluca Alimonti, argued in 2014 there was no consensus among climate scientists that human activities are causing warming.

Prof Michael Mann, a climate scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, told Temperature Check the journal article was “another example of scientists from totally unrelated fields coming in and naively applying inappropriate methods to data they don’t understand”.

“Either the consensus of the world’s climate experts that climate change is causing a very clear increase in many types of weather extremes is wrong, or a couple of nuclear physics dudes in Italy are wrong.”

Sky and the Australian find ‘no evidence’ of a climate emergency – they weren’t looking hard enough (msn.com)

Reply to  observa
September 22, 2022 6:42 am

Mike Manns up and intellectually declares ‘War On Geographical Standing’!

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  observa
September 22, 2022 6:58 am

Did Mann list the “inappropriate methods” and say why they are wrong?
If not, why not?

Reply to  observa
September 22, 2022 7:36 am

What about the inappropriate methods used to erase the Medieval Warm period and create a hockey schtick? And where are the scientific papers that say that weather extremes are increasing? The IPCC has for the most part disavowed the weather extremes have been increasing narrative (although they still claim it will happen in the future).

Bill Powers
Reply to  Dan
September 22, 2022 11:29 am

When it happens “see there is your proof” when it doesn’t happen, not even a “Never mind.”

Propagandists know that when facts don’t fit narrative then you don’t talk about it at all until they do. Then if and when the events fit the narrative, you ratchet up the air raid sirens until you have the great unwashed running for cover with “see I told you so.”

It is all the misdirection in the magic trick. And “Global Warm…Ahhh we really meant Climate Change all along.” is a trick using smoke and mirrors.

Reply to  observa
September 22, 2022 7:52 am

“another example of scientists from totally unrelated fields coming in and naively applying inappropriate methods to data they don’t understand”.

Was Mann referring to climate scientists pontificating about utility scale energy production, storage & distribution ?

You know, the discipline where specialist engineers do their thing?

Kevin M
Reply to  Mr.
September 22, 2022 8:19 am

Best so far +++++

Bill Powers
Reply to  Mr.
September 22, 2022 11:50 am

After we crossed the “Bridge to the 21st Century” I heard ALGORE on the morning show circuit proclaim the “Science was settled” and the “Debate was over” I had a Scooby-Doo Ruh Row moment. Not for fear of the coming end of days but because I knew from school that the Scientific Method never quelled debate. So In 2005 I looked into where a person might apply to get a degree in Climate Science. I was naïve in thinking that most colleges offered up such a specialty.

Now I was surprised to discover that no colleges east of the Mississippi offered such a degree. I became exacerbated and lost interest before working my way west, but suspected the same to be true.

It is interesting to note that in debates with those certain of the coming end of days, the most common retort to statements making nonsense out of claims, was that I was not a climate scientist ergo not qualified to question the “Science.” Seems regular old boring science degrees would not suffice to allow participation in such a weighty and earth shattering field of discussion. Imagine my surprise upon discovering there was nowhere to go to get the necessary qualifications to push back on the “Settled Science.”

Reply to  Bill Powers
September 22, 2022 12:43 pm

Yes, I can’t ever recall hearing the term “Settled Engineering”.

How weird is that?

Is it because I’m not on Facebook or Twitter?

Reply to  Mr.
September 22, 2022 8:34 pm

There is such a thing as “Settled Virtue Signaling”, Mr.

At least we can depend on that. And if you’re not up to speed on the latest in virtue signaling, just ask anyone who flew into Glasgow on their private jet for the climate conference. They’ll clue you in.

Say, haven’t you bought your Tesla yet, or are you waiting for them to come out with a color you actually like? I haven’t seen a Fly Yellow Tesla. Why not? And where’s the metalflake option?

Reply to  H.R.
September 23, 2022 5:18 am

How about puke green? That’s how I feel every time I see one of these virtue-signalling subsidy suckers on the road.

But I have to be very careful not to crash into one; I wouldn’t want to be caught in the conflagration.

Reply to  observa
September 22, 2022 8:15 am

It really is amazing how frequently the global warming alarmists have to fall back on this mythical “consensus” in order to defend their beliefs.
It’s almost as if even they know that if the argument is on the science, they lose.

Reply to  MarkW
September 22, 2022 9:39 am

not to mention the 1100 real scientists, including a nobel prize winner, that recently declared that there is no climate emergency

Reply to  observa
September 22, 2022 11:30 am

You chose a silly article and an equally silly rebuttal from silly sources to make some sort of silly point. I find this silly.

Robert Hanson
Reply to  Bill_W_1984
September 23, 2022 3:45 pm

I find your comment unbelievably silly.

Gunga Din
Reply to  observa
September 22, 2022 2:20 pm

Prof Michael Mann, a climate scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, told Temperature Check the journal article was “another example of scientists from totally unrelated fields coming in and naively applying inappropriate methods to data they don’t understand”.”

There are lots of weeds growing in Mann’s “field”.
Long past time for a dose “RoundUp”.
Cut off the “Green” grants.
Oh! And, The University of Pennsylvania? Fire the fraud.
(After Climategate came out and was “investigated”, didn’t you let Mann choose the questions he’d be asked? Did he show the investigators his emails?)

Reply to  Gunga Din
September 23, 2022 5:20 am

Ah, yes. Mickey Mouse, the professor of Penn State, that many think should be an inmate of the State Penn.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  observa
September 22, 2022 7:19 pm

“Either the consensus of the world’s climate experts that climate change is causing a very clear increase in many types of weather extremes”

Michael Mann knows good and well that the statistics do not support his claim that human-caused climate change is causing “a very clear increase in many types of weather extremes”.

Just the opposite is true, and he knows it. Climate Change Disinformation courtesy of Michael Mann.

Scott snell
Reply to  observa
September 23, 2022 6:32 am

Michael Mann’s claim to fame is the famous “hockey stick,” which is a paragon of bad science. It has been discredited on many fronts. Michael Mann himself is known as brittle, contentious person, a serial litigator, and an all-around prick. He has created a cult of personality, complete with zealous defenders. His preferred method of rebuttal is the personal attack. To get the full picture of the man, I suggest you read “A Disgrace to the Profession,” by Mark Steyn, in which more than a hundred of Mann’s fellow scientists say what they really think of him and his work. On the record.

The idea that only someone with a climate science degree can understand climate is ridiculous and insulting. By the rule, Mann himself would be disqualified, because his background is geophysics. It takes a lot more brainpower to be a nuclear physicist than to obtain a climate science degree at most institutions.

Reply to  Scott snell
September 23, 2022 8:55 am

Have they actually started issuing degrees in climate science? A few years ago there weren’t any.

Reply to  MarkW
September 23, 2022 11:16 am

They’ve had those for a long time, Mark. It’s called “Creative Writing”

September 22, 2022 6:12 am

Excellent piece of work.

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
September 22, 2022 6:24 am

I only read few lines, so wil take your word for it.
Currently I have two good reasons, both are installed under the stairs.

Reply to  Vuk
September 23, 2022 5:30 am

puppies? or kittens?

Reply to  ozspeaksup
September 23, 2022 8:56 am

Harry Potter?

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
September 22, 2022 9:54 am


Keith Harrison
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
September 22, 2022 1:01 pm

Agreed. An excellent and timely effort sorely needed.

Ronald Havelock
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
September 22, 2022 2:36 pm

Excellent, exhaustive, and thereby unfortunately also exhausting. I would have stopped at 10 or 15. We who hold these truths to be evident in the data have to find a compelling way to change the minds of the many who are now in the firm grip of the green propagandists. Counter-messaging against the green crazies will take billions of dollars. Who has the billions, and the self-interest, and the supporting facts? The oil companies, that’s who, but they sit on their hands and join the virtue-signaling chorus whenever there is a chance.

Allan MacRae
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
September 22, 2022 7:44 pm

Agreed – very good work.

“There are numerous highly credible observations that falsify the CAGW hypothesis and many are listed herein, but as Albert Einstein famously stated ‘One would be enough’.”
The ability to correctly predict significant climate events is probably the best objective measure of scientific competence in the field of climate.
It is important to note that every scary prediction made by the Global Warming/Climate Change alarmists has failed to materialize – they have a perfect negative predictive track record and thus perfect negative credibility.
The Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis is falsified. There no CAGW crisis.
The Catastrophic Humanmade “Climate Change” hypothesis is also falsified.
I published the above article in 2020 on Joe D’Aleo’s website.
Bottom Line:
We published the important conclusions to this debate in 2002 and nothing has changed:
The alleged Climate Crisis is a fifty-year-old scam, and “green energy” is not green and does not produce much useful energy.
The Climate scammers have wasted trillions of dollars and millions of lives on fraud.

Reply to  Allan MacRae
September 24, 2022 5:02 pm

Someone needs to tell the folks at IESO in Ontario.

Here is the IESO plan “Enabling Foundational Hybrid Facility Models in the IESO-Administered Markets” 

link: file:///C:/Users/Owner/Downloads/hip-20220907-enabling-foundational-hybrid-facility-models%20(2).pdf 

On page ten is the following:

Expiring wind and solar contracts along with declining technology costs for battery storage is expected to drive hybrid facility development over the next decade”

Bryan A
September 22, 2022 6:32 am

Net Zero is just fudging the numbers in the balance book…creative accounting.
Net Zero…Net-Z is Not-Z but it is Nut-Z

September 22, 2022 6:32 am

Author says:”… only major technology change can engineer the gradual phase-out of fossil fuels.”.

Why would we even consider this at this time. We have hundreds if not thousands of years of fossil fuel energy available to us. Again wasting money to develop something we don’t need.

Reply to  mkelly
September 22, 2022 8:18 am

Compare the world of 1820 to the world of 2020. Now consider the fact that the rate of scientific progress continues to accelerate.

Now consider the futility of trying to make decisions regarding how the people of 2220 are going to have to live.

Reply to  MarkW
September 22, 2022 9:36 am

Apparently, they’ll “own nothing, and be happy”.

(almost forgot – /sarc)

Ronald Havelock
Reply to  mkelly
September 22, 2022 2:38 pm

Why, indeed. Louder, please.

September 22, 2022 6:34 am

Awesome list. Thankyou for putting that together.

Steve Case
September 22, 2022 6:38 am

I will have to start a new file of fact & smart remarks

September 22, 2022 6:40 am

A brilliant article, thank you. A lot of work has gone into it.

This is what the largely scientifically illiterate general public need (and I include myself in that), a plain english, item by item refutation of the climate madness.

This can be handed to any layman and they can understand it.

This is most certainly a keeper and well worth an annual update.

John Garrett
September 22, 2022 6:48 am

For god’s sake, don’t confuse them with facts.


September 22, 2022 6:48 am

So, some folks are just finding out that the initials “ph.d” behind some folks names means what most of us have known all along…piled higher and deeper. Especially, if it has anything to do with the climate “crisis”, and other made up fields of study. Known all along by people who could think logically, and couldn’t see how mass amounts of money could fix a problem which didn’t exist in reality.

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  RevJay4
September 22, 2022 8:33 am

My favorite:
PhD = Permanent Head Damage

Old Man Winter
Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
September 22, 2022 9:26 am

who learn more & more about less & less until they know
everything about nothing at all!

Reply to  RevJay4
September 22, 2022 11:34 am

Or Permanent Head Damage. (I have a Ph.D. in Biochemistry myself but I still appreciate jokes like these)

Frank from NoVA
September 22, 2022 6:54 am

Excellent summary!

September 22, 2022 6:56 am

Deaths from global weather-related events have reduced by a staggering 91% over the last 90 years ‘

Yes… but entirely as a result of improved early warning, evacuation/refuges and other civil defence measures.

Reply to  griff
September 22, 2022 7:23 am

LOL. Another ridiculous comment from griff.

That’s the whole point numpty. Even in the face of your (imaginary) climate induced extreme weather, the human race has adapted and prevailed.

Fantasy mitigation is not required. The wealthy are using the climate scam to rob you blind and you’re too stupid to see it. 🙄

Reply to  griff
September 22, 2022 7:54 am

Improved early warnings and evacuations would not happen without ready access to power and energy. The events themselves have not likely changed much.

Bryan A
Reply to  starzmom
September 22, 2022 1:29 pm

Just imagine everyone (13,000 inhabitants) trying to evacuate from the Florida Keys if they all drove those “affordable” EVs that are good for around 100 miles before needing a recharge. Those from Key West would need to make their first recharging stop in Key Largo (couldn’t even leave the keys before needing to recharge). Those with the foresight to buy something with a 140 mile range would still need to make Homestead their first stop. Suddenly 8000 EVs all looking for a place to juice up in a hurry and hoping that the back-up batteries still have power stored.
To get inland to Columbus Ga 766 miles would take 5-7 stops to recharge on top of everyone else stopping to recharge

Ronald Havelock
Reply to  Bryan A
September 22, 2022 3:09 pm

Consider the Tesla, a car too expensive to make it in the car marketplace, but a bright and shiny bauble on Wall Street. Elon Musk has grabbed billions from foolish stock investors for an idea car fantasy, a ponzi scheme in reality, because the technology for EVs that will ever get you in or out of Key West just isn’t there and won’t be until someone can develop that magic battery. What fools these mortals be!

another ian
Reply to  Bryan A
September 22, 2022 5:08 pm

Bryan A

How did they go back in the horse drawn days for comparison?

Bryan A
Reply to  another ian
September 22, 2022 5:53 pm

They didn’t get out there in horse drawn days except by ship. No concrete hwy and bridges to surpass the island gaps. Those that were there either hunkered, prayed or died and some did all three

The great Hurricane of 1780
27,500 Great Hurricane of 1780, San Calixto Hurricane of 1780, or Great Hurricane of the Antilles. This is the deadliest known hurricane on record in the Atlantic. The record still stands today. It killed over 20,000 people and estimates as high as 27,500 people. 4,000-5,000 people were killed on St. Eustatius, 9,000 people on Martinique, 1,000 people in St. Pierre which had all of its homes destroyed, and 4,326 people in Barbados. Many of the deaths were due to the storm surge.

The hurricane destroyed the island of Barbados with winds possibly exceeding 320 km/h (200 mph) which would make it an extreme category 5 strength hurricane, leaving the island completely decimated with nearly all its buildings and plantations destroyed. The town of Bridgetown in Barbados was completely destroyed. The force of the winds was so intense that most of the island’s trees were knocked down and the ones that remained standing had their bark stripped off.

They hunkered, prayed and often died

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bryan A
September 23, 2022 6:03 am

You would actually be better off with a horse or bicycle today if EV’s blocked the roads due to discharged batteries. The only problem would be fending off all those determined to take them from you through physical violence.

(think Gene Barry in the original War of the Worlds movie)

Bryan A
Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 23, 2022 7:28 am

The Tom Cruise remake had a similar scene. After he surrendered the van they were using the crowd started killing each other to possess it

Reply to  Bryan A
September 23, 2022 8:59 am

There was a train out to the keys for a few years, the Labor Day Hurricane managed to knock a train off the track and kill hundreds that way.

M Courtney
Reply to  griff
September 22, 2022 8:06 am

Yes. Cheap energy has saved lives.
I remember a hurricane hit an island but no-one died because the coastal town was entirely evacuated in busses.
The Greens said this showed that petrol and diesel were the problem.

Reply to  griff
September 22, 2022 8:19 am

Made possible by the technology that you want to get rid of.

Reply to  griff
September 22, 2022 8:40 am


different perspective on the above story.

The energy poor build with Straw and must live near the waterways or otherwise carry water to the higher ground by manual labor.

A little more “energy” availability and they can build with Sticks. They may or may not be able to build out of the flood plains with mechanical delivery of water.

With inexpensive and readily available energy, they can build with Bricks, and withstand high winds. They can also build wherever they want to since with sufficient electricity, they can pump water wherever they wish.

Cheap, plentiful “energy” is what has made it possible to reduce the loss of lives by 90%, even as the world’s population has grown by leaps and bounds.


Reply to  Drake
September 25, 2022 10:12 am

Building on the flood plain guarantees flooding sooner or later….. That has always been a problem for the poor…. Houses on stilts are still a common sight in Asia

Reply to  griff
September 22, 2022 8:50 am

Improved early evacuation won’t happen when you have to wait hours for your vehicle to charge. You actually would be better off with a horse.

Reply to  Doonman
September 22, 2022 12:34 pm

With the added benefit that the horse would be smart enough to know the best way out of trouble. At least mine have had those smarts.

joe x
Reply to  griff
September 22, 2022 9:47 am

griff,you should have stopped typing after “yes”

Reply to  griff
September 22, 2022 10:25 am

You left out ‘re-establishment of safe living conditions after an event’ (safe water … plastic pipes & diesel generators; food … readily available through fertilizer & storage; electric … portable diesel generators; transportation … this is the big one, being able to get to those in need … asphalt roads & portable energy services)

Do you think ‘safe living conditions after an event’ will be more or less available, given a replacement of real infrastructure with batteries, windmills, and solar panels?

Reply to  griff
September 22, 2022 11:33 am

Yes… but entirely as a result of improved early warning, evacuation/refuges and other civil defence measures.

References, please.

Reply to  griff
September 22, 2022 11:48 am

Griff, if you read the IPCC reports (not the fake summary for policy makers) they clearly state that there are few things they can say for sure about changes in weather events, fires, etc. The main thing they say is there is (IIRC) a medium chance that regional heavy rain events have increased. No clear increase in hurricanes or hurricane strength, tornadoes down, etc.
So, what you have is many decades or centuries of similar weather events with huge amounts of year to year variability (in both amounts and locations – obviously since it is weather) but improved technology to detect, communicate danger, and fight fires so that deaths are naturally down and once normalized to constant dollars, damages are also way down.

Reply to  griff
September 22, 2022 7:32 pm

The world population Quadrupled since 1930,

1930 Population was 2 billion.

2020 Population is 8 billion.


You are not a deep thinker.

Reply to  griff
September 25, 2022 1:09 am

Spewing crap again Griffy.
I would say you must belong to Greenpeace and have fallen for the nonsense that they preach.
On Friday there was a woman from greenpeace asking towns people to sign a petition to
I remonstrated with her and told her that if nitrogen fertilizer was banned world wide 3 Billion people would starve to death within a year .
Is that what you are aiming for Griffy.
She did not want to know that nitrogen fertilizer grows enough extra food to feed nearly 4 Billion people .
When I started school there were less than 2.5 billion people on this planet and we are now approaching 8 billion and will pass that total before the end of this decade .
Nitrogenous fertilizer started feeding people in the 1960s and is now a very necessary fertilizer all around the world to grow all manner of crops .
Nitrogenous fertilizer has increased in price by over 300% in the last 2 years and this will have an effect on crop yields around the world because less will be applied .
Natural gas is essential for producing ammonia and urea but stupid governments are banning fracking and some ( NZ ) banning offshore exploration and drilling .
You cannot get much stupider than that Griffy .
Fertilizer manufactured with natural gas feeds 4 billion people every year but our communist Prime minister Jacinda here in New Zealand has banned any new offshore drilling .
Her actions will deprive thousands of people around the world of food .
People with good intentions take actions that often result in unintended consequences ,in this case starvation of millions in poor countries.

September 22, 2022 6:59 am

‘Energy taxes no longer needed’

New German govt to end renewables levy in 2023 (renewablesnow.com)

The new German government plans to abolish the renewables surcharge, the so-called EEG-levy, paid by consumers with their electricity bills, at the beginning of 2023 in order to relieve the burden on consumers amid rising electricity prices.’

Reply to  griff
September 22, 2022 7:55 am

The levy, which is paid by consumers with their electricity bills, was introduced in 2000 to finance the expansion of renewables in the country and cover the difference between the market price and the market premium paid to electricity producers. The removal of the levy, which is currently set at €3.7c/kWh after €6.5c/kWh in 2021, should lower the electricity bill of a four-person household by around €300/year compared to 2021. From July 2022, the Energy and Climate Fund (EKF) will entirely finance the promotion of renewables.


Revenue will mainly come from a contractual agreement of the nuclear power plant operators with the German state that skims off part of their extra profits. In addition, it will be funded by parts of the nuclear fuel rod tax and the auctioning of emission allowances as of 2013.

So now they will gouge the long suffering German consumers another way to push the green dream 🙂

Only you Greentards could make this stuff up and try to sell it as good news.

Reply to  LdB
September 22, 2022 8:42 am

Shifting the expenses away from “renewables” to nuclear to make it appear that the costs are comparable.

Nice move by the warmistas.

Reply to  griff
September 22, 2022 7:59 am

So, another example of politicians promising to fix a mess they created, and now wanting credit for their intervention?

Only the most naive would ever buy this bullshit, would they Griff?

Reply to  Mr.
September 22, 2022 8:22 am

griff doesn’t just buy into it. He’s a full blown investor and is trying to sell it to others.

Reply to  griff
September 22, 2022 8:21 am

That which cannot last, won’t.
The German government is in hot water over the price of energy.

Reply to  griff
September 22, 2022 8:53 am

So they are admitting it doesn’t work.

Reply to  griff
September 23, 2022 1:55 am

Aaaaaaaannnnnddddd yet another stupid comment from griff.

The renewable levy is being abolished so government officials don’t get lynched.


September 22, 2022 7:00 am

Time eventually reveals the lies behind a hoax, and the greatest hoax against humanity is on the verge of collapse. Human contributions of the CO2 passing through the environment of the planet is minuscule and its effects cannot be measured with any certainty. BIG SCIENCE is paid for and used for political purposes. We are expected to be too average dumb to dispute anything they have paid for.

Bruce Cobb
September 22, 2022 7:09 am

The War on Fossil Fuels is a war against rationality, against progress, and against humanity itself. It is total madness.

Ronald Havelock
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
September 22, 2022 3:27 pm

Why don’t the oil companies say this and say it loudly Wake up, you guys!!

Reply to  Ronald Havelock
September 22, 2022 4:43 pm

They’re afraid of being called bad names, Ronald

Robert Hanson
Reply to  TonyG
September 23, 2022 4:04 pm

Well Jamie Diamond isn’t afraid to say it. In Congressional testimony yesterday:

Chase CEO Jamie Dimon said slamming the brakes on new oil and gas production “would be the road to hell for America” after Rep. Rashida Tlaib asked him to divest in oil.

Steve G
September 22, 2022 7:12 am

Include all this information in every primary and secondary school curriculum……as a “please discuss” — what are the chances??

September 22, 2022 7:19 am

What a waste of time. Climate denier without fact checked arguments.

Reply to  macias
September 22, 2022 8:01 am

Well this forum provides you a fantastic opportunity to respond with counter arguments.

Let’s hear them now . . .

Reply to  Mr.
September 22, 2022 10:29 am

… can’t do it, if it gets to close to the edge it’s bubble will pop and it will have go flailing in reality.

M Courtney
Reply to  macias
September 22, 2022 8:09 am

Then try providing facts that dispute his arguments then?
Let’s start with No 21 (which I was the first in the world to notice).

Although there was a huge slump in global economic output during the first Covid-19 year (2020), there was no – repeat no – measurable decrease in atmospheric CO2. 

Here’s a link to Mauna Loa data to show that the facts do not agree with your prejudices.

Science: It works whether you agree with it or not.

Reply to  M Courtney
September 23, 2022 4:38 am

” which I was the first in the world to notice ”

Your huge slump from COVID is more like a fly shit in the history of CO2 concentrations.


comment image?as=webp

BTW – Not the emission of carbon dioxide (CO2), but the loss of evaporative landscapes is the main cause of climate change.


Finally the reality brings deniers and arlamists together !

M Courtney
Reply to  macias
September 23, 2022 11:03 am

Covid did cause the world to reduce flying, industry, transport and even leaving homes. The whole world.
And that action was not enough to affect atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
In policy terms Covid shows that the actions we took is not enough to affect AGW. So, any call for NetZero is calling for more than Covid lockdowns. And not just for one year but for year after year after year.
Like a boot stamping on your face forever.

Reply to  M Courtney
September 23, 2022 11:55 am

Flying has always been a small portion of the energy used in transportation, which was itself a small portion of the amount of energy used.
Some factories were closed, but not all. A lot of office buildings were partially shut down, however the amount of energy saved by those shutdowns was pretty small as heating and cooling were kept on, as were many lights.
On the other hand, a lot of homes that previously hadn’t been occupied during the day, now were. So that’s a big increase in home energy use.

All in all, there never was any reason to expect the COVID lockdowns to result in a large drop in energy use.

Reply to  macias
September 22, 2022 8:24 am

I notice that you are completely incapable of providing any evidence as to where and how the author is wrong.
Can I also presume that you will never respond to any of these posts pointing out your intellectual shortcomings?

Reply to  MarkW
September 23, 2022 4:45 am

For all you stupid Trump voters – so as not to overload your little brains – just look at one single graphic – because you always see the same thing.


Reply to  macias
September 23, 2022 9:06 am

I have to give you credit for being smart enough to find your way back. Most trolls can’t make it that far.

I’m going to guess that you actually are stupid enough to believe that your graph proves something. Even if it was accurate, all you have shown has been a very small increase in temperatures.
You haven’t demonstrated that the very small increase is a problem.
Nor have you demonstrated that the very small increase was caused by CO2.

Why not deal with the fact that between the end of the Holocene Optimum and today, there have been 5 warm periods, all of which were warmer than today and none of which were caused by CO2. Then there is the Holocene Optimum which lasted for over 10,000 years and was as much as 3 to 5C warmer than today, and once again, wasn’t caused by CO2.

As to your bigotry towards anyone who doesn’t vote for more free stuff, I just have to consider the source.

It really is funny how leftists both consider themselves to be the smartest people in any room, and the most caring people ever. Yet every action of theirs disproves both beliefs.

Reply to  MarkW
September 24, 2022 5:10 am

You should beam yourself back to kindergarten or your physics teacher as soon as possible. You don’t seem to have the slightest idea what a greenhouse effect and greenhouse gases mean. You can re-register in three years.

Reply to  macias
September 23, 2022 9:38 am

There is is Rachael,

show your true self.

Reply to  macias
September 22, 2022 11:57 am

What the hell is a “fact checked argument”? Many so-called fact checkers are biased one way or the other. FB admitted, once they were in court, that their “facts” were just opinions. I agree that the article would be much improved if he added the references he said he would provide if asked. I also realize it is a lot of work to put in dozens or hundreds of references. But, much of what he said is spot on.

Reply to  Bill_W_1984
September 22, 2022 1:15 pm

It’s not like he’s getting paid to post here.

Reply to  Bill_W_1984
September 23, 2022 1:58 am

Fact checks = scientific references.

Reply to  Bill_W_1984
September 23, 2022 4:51 am

For all you stupid Trump voters – so as not to overload your little brains – just look at one single graphic – because you always see the same thing.

comment image

Reply to  macias
September 23, 2022 9:08 am

Oh boy, the earth has warmed up from the bottom of the little ice age. Thank God, because the little ice age killed millions of people.

What is it with trolls and their inability to come up with new lies?

Reply to  macias
September 23, 2022 9:47 am

What I see:

It appears that from 1908 to 1940 the anomaly went up 0.5 (+/- 0.2); then was relatively flat; then from 1988 to almost present went up 0.5 (+/- 0.1).

And, prior to 1908, the anomaly dropped 0.1 (+/- 0.2).

What do you see? And why are you so excited about it?

M Courtney
Reply to  macias
September 25, 2022 8:47 am

Good graph. It shows that the rate of warming from 1900 to 1940 is roughly the same as that from 1980 to now.
But CO2 emissions are an order of magnitude higher in the later period. This is due to population growth and the development of the third world (e.g. China) and the invention of new technologies (e.g. the internet) that draw on power.
So, your own evidence indicates that CO2 is not a major contributor to warming, if at all.

Reply to  M Courtney
September 26, 2022 3:57 am

” Good graph. It shows that the rate of warming from 1900 to 1940 is roughly the same as that from 1980 to now. “

The graph shows a 1°C rising of global mean temperatures (1910-2010).

” So, your own evidence indicates that CO2 is not a major contributor to warming, if at all. “

I think you’re dyslexic. I wrote: —
” BTW – Not the emission of carbon dioxide (CO2), but the loss of evaporative landscapes is the main cause of climate change.


Finally the reality brings deniers and alarmists together ! ”

So what – is your little think tank able to process my link?
Do you know what a global energy balance is?

Reply to  macias
September 22, 2022 3:11 pm

Odd you should say that. There has never been any demonstrated factual physical experiments that show CO2 is a cause of warming. Merely models, which are pre-programmed to see CO2 as the cause. Models are not facts when untested. We have not yet seen 200 years of observation and testing of models.these flippin’ models can’t even recreate the past climate.

Reply to  Slowroll
September 23, 2022 4:58 am

For all you stupid Trump voters – so as not to overload your little brains – just look at one single graphic – because you always see the same thing.


Reply to  macias
September 23, 2022 9:08 am

Cut and paste the same thing to everyone who disagrees with you. And to think you call other people stupid.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  macias
September 22, 2022 6:47 pm

Opinionated commenter without facts supporting his claim.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
September 23, 2022 5:02 am

For all you stupid Trump voters – so as not to overload your little brains – just look at one single graphic – because you always see the same thing.


David Kamakaris
Reply to  macias
September 23, 2022 5:56 am

For all you stupid Biden voters who don’t know Earth history goes way back before 1979…

Reply to  macias
September 23, 2022 9:19 am

BTW, I just love how you assume that everyone who disagrees with you is a Trump voter. First off, this is a world wide forum. Secondly, we have quite a few posters who are quite avid socialists.

But go ahead and keep making stupid assumptions, it just further makes the point regarding your lack of intellect.

M Courtney
Reply to  MarkW
September 25, 2022 8:49 am

I’m on the left of the Labour Party and so a Socialist – definitely not a supporter of the US Republican Party.

Reply to  macias
September 22, 2022 7:37 pm

Haw haw haw…. you didn’t counter anything about the article…. too hard for you?

The article remains unchallenged.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
September 23, 2022 5:25 am

If the first argument stinks of baby shit – I can spare myself explanations for the remaining 49 shitty packages.

comment image

Reply to  macias
September 23, 2022 9:10 am

The world has warmed up since the coldest time since the little ice age. That’s great. You also haven’t proven that it was caused by CO2.

Unless you are a Biden voter and hence stupid enough to believe that prior to CO2, the earth’s climate never changed.

Reply to  macias
September 23, 2022 1:57 am

‘Fact checks’ are commonly known as scientific references in the real world.

Another idiot but even our resident idiot griff isn’t this stupid.

Michael in Dublin
September 22, 2022 7:24 am

An article caught my eye about three wind projects in South Africa. These are inland, where there tends to be less wind than along the coast. They are going to be built by a French company, Électricité de France (EDF). A lot of money is involved and I doubt the country is going to get value for money but EDF will rake in the cash. The huge problem is that the current coal power stations and electricity network are not being properly maintained and an albatross around the neck of the government. I wonder who has received the fattest brown envelopes?

Kevin M
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
September 22, 2022 8:28 am

comment image

Coeur de Lion
September 22, 2022 7:35 am

51! 51! Throughout the above there’s support for the suggestion that CO2 has an effect on the climate. Time to emphasize that ECS is very low and we can stop worrying about CO2. So the whole catafalque collapses.

Reply to  Coeur de Lion
September 22, 2022 11:22 am

52 – the accusation that skeptic climate scientists are paid fossil fuel industry money to undercut the certainty of CAGW does not have a shred of viable evidence to back it up.

Bryan A
Reply to  Russell Cook
September 22, 2022 2:13 pm

Most “Green” Orgs get funding from the Rockefeller Foundation. Rockefeller WAS Big Oil. So all that money the Gang Green are using comes directly from Oil Sales during the period of time they claim the West is most responsible for and reparations are required because of.

September 22, 2022 7:35 am

Perhaps the conversation should change from climate emergency to ecological emergency (human overshoot of natural regeneration biocapacity). Climate extreme events are visible and in the news, ecological degradation is harder to see. How can we change the conversation from planetary climate to planetary ecology?

Reply to  Luis Gutierrez
September 22, 2022 8:27 am

The planet could easily support 2 or 3 times as many humans as there are now.
Not that it matters, human population has either peaked, or it will peak during the next couple of decades and will start declining there after.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  MarkW
September 22, 2022 9:17 am

If the Alarmists have their way, it will decline a lot, and sooner rather than later.

Reply to  Frank from NoVA
September 22, 2022 12:40 pm

Has anyone noticed that the most alarmist demographic is also the demographic most supportive of unfettered abortion in the US?

Reply to  starzmom
September 22, 2022 1:17 pm

Has anyone noticed that Planned Parenthood was founded specifically to encourage minority women to have abortions.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  MarkW
September 22, 2022 6:51 pm

The planet could easily support 2 or 3 times as many humans as there are now

I wouldn’t want to live in that world. There is a difference between living and surviving.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
September 23, 2022 9:22 am

There would be no difference in standard of living. That’s why I said the planet could EASILY support 2 or 3 times as many. If the entire planet were to survive on say half the standard of living of the US, the planet could support at least 10 times as many people as we have today.

Get out of the city more, the world is not as crowded as you have been trained to think.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
September 25, 2022 1:50 am

The population of the world is estimated to hit 8 Billion in November this year .
The problem with 2 or 3 times as many people on this planet is FOOD.
There is a push to ban nitrogen fertilizer .
Nitrogen fertilizer now feeds nearly half of the worlds population .
A lot of countries are now short of gas to manufacture nitrogen fertilizer and the fertilizer has soared in price .
There is plenty of gas to manufacture the fertilizer but it has to be extracted mainly by fracking .Many countries are banning fracking .
What is needed is a dose of common sense to all governments in the free world.
The world would be a lot better off if leaders concentrated on their populations welfare and woke up to the fact that climate change is a scam which they can do nothing about except waste money virtue signaling .

Reply to  MarkW
September 23, 2022 2:01 am

The last time I checked, about 9 billion in 2021 before declining rapidly thanks to global prosperity. According to the UN.

Reply to  HotScot
September 23, 2022 9:25 am

Got a link for that? I’m not doubting you, but I would love to see the figures.

They used to publish new numbers every 5 years or so, and one thing I noticed was that each new forecast moved the peak both closer and lower.

The last time I saw official figures was about 20 years ago, and had the best guess set to about 12 billion and 2050. I’ve always assumed that the trend towards sooner and lower had continued.

Reply to  MarkW
September 26, 2022 1:33 am

I read it on a UN page somewhere in the past. Sorry, couldn’t find it again if my life depended on it. I have no doubt it has changed since, in fact I expect it depends what UN department makes the claim and the amount of funding they are after. At any given moment I expect there are a variety of estimates.

Kevin M
Reply to  Luis Gutierrez
September 22, 2022 8:33 am

The professions and technology that make extreme events global stories are recent.

Reply to  Luis Gutierrez
September 22, 2022 10:39 am


Perhaps, before trying to change the conversation from one scary life altering thing to the next, you should stand up and admit that:

1) the CAGW concept is silly

2) that CO2 is not the driver of earths climate & fossil fuel use does not harm the earth climate

3) that “Extreme weather events” is just a distraction to hide the fact that #1 has become apparent, and #2 is becoming apparent to the masses (the lies are showing).

After that, we can start over and talk about the next scary thing.

Reply to  Luis Gutierrez
September 22, 2022 11:27 am

What “ecological degradation,” exactly?? You have facts to back this up, or is it just your opinion of what your ‘ideal planet’ should look like? Enviros might complain that erosion on a grand scale is “ecological degradation” on steroids ……. while describing the Grand Canyon in Arizona as nature’s beauty at its finest.

Reply to  Russell Cook
September 23, 2022 9:58 am

I like the Crater Lake concept.

The water is so clean (clear to the idgits) that there is very little life in it. It is a almost a dead lake.

“Environmental degradation” of Crater Lake (additional nutrients) would result in more life in and around the lake.

Ed Reid
Reply to  Luis Gutierrez
September 22, 2022 1:50 pm

The issue of population control rears its ugly head from time to time. However, those raising the issue are extremely reluctant to discuss methods.

However, there are likely proponents in government for “eldernasia”, which would both reduce population and reduce Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid costs.

Reply to  Ed Reid
September 22, 2022 9:14 pm

“Eldermasia”? Over my dead body!

Ronald Havelock
Reply to  Luis Gutierrez
September 22, 2022 3:50 pm

I agree that the underlying fear/panic is not about climate but about the progressive direction of humanity as a whole. The fear-mongering leaders are Malthus, 18th century, his disciple Paul Ehrlich in the 1960’s and on, then the Club of Romein the 1970’s (horror, we are going to run out of everything), then later in the 1970’s the freeze-fear people, then earth was in the balance with Al Gore in the 1990’s and the global warming people in the 2000’s, The “pause” forced them to shift the tag line to “Climate Change” by the 2010’s, which somehow works even though its a tautological concept, meaning essentially nothing, yet somehow also powers up the fear machine. How do we stop it?

Reply to  Ronald Havelock
September 23, 2022 10:10 am

The fear and panic is based on short term. The emotional reaction is about the individual and their short term perspective.

Those that you listed (Malthus, Ehrlich, The Club, Gore, etc) are talking long term, but the useful idiots, the followers are triggered by the potential short term (their lives) impacts.

Those (Gore, AOC, Hansen, etc ) that wish to take advantage of the useful idiots know this. That is why they continually say we have less than 30 years (sometimes 12 years) to correct things.

John K. Sutherland
September 22, 2022 7:43 am

I was disappointed that you even mentioned ‘Scoldilocks’ in point 14. Don’t mention her, and she’ll fade into irrelevance and oblivion, where she deserves to be. Apart from that… good job.

CD in Wisconsin
September 22, 2022 8:06 am

28. Fossil fuels will continue to dominate;


Someone needs to tell that to a certain congresswoman from Michigan:

Top bank CEOs decline radical climate demands from Rep. Tlaib: ‘That would be the road to Hell for America’ | Fox Business

Leaders in the banking industry clashed with Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., Wednesday after Tlaib demanded that they commit to immediately end all financing of all fossil fuel products. 

“You have all committed, as you all know, to transition the emissions from lending and investment activities to align with pathways to net-zero in 2050… [so] no new fossil fuel production, starting today, so that’s like zero. I would like to ask all of you and go down the list, cause again, you all have agreed to doing this. Please answer with a simple yes or no, does your bank have a policy against funding new oil and gas products, Mr. [Dimon]?” Tlaib asked. 

“Absolutely not, and that would be the road to hell for America,” Dimon responded.


Net zero by 2050? Dream on, dream on.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
September 22, 2022 9:25 am

‘Someone needs to tell that to a certain congresswoman from Michigan.’

Someone needs to vote her out of office.

Kevin M
September 22, 2022 8:14 am

The list seems like an artificial division of one essay split into 50 parts, especially the NZ50 section.

” “existential” risks to thousands of businesses”
At least it’s a correct usage. I still wish the term had never been coined, which is a preference, not an argument.

Ronald Havelock
Reply to  Kevin M
September 22, 2022 3:54 pm

Your thought is an existential risk to “existential.” Horror!!.

Kevin Kilty
September 22, 2022 8:27 am

Very good. Thank you.

Mumbles McGuirck
September 22, 2022 8:29 am

5. Vegetation is flourishing: CO2 has increased from about 0.03% of the atmosphere in 1900 to over 0.04% now, as a result of a major increase in the use of fossil fuels. This rise has caused mild warming, which extends growing seasons, and has also dramatically boosted global vegetation growth. CO2 is plant food. “Global Greening” has accounted for a 13% increase in food production, outpacing population growth, since the early 1980s.

You’ve got it backwards. The increase in CO2 since 1900 is mostly due to the Global Greening. The more productive the biosphere, the higher the marginal CO2 levels are. This is apparent in CO2 levels as measured on a seasonal basis. The fossil fuel contributions to CO2 levels since 1900 have been minor compared to the contributions from the natural world, on the order of 3 to 4 %.
Once you realize this, then the whole premise of climate change emergency disappears.

September 22, 2022 8:35 am

Excellent compilation. I vote for …. “E. CURE IS WORSE THAN THE DISEASE” as the prime mover for the people. As long as the talk remained talk no one cared and nodded in agreement when saving the world is mentioned but when the economical and lifestyle changes are realized the tune changes.

September 22, 2022 8:47 am

Interesting but still assumes CO2 is the cause of warming.

Reply to  Greytide
September 22, 2022 11:04 am

Wrong. Assumes the human addition of CO2 is the cause of warming. Termites and ocean outgassing are never mentioned.

Ronald Havelock
Reply to  Greytide
September 22, 2022 4:00 pm

Strongly agree. There is no real scientific evidence that CO2 has anything to do with climate in any measurable way.
In fact- there is a bit of evidence from ice cores that warming causes subsequent increases in atmospheric CO2!

September 22, 2022 8:57 am

This is an excellent analysis. However, the author appears to be using BP as his source for non-fossil fuel energy generation. A number of other sources refer to this BP source. I have seen this figure repeated in a number of recent WUWT articles but I have an issue with it and I believe my concern is valid.
BP uses a controversial ‘input equivalent’ method for calculating renewable energy contribution. The 2022 BP reference states:
“Fossil fuels accounted for 82% of primary energy use last year, down from 83% in 2019 and 85% five years ago.”
Now the total primary global energy consumption in 2021 = 595.15 exajoules/yr = 165,319.7 TWh/yr
(multiply by 277.778) using the ‘input-equivalent’ methodology
Earlier energy data was calculated on a “million tonnes of oil equivalent” basis. Because most non-fossil sources are used to generate electricity and because the conversion of fossil fuels to electricity is only about 40% efficient, renewable, nuclear and hydro generation has been divided by around 0.4 (or multiplied by around 2.5) to give “input-equivalent” figures.
The BP methodology is described below.
(Quoting directly from the BP publication):
“Primary energy
Traditionally, in BP’s Statistical Review of World Energy, the primary energy of non-fossil based
electricity (nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, geothermal, biomass in power and other renewables sources) has been calculated on an ‘input-equivalent’ basis – i.e. based on the equivalent amount of fossil fuel input required to generate that amount of electricity in a standard thermal power plant. For example, if nuclear power output for a country was 100 TWh, and the efficiency of a standard thermal power plant was 38%, the input equivalent primary energy would be 100/0.38 = 263 TWh or about 0.95 EJ. For many years, the efficiency of this standard power plant has been assumed to be 38%. However, in reality, the world average efficiency of fossil fuel-based power changes over time and has risen from around 36% in 2000 to over 40% today. Moreover, given the much higher efficiency of the most modern power plant (e.g. the thermal efficiency of a modern gas turbine plant is above 55%), the global average is expected to increase in the future.
Therefore, to better assess primary energy trends, we have decided to move to a time-dependent thermal equivalence model. The conversion factor used each year to calculate the ‘input-equivalent’ consumption for a given level of generation is based on a simplified representation of measured average efficiency levels: 1965-2000: assumed constant efficiency of 36% 2000-2017: a linear increase from 36% to 40% based on observed data 2018 onwards: the annual rate of efficiency improvement is based on the simplified assumption that efficiency will increase linearly to 45% by 2050…”] (NB: pg 56 of this BP document uses a 40.6% efficiency factor for 2021.)
The BP methodology only makes sense if all the different primary energy sources need to be
converted into electricity prior to supplying them to the consumer, but this is not the case.
If electricity is to be used for transportation, either via a battery or a pantograph, then an electric
motor converts electrical energy into motion much more efficiently than does fuel burnt in an
internal combustion engine. The “divide by 0.4 (multiply by 2.5)” methodology could sensibly be
used to roughly estimate how much fossil fuel energy could be replaced with an ‘energy-equivalent’ amount of electricity.
Most of the world’s energy is used for heating, however. (https://www.iea.org/fuels-and-
technologies/heating). It is cheaper, and far more efficient, to burn fossil fuels in the home or
workplace directly rather using these resources to first create electricity and then use this electrical energy to provide heat (open fire places excluded). In a world where most energy was electricity and where most of that electricity was used for heating, dividing real energy values by 0.4 would not give ‘input-equivalent’ values in that instance. Electricity is nearly 100% efficient when used for heating but modern gas central heating operates at better than 90% efficiency, so the energy savings made by switching from gas to electric heating would be modest. Dividing non-fossil electricity by 0.9 would be more justifiable in this instance. Also, it is far less costly and labour and energy intensive to install a gas pipeline to a home or factory than it is to have an intermediate electricity generating plant requiring construction (and eventual decommissioning) and ongoing maintenance and labour to service this infrastructure, so it is questionable that there would be any energy efficiency savings at all when this is considered, even if the electricity was supplied by wind and solar facilities. It is certainly more financially costly to build and service this infrastructure. Electric heating powered by non-fossil sources is carbon-free but it is not significantly (if at all, if infrastructure is considered) more energy efficient than burning gas or coal directly for heating, and energy is what is being considered in this analysis.
It would be better (and much easier to follow) if the actual energy consumed was calculated correctly. An argument could then be advanced, on a case-by-case basis, as to whether the BP ‘input-equivalent’ basis was justified. [An argument could be advanced that electric heat pumps capture ambient energy to deliver better than unity performance but gas can also be used for this purpose (although somewhat less efficiently) so an apples to apples to comparison would somewhat negate this argument Also, many industrial processes require heating beyond the capabilities of heat pumps].
The actual energy generated Vs the BP ‘input-equivalent’ energy generated is calculated below:
Table 1: World Primary Energy: Consumption by fuel 2021 (Page 9 of 2022 BP pdf)

Oil Natural gas Coal Nuclear energy Hydroelectricity Renewables Total in exajoules
184.21 145.35 160.10 25.31 40.26 39.91 595.15 BPmethod
184.21 145.35 160.10 10.28* 16.35* 16.20* 532.49*Actual
* refers to actual energy values, calculated by multiplying ‘input-equivalent’ values by 0.406, this
figure being the assumed average efficiency of a thermal power plant in 2021.

NB, Renewable energy generation does not include hydro and nuclear in BP’s analysis.

Renewables includes biomass, which is used in transportation and heating as well as for electricity generation.The BP ‘input-equivalent’ methods gives 100% X 39.91/595.15 = 6.7% energy created by renewables.
However, the actual energy supplied by renewables is = 100% X (16.20/532.49) = 3.0%
Note that this 3% figure includes biofuels, wind and solar.

To calculate all non-fossil fuel sources, including hydro, geothermal and nuclear, simply calculate the total fossil fuel contribution and subtract this from the total.
Using the BP method, fossil fuels represented:
100 X (184.21+145.35+160.10)/595.15 = 82.3% as per the BP headline value quoted above.
However, a calculation based on actual energy is:
100 X (184.21+145.35+160.10)/532.49 = 92.0 % of the world’s energy used was supplied by fossil fuels and 8.0 % by non-fossil sources in 2021.
I performed a similar analysis for the year 2011. Requoting BP’s headline using actual energy values:

“Fossil fuels accounted for 92.0% of primary energy use last year, down from 94.7% in 2011”.

This underwhelming achievement required trillions of dollars’ worth of investment in intermittent renewable energies, all of which require back-up from mainly fossil-fuelled power stations.
(The “input-equivalent” method shows a more noticeable reduction in the percentage of fossil fuel usage from 87.1 % to 82.3% over the 10 year period.)

September 22, 2022 9:06 am

“Three decades of climate talks (52 weeks of Conferencing) have failed dismally “

Yes, but think of all the parties that those of the gravy train have enjoyed at someone else’s expense.

M Courtney
Reply to  DaveS
September 22, 2022 11:11 am

That point about a year of failed negotiations over a quarter of a century is worth thinking about.
If the negotiations have failed so consistently there is every reason to think that they will continue to fail.
So, Adaptation is the only remaining policy – even if you believe the IPCC underplays the risks.

September 22, 2022 9:10 am

Great work! Much appreciated!

Rud Istvan
September 22, 2022 9:10 am

Long and comprehensive list.
IMO a much shorter simpler list would be more effective combating Warmunists and Greenies. AOC isn’t bright enough to understand this one.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
September 22, 2022 9:53 am

When you are presented with a complete side of beef, you don’t have to eat it all in one sitting. This is a treasure trove of information with citations, so choose only what you need for a particular argument and save the rest for another day.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
September 22, 2022 9:59 am

AOC isn’t bright enough to understand anything.

Apparently, she tried to join the Marines, but when the drill sergeant intoned – “left, left, left, right, left”, she accused him of attempting to instill extreme political views onto the recruits by stealth.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
September 23, 2022 5:40 am

“…a much shorter simpler list… ”

I wonder if that’s because stupid deniers can’t count to 3?

Reply to  macias
September 23, 2022 9:29 am

I’m guessing that you aren’t smart enough to actually read a post before commenting on it.
He was saying that a shorter list would be more effective at reaching climate alarmists.

So much hate, so little intelligence. Definitely a socialist.

September 22, 2022 9:35 am

Over exaggerated

September 22, 2022 9:37 am

Actions that can destroy entire economies are being taken unilaterally by governments based on the “GlowBULL Warming” hysteria…..take a look at this.

A drone flies in and sprays this farmers field without asking the farmer. -unverified source. Has anyone seen anything similar? Sharing is caring


September 22, 2022 9:38 am

and my favorite for No 51 – the amount of CO2 in the atmmosphere from man’s industrial and transporation is miniscule – something like 1 one hundredth of 1% (remember over 95% of CO2 is naturally occurring) so it takes a total abandonment of common sense to believe that a tiny amount of CO2 in the atmosphere somehow controls the earth’s temperature and climate – more than the enormously owerful forces of the sun, earth’s rotation, oceans and currents – just absurd

September 22, 2022 10:24 am
David Anderson
September 22, 2022 11:11 am

The US doesn’t have a coherent climate policy.

Do whatever makes me feel better about my self is not a policy.

Bryan A
Reply to  David Anderson
September 23, 2022 7:39 am

The U.S. doesn’t need a climate policy, coherent or otherwise.
You can’t fix what isn’t broken…

Shoki Kaneda
September 22, 2022 11:25 am

We only need one. It is not a problem. The real worry is when does the slide to the next glaciation start?

Greg Munger
September 22, 2022 2:54 pm

This is an excellent piece BUT, there is no evidence the increased CO2 comes from us. It is dismaying to see people use this assertion (like Bjorn) in order to appear reasonable. Some no doubt but nowhere near all.
Anyway it’s really moot as others have pointed out. Remember also that China, India and Russia don’t give a rats ass so go on freezing seniors to death, terrorize the children and collapse society while they prosper.

Reply to  Greg Munger
September 23, 2022 9:31 am

Where do you believe the CO2 that results from the burning of fossil fuels goes?

If every molecule of CO2 that resulted from fossil fuels being burned, had stayed in the atmosphere, CO2 levels would have risen much more than they did.

September 22, 2022 3:01 pm

Outstanding article, just the kind I have been looking for. Now it needs to be shortened considerably and distributed widely. By shorten I don’t mean you should leave stuff out, I mean it should be divided into sections, many shorter sections plastered all over the world. More short sections are more likely to be read all the way through. Damn good job.

Peter Gardner
September 22, 2022 5:56 pm

There can be no forecast return on investment (ROI),”

Ah yes but that is precisely why a few people can get seriously rich from Green Energy. The investor’s dream is not only a guarantee of their capital but a guarantee of the revenue stream. That is exactly what the EU and other governments offer.

Edward Katz
September 22, 2022 6:14 pm

The information contained in this article is some of the most valuable I’ve yet to see in the debate against going overboard with climate action. It presents one reality after the other and would be anathema to the alarmist factions whose main concern is not to the save the planet but to profit from doomsday scenarios, “last chances”, “tipping points”, “existential threats”, etc. That’s the reason that the facts presented above are so unlikely to be acknowledged in the mainstream media; they’d undermine all the climate change propaganda

Clyde Spencer
September 22, 2022 6:33 pm

… when human-caused emissions began their sharp rise.

This is a commonly asserted assumption. However, even it is subject to dispute. I have demonstrated that the uncertainty in the natural fluxes is greater than the estimated anthropogenic emissions, and that there was no measurable change in the rate of increase of the atmospheric CO2 concentration during the COVID pandemic shutdown, despite an average annual decline of 10%, with the monthly decline reaching more than 18% during April 2020, during the seasonal ramp-up phase.

There is poor data for what is happening with plant respiration and bacterial decomposition in the high latitudes where permafrost appears to be melting. However, a number of scientists have expressed concern for the obvious release of methane in Arctic lakes. This could explain much of the actual net increase.

September 23, 2022 2:50 pm


“CO2 has increased from about 0.03% of the atmosphere in 1900 to over 0.04% now, as a result of a major increase in the use of fossil fuels. This rise has caused mild warming……..”

Lost me there.

September 26, 2022 3:55 pm

Please vote for research windlobby;


September 27, 2022 8:57 pm

I love your list, Barry! I promise to steal from it for my own, less polished effort. Please feel to do likewise if you like any of my points. I call my list “Some of the reasons I remain skeptical.”


%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights