The Faux Urgency of The Climate Crisis Is Giving Us No Time or Space To Build A Secure Energy Future

From Climate Etc.

by Judith Curry

There is a growing realisation that emissions and temperature targets are now detached from the issues of human well-being and the development of our 21st century world.

JC note:  this is the text of my op-ed for SkyNews that was published several weeks ago

For the past two centuries, fossil fuels have fueled humanity’s progress, improving standards of living and increasing the life span for billions of people. In the 21st century, a rapid transition away from fossil fuels has become an international imperative for climate change mitigation, under the auspices of the UN Paris Agreement.  As a result, the 21st century energy transition is dominated by stringent targets to rapidly eliminate carbon dioxide emissions.  However, the recent COP27 meeting in Egypt highlighted that very few of the world’s countries are on track to meet their emissions reductions commitment.

The desire for cleaner, more abundant, more reliable and less expensive sources of energy is universal.  However, the goal of rapidly eliminating fossil fuels is at odds with the urgency of providing grid electricity to developing countries. Rapid deployment of wind and solar power has invariably increased electricity costs and reduced reliability, particularly with increasing penetration into the grid. Allegations of human rights abuses in China’s Xinjiang region, where global solar voltaic supplies are concentrated, are generating political conflicts that threaten the solar power industry. Global supply chains of materials needed to produce solar and wind energy plus battery storage are spawning new regional conflicts, logistical problems, supply shortages and rising costs.  The large amount of land use required for wind and solar farms plus transmission lines is causing local land use conflicts in many regions.

Given the apocalyptic rhetoric surrounding climate change, does the alleged urgency of reducing carbon dioxide emissions somehow trump these other considerations?  Well, the climate ‘crisis’ isn’t what it used to be.  The COP27 has dropped the most extreme emissions scenario from consideration, which was the source of the most alarming predictions.  Only a few years ago, an emissions trajectory that produced 2 to 3 oC warming was regarded as climate policy success. As limiting warming to 2 oC seems to be in reach, the goal posts were moved to limit the warming target to 1.5 oC. These warming targets are referenced to a baseline at the end of the 19th century; the Earth’s climate has already warmed by 1.1 oC.  In context of this relatively modest warming, climate ‘crisis’ rhetoric is now linked to extreme weather events.

Attributing extreme weather and climate events to global warming can motivate a country to attempt to rapidly transition away from fossil fuels.  However, we should not delude ourselves into thinking that eliminating emissions would have a noticeable impact on weather and climate extremes in the 21st century. It is very difficult to untangle the roles of natural weather and climate variability and land use from the slow creep of global warming.  Looking back into the past, including paleoclimatic data, there has been more extreme weather everywhere on the planet.  Thinking that we can minimize severe weather through using atmospheric carbon dioxide as a control knob is a fairy tale.  In particular, Australia is responsible for slightly more than 1% of global carbon emissions.  Hence, Australia’s emissions have a minimal impact on global warming as well as on Australia’s own climate.

There is growing realization that these emissions and temperature targets have become detached from the issues of human well-being and development.  Yes, we need to reduce CO2 emissions over the course of the 21st century. However once we relax the faux urgency for eliminating CO2 emissions and the stringent time tables, we have time and space to envision new energy systems that can meet the diverse, growing needs of the 21st century.  This includes sufficient energy to help reduce our vulnerability to surprises from extreme weather and climate events.

4.3 34 votes
Article Rating
88 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bob Weber
December 28, 2022 6:37 am

Another very sensible post by Dr. Curry, as Net Zero is pure hopium.

Bob Weber
Reply to  Bob Weber
December 28, 2022 7:02 am

Except that

“Thinking that we can minimize severe weather through using atmospheric carbon dioxide as a control knob is a fairy tale. “ and

“Yes, we need to reduce CO2 emissions over the course of the 21st century.”

… are two contradictory statements. Reducing emissions is unnecessary since CO2 isn’t a climate control knob is the better conclusion.

guidvce4
Reply to  Bob Weber
December 28, 2022 7:51 am

And CO2 is necessary for life on the planet. There is no “climate crisis”, except between the ears of the cultists and their minions. And the folks who are selling the panels and windmills.

IAMPCBOB
Reply to  guidvce4
December 28, 2022 11:46 am

Yes, and they are laughing ALL the way to the bank, to tune of $Billions!

Richard Greene
Reply to  guidvce4
December 29, 2022 3:15 am

There IS a climate crisis. called Nut Zero, based on a panic reaction to a fantasy coming climate change crisis. Leftists ruin everything they touch. They should not be allowed to ruin electric grids. Grids are much too important. And they were not broken.

andersjoan
December 28, 2022 6:41 am

We must come to our senses and elect governments which will immediately make a 180 degree turn-about and scrap all legislation and plans for renewable energy. Never spend a cent on maintaining existing renewable power plants (these should be sold or given away to suitable power companies). And then go all out and plan to create energy – nuclear, oil, coal, fracking, gas, etc.

NetZero is a practical impossibility – consequently will not ever, cannot ever eventuate.

Britain in particular now depends on that for her national survival as a developed nation, I believe. Britain in fact is broke (like Zimbabwe).

Andy Espersen

Last edited 1 month ago by andersjoan
strativarius
Reply to  andersjoan
December 28, 2022 9:33 am

I doubt any Western elections would change anything.

Only Trump took a stand on climate

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  strativarius
December 28, 2022 9:53 am

Not particularly successfully.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
December 28, 2022 3:07 pm

Let’s be honest: Trump was a climate science dimwit
His great instincts told him climate change scaremongering was a hoax. Which is true. But he could not speak intelligently on climate science for even one minute. I don’t think the man ever read a book after he graduated from college.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Richard Greene
December 28, 2022 5:16 pm

“But he could not speak intelligently on climate science for even one minute.”

Very few can. He did have the right take on the subject though: It’s a hoax.

Whatever he did after college, we need more like him.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 28, 2022 8:31 pm

If you claim climate change is a hoax created by the Chinese, that statement is wrong, and the person saying it is taken to be a fool. That is what Trump said. Trump’s tweet said, “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”

On the subject of climate science Trump was, and is, a fool, No other conclusion is possible.

We definitely do NOT need more like Trump.
His presidency resulted in the second slowest average Real GDP growth of any President (1% annual average growth) and the loss of the entire government to Democrats in 2020 — our worst nightmare. Trump’s Supreme Court nominations might seem like a big victory, but the current Bidden Maladministration ignores or bypasses SCOTUS rulings, almost like they didn’t exist.

joe x
Reply to  Richard Greene
December 29, 2022 3:58 am

i have read many articles and comments hear at wuwt. since griff seems to be missing in action your comments now stand out. you, on occasion make make sensible comments. other times not so much. my question to you is… does you ass ever get sore sitting on the fence?

Drake
Reply to  strativarius
December 28, 2022 10:27 am

Not at all. He COULD have written the type of executive orders that Brandon has, such as instructing the scientific funding agencies to fund studies of the true costs of “renewable” energy, the killing of birds and insects by windmills and solar concentrating type solar plants (smokers https://www.sciencealert.com/this-solar-plant-accidentally-incinerates-up-to-6-000-birds-a-year ), the effects to the “environment” caused by the clearing of the massive amounts of acreage to install solar and wind projects, the actual cost of wind and solar to ratepayers, AND the costs and methods of disposal of all the solar and wind crap, and who will pay for that and how little will be recyclable, with comparison to the coal, oil and gas industries.

Those studies would NOW be available to show how much wind and solar actually costs rate payers and society as a whole how little can be recycled, and how much damage is being done to “the enviroment” and society as a whole, and the poor more specifically if studies were also done on the actual social costs of unreliables, not ones purporting to study the “cost” to society of all the damages caused by increased co2.

And in the first year of the China Virus, he could have forced ‘peer reviewed” studies on the efficacy of wearing masks, and of Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin.

THEN all the BS would have a basis of clinical studies to go on by now.

Of course NONE of these studies have been done, so TRUMP! screwed up. Bigly!

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Drake
December 28, 2022 12:55 pm

I think you’re posting with the benefit of hindsight. Unbeknownst to him at the time, Trump had every component of the Left firing on all cylinders to drive him from office. I don’t know if he intends to run again in 2024, but if he does, he needs to be very specific about what he’s learned and what he plans to do about it. And that means cleaning house. If not, he needs to get out of the way for a pro-liberty candidate.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
December 28, 2022 5:18 pm

Trump has declared himself a candidate for the presidencey for 2024.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 28, 2022 9:32 pm

Yes, and apparently will not seek the ‘assistance’ of Ivanka and Jarad, who I’ve heard were not supportive of Trump’s effort to put a climate red team together.

Richard Greene
Reply to  strativarius
December 28, 2022 3:05 pm

Trump claimed climate change was a hoax created by China
he did nothing to change the ridiculous CO2 endangerment finding.
Conservatives are completely brainwashed about Trump’s performance as President. Just like many leftists are brainwashed about Biden. The economy was a mess in Trump’s last year of 2020,

Average Real GDP growth in Trumps term was the second lowest for any President since Herbert Hoover, at an average of only 1% a year. The border wall was not even close to being completed. The Keystone XL pipeline extension never got past 8% completed. The US was not energy independent under Trump, and has not been since the 1940s. The trade war with China accomplished nothing except to increase prices of imported Chinese goods. Trump allowed political hacks Fauci and Birx to scaremonger on Covid — he made them famous!

And the Federal Reserve in 2020 grew the money supply at unprecedented rate to finance unprecedented federal deficit spending (also in 2021) causing the high inflation in 2021 (and 2020). All of these things happened while Trump was President. He also encouraged the January 6 riot, which will be used to smear the Republican party for a generation. In my opinion, Trump was one of the worst Presidents in US history. He only looks “good” because Biden is so much worse!

Trump fought the deep state
I admire that
That’s why I voted for him in 2020.
But he lost the fight.
The deep state won
The most important accomplishments we needed from Trump were to win the 2020 election and for his party to gain control of both Houses of Congress. All three efforts failed.

Note to Moderator:
I realize this long comment is off topic of the original article, so may never show up, or will get deleted soon after. That has happened to my comments HERE at WUWT many times before, when they did not support the consensus conservative views. Censorship is your option, but not something conservatives should do.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Richard Greene
December 28, 2022 5:20 pm

Some people just don’t get Trump.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 28, 2022 8:33 pm

They judge Trump for his first three years and pretend the 2020 disaster and January 6, 2021 were not his fault. Confirmation bias.

Last edited 1 month ago by Richard Greene
pflashgordon
Reply to  Richard Greene
December 29, 2022 2:07 pm

So the ChiComs unleashed (maybe intentionally?) a deadly manmade bioweapon on the earth, and U.S. public health officials colluded with big tech and pharmaceuticals to lie to the public to gain power – in a presidential election year. Also in that same presidential election year, race relations and policing, long concerns but not really major problems except in Democrat run cities, were intentionally boiled over in the fake BLM movement and riots. EVERYONE it seems, from universities to big business, piled on with BLM endorsements in a mass hysteria. Meanwhile, the FBI, big tech and the media colluded to suppress information from the voting public about the Brandon crime family. And a special counsel and others spent PRESIDENT Trump’s entire presidency trying to pin false accusations on him, all products of the H. Clinton campaign and the dark establishment. What is the probability that all of these events just randomly occurred while President Trump was running for re-election? Mere coincidence? NO WAY!

Once elected, President Trump was mercilessly assaulted from before day one, reaching a crescendo in 2020. So of course 2020 was a bad year economically. But Richard, your obvious loathing for PRESIDENT Trump, a man much your better, is tiresome. We need Trump and many likeminded others to stand up and battle the rampant evil that is trying to divide us, control today’s America and destroy our liberties. If you are not for liberty, then you are for the enemy. You don’t have to like Donald Trump the man, but you must admire his fearless confrontation of the evils of our 21st century America.

So the Trump Derengement Syndrome has continued relentlessly even after he left office. Trying to destroy not just the man, but the very foundations of our republic.

CD in Wisconsin
December 28, 2022 6:43 am

“Yes, we need to reduce CO2 emissions over the course of the 21st century.”

***************

Either CO2 is some evil demon pollutant, or it isn’t. Let’s make up our mind please. 

Javier Vinós
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
December 28, 2022 7:04 am

If she wants to address a large audience there is a need for compromise. Saying that the increase in CO2 is the best thing that has happened to the planet since the start of the Holocene will make many people stop reading at that point.

And in any case, CO2 emissions will decrease over the course of the 21st century whether we want it or not. Judith read my book when she wrote the prologue, and it is very clearly shown in chapter 13.

Bob Weber
Reply to  Javier Vinós
December 28, 2022 7:19 am

“If she wants to address a large audience there is a need for compromise.”

Why should there be compromise? The larger audience isn’t well-served by fairy tales.
The audience needs to know there are many valid reasons to reject decarbonization.

“Saying that the increase in CO2 is the best thing that has happened to the planet since the start of the Holocene will make many people stop reading at that point.”

No one but you said this, so stop gaslighting the commenters.

I doubt very seriously CO2 emissions will decrease unless the population crashes.

Javier Vinós
Reply to  Bob Weber
December 28, 2022 7:29 am

Yes, I say so. The increase in CO2 is the best thing that has happened to the planet since the start of the Holocene.

The decrease in fossil fuels will cause a reduction in CO2 emissions and a population decrease. Just check how food prices follow oil prices.

comment image

Richard Greene
Reply to  Javier Vinós
December 28, 2022 8:11 am

The CO2 increase is good news.
Your comment went downhill fast after that.

You are speculating about the decline of the use of hydrocarbon fuels in the future.

You are speculating about the decline of CO2 in the future

You are speculating about the decline of population in the future.

All three trends are currently rising, while you are predicting a turning point at some unspecified date in the future. Anyone can make predictions. Very few people, if any, make correct predictions, except with lucky guesses.

The chart is claptrap
Almost all prices rise with inflation, and individual prices also fluctuate with the supply and demand for each product.

Any two variables in rising trends can be placed on a chart, and appear to correlate, Spurious correlation.

Javier Vinós
Reply to  Richard Greene
December 28, 2022 11:57 am

Doh, talking about the future ALWAYS involves speculation.

Peak Oil took place in late 2018, 4 years ago, so that trend is not currently rising.

CO2 emissions are still rising, but the 5-year rate of increase has been decreasing since 2006, and it is approaching zero, that’s why the emissions scenario went from being close to RCP8.5 to RCP4.5

comment image

The population is expected to peak around 2050 and decline afterward. The peak could take place earlier if the energy crisis continues or, God forbids, intensifies.

Food prices and oil prices are extremely well correlated. We use oil to grow food and put it on the table. That’s how we turn energy into more people.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Javier Vinós
December 28, 2022 9:07 pm

” … talking about the future ALWAYS involves speculation. Peak Oil took place in late 2018, 4 years ago, so that trend is not currently rising.”
Javier Vinos

You just contradicted yourself, Vinos!

You claim peak oil took place in 2018, which is the same as a prediction that oil production will NEVER exceed the 2018 level.

Peak oil predictions have been wrong for almost 70 years. So why should we believe your prediction?

King Hubbert is often credited with introducing the notion in a 1956 paper which presented a formal theory and predicted U.S. extraction to peak between 1965 and 1971.

For another wild guess, in addition to your own:
“A recent OPEC outlook report estimated steadily increasing demand, which would result in peak oil in approximately 2040. The International Energy Agency and U.S. Energy Information Agency foresee oil demand “plateauing” and recommend immediately exploring alternatives to sustain energy needs” .Nov 30, 2022

Food prices and oil prices are extremely well correlated” Javier Vinos

Spurious correlation. Both prices are rising from the general price inflation. Two variables in a rising trend always look like a real correlation if placed on one chart. Food prices depend on supply and demand, like any other prices.

If it were true that rising oil prices caused rising food prices, then you are saying rising prices cause rising prices, which is silly. That did not happen, especially n 2008.

If rising oil costs caused farmers to raise their wholesale food prices, without consequences, then why would farmers bother waiting for higher oil costs to raise their prices? Just raise them at any time, at will.

… Of course higher wholesale food prices do affect farmer’s sales, especially when their prices rise faster than the average inflation rate.

If people have more money and credit, prices in general\ can rise without consequence. The supply of money and credit determines general price trends, with individual goods and services prices also dependent on their specific supply and demand. … Sorry, but higher oil prices do not cause higher food prices. You should avoid economics.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Richard Greene
December 28, 2022 1:57 pm

Almost all prices rise with inflation, but ESPECIALLY when energy prices are being (artificially) inflated by bad policies.

There is a significant energy component in the cost of everything.

Richard Greene
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
December 28, 2022 3:19 pm

Sorry that you do not understand what causes inflation. Rising energy prices do not cause inflation. Inflation is caused by the supply of money increasing faster than the supply of goods and services.

If you claim rising energy prices cause inflation, you are claiming rising prices cause rising prices, which is really silly.

If you look at 2008, you can see an example of a year with high oil prices and low inflation. That could not happen if rising energy prices caused inflation.

I edited a for profit economics newsletter from 1977 to 2020 and have published a free economics blog since 2008:

http://www.EL2017.Blogspot.com

At the following link are two simple charts showing the correlation between federal deficit spending, M2 money supply growth and consumer price inflation. These correlations are supported by valid theories. They are not spurious.

……………………………………………………… ECONOMIC LOGIC: The correlation between federal deficits, M2 money supply and price inflation (el2017.blogspot.com)

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Javier Vinós
December 28, 2022 9:55 am

Please provide a full attribution for the source of the graph.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Javier Vinós
December 28, 2022 9:23 pm

The apparent food energy correlation is spurious because it lacks a logical theory to connect the two variables. Studies do not automatically create truth simply because they say what you believe to be the truth. That is a leftist concept: Any peer reviewed study published in a prestigious journal is the gospel to leftists, only if it supports the current leftist narrative: That is the house of cards supporting climate scaremongering: The Appeal to Authority logical fallacy, enforced with conformation bias and mass media propaganda.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
December 28, 2022 9:16 pm

The sources of the graphs are in plain English on the graphs themselves. If you could not read the text, they are from the blog of retired chief economist Scott Grannis, called Calafia Beach Pundit (where he apparently lives):

Calafia Beach Pundit (scottgrannis.blogspot.com)

Mr Grannis is a perpetual bull and a big investor of Apple stock, which has done extremely well until this year. I don’t read his perma-bull blog — he has been bullish since Fall 2008, so I just assume he is always bullish on the US economy and stocks. But he publishes great charts. And I steal them!

Since you did not try to refute anything shown on the charts, I have to assume you agree that the correlations are not spurious. They are hard to see unless two variables are combined on one chart. The correlations shown are very well supported by economic theories.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Javier Vinós
December 28, 2022 7:55 am

Totally wrong TWICE Javier/
You struck out!

Compromise is BS
State your conclusion about CO2 honestly and defend it. If we Climate Realists compromise, hoping to please an audience, we might as well be leftists.

“And in any case, CO2 emissions will decrease over the course of the 21st century whether we want it or not”
You have NLO IDEA what will happen to CO2 emissions in the next 78 years. Over seven billion people, of the eight billion people in the world, live in nations that could not care less about Nut Zero. Therefore, it is unlikely that the future CO2 level will stop INCREASING.

The fewer than one billion people (out of eight billion people in the world) living in nations that are currently in favor of Nut Zero, have an infeasible, unaffordable project that is almost certain to fail.

So far they do not have a detailed Nut Zero plan for each electric utility, and a master plan for each electric grid. So a feasibility analysis, cost estimate and timing plan CAN NOT BE DEVELOPED.

Nut Zero is nothing more than a long-winded green dreamer vision statement, and an arbitrary completion date. Much more talk than action.

Last edited 1 month ago by Richard Greene
Javier Vinós
Reply to  Richard Greene
December 28, 2022 12:09 pm

Compromise is BS

If you run a business you don’t want to limit your clientele to climate skeptics. That’s stupid. Judith Curry runs a business. I not only understand why she says that, I also think is a sensible thing to do in her case. You seem to have a narrower view.

it is unlikely that the future CO2 level will stop INCREASING.

I’m talking about emissions, not levels, and it is already moving towards that, only YOU DON’T KNOW. Our emissions are increasing by less since around 2003. Net zero is not the cause of that smaller increase in emissions over time, which will turn into a reduction soon if it continues.

The world is complex. Men argue and nature acts.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Javier Vinós
December 28, 2022 3:32 pm

Sorry, but telling the truth is MUCH more important to me than not offending anyone with the truth. The truth has to be conclusions supported by facts, data and logic. Not speculation about the future climate or scaremongering. You, apparently, have different priorities.

CO2 emissions globally are near a record for modern times. US CO2 emissions are not global CO2 emissions

Your original comment said:

“.The decrease in fossil fuels will cause a reduction in CO2 emissions and a population decrease.”

I read EXACTLY what you wrote, and interpreted it as any normal person would. You speculated on trend changes concerning three different variables, and I claimed you (and everyone else) has no ability to predict the future.

You need to learn how often predictions are wrong, and how often climate science and energy questions have the answer: “We don’t know that”.

Javier Vinós
Reply to  Richard Greene
December 28, 2022 3:53 pm

Sorry, but telling the truth is MUCH more important to me than not offending anyone with the truth.

There is not one truth about what people need or not. Judith says “we need to reduce CO2 emissions.” That’s the truth for a lot of people. Who are you to say what people need or don’t need? The only truth is that we don’t know what the truth is. If you can learn anything from science is that everything that was believed to be the truth in the past, wasn’t.

The demonstration of the ability to project the future lies in the future. I’ve been seeing a future with less energy since 2014 as I have written in my blog. It is now starting to become a reality.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Javier Vinós
December 28, 2022 9:25 pm

 “we need to reduce CO2 emissions.” That’s the truth for a lot of people”
Javier Vinos

Who is “we”?
A world government?

Where are supporting data for the claim “we need to reduce CO2 emissions”?

There is no such thing as the “truth for a lot of people”.

A popular belief about CO2 not supported with fact, data and logic is NOT the truth. It is a mistaken belief. There is no such thing as popular truth, and less popular truth. There is only ONE truth. We may not be sure what it is at any moment, so “We don’t know the truth” is always a valid summary of the current state of knowledge.

” I’ve been seeing a future with less energy since 2014 as I have written in my blog”
Javier Vinos

Then you have been wrong since 2014.
Predicting the future is nearly impossible!

Last edited 1 month ago by Richard Greene
Richard Greene
Reply to  Javier Vinós
December 28, 2022 9:35 pm

“we need to reduce CO2 emissions.” That’s the truth for a lot of people”
Javier Vinos

Who is “we”? Some one-world government?

Where are supporting data for the claim “we need to reduce CO2 emissions”?

There is no such thing as the “truth for a lot of people”.

A popular belief about CO2 not supported with facts, data and logic is NOT the truth. It is a mistaken belief. There is no such thing as popular truth, and less popular truth. There is only ONE truth. We may not be sure what it is at any moment, so “We don’t know the truth” is always a valid summary of the current state of knowledge.

” I’ve been seeing a future with less energy since 2014 as I have written in my blog”
Javier Vinos

Then you have been wrong since 2014.
Predicting the future is nearly impossible!

Last edited 1 month ago by Richard Greene
AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Javier Vinós
December 28, 2022 1:53 pm

You can’t compromise with wannabe tyrants. Carrying water for any part of their fact free nonsense serves no one.

Richard Greene
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
December 28, 2022 8:38 pm

I did not mention it in my many prior posts (I’m not a concise person) but I also strongly object to the word “we”. Who is this “we”? A world government?

We in the US are responsible for electing our politicians who do our political decisions. They are responsible for CO2 policy. If we don’t like their views we must elect different people with different views. There is no global “we”, and I hope their never will be any one-world government.

Last edited 1 month ago by Richard Greene
Frank from NoVA
December 28, 2022 6:46 am

‘Yes, we need to reduce CO2 emissions over the course of the 21st century.’

Based on what data? And why are we always ceding this point, or the ‘morality’ of socialism for that matter, to the Left?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
December 28, 2022 5:31 pm

It’s based on unsubstantiated assumptions and speculation.

Nobody on the planet can tell us how much warmth a given amount of CO2 adds to the Earth’s atmosphere. After many decades of trying.

Claiming CO2 needs to be controlled just adds to the confusion in this case.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 28, 2022 9:41 pm

Actually, a worst-case estimate for CO2 warming is easy.

You merely assume ALL warming since 1850 (about +1.1 degrees C.) was caused by the almost +50% increase of CO2. I know the 1850 numbers are not close to being accurate, but that’s all we have.

The result is a reasonable worst case approximation. Reality is unlikely to be worse than that. In fact, the next +50% increase of CO2 must cause less warming than the past +50% rise of CO2.

So we don’t know exactly what CO2 does, but we have a worst case estimate and that’s a good start.

David Dibbell
December 28, 2022 6:46 am

“Thinking that we can minimize severe weather through using atmospheric carbon dioxide as a control knob is a fairy tale.”

Very good point by this accomplished and highly respected atmospheric scientist. Folks are being deluged with absurd claims about weather events.

On the other hand,
“Yes, we need to reduce CO2 emissions over the course of the 21st century.” 

No, we do not. China and India have no such intentions, and they are not wrong. It may take a few more years or decades for the West to wake up to the unsoundness of the claims of climate harm and the resulting push for unreliable wind and solar.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  David Dibbell
December 28, 2022 9:57 am

But by the time the Wets realizes this, will those countries be irreversibly harmed?

Richard Greene
Reply to  David Dibbell
December 28, 2022 3:40 pm

“Thinking that we can minimize severe weather through using atmospheric carbon dioxide as a control knob is a fairy tale.”

That statement is true
Greenhouse warming decreases the temperature differential between the Arctic and the tropics. That reduces severe weather events in the Northern Hemisphere. And that is basic meteorology 101. Here are some examples for the US maybe (others can provide data for other nations):

COMING CLIMATE CHANGE CRISIS PROPAGANDA IS SO EFFECTIVE THAT IT PREVENTS MOST PEOPLE FROM ENJOYING TODAY’S WONDERFUL CLIMATE. 

U.S. HURRICANES MAKING LANDFALL HAVE BEEN IN A DOWNTREND SINCE THE LATE 1800s. 

MAJOR US TORNADOES HAVE BEEN IN A DOWNTREND 

SINCE THE 1950s. 

US HEAT WAVES, DROUGHTS AND FOREST FIRE ACRES BURNED PEAKED IN THE 1930s. 

THE 1930s STILL HAVE THE MOST US STATE MAXIMUM HEAT RECORDS OF ANY DECADE, BY FAR. 

Michael C. Roberts
December 28, 2022 6:47 am

Climate, Etc. Is one of the bookmarked websites I’ve frequented over the years. Quite a bit of informative banter (especially concerning the basics of AC/DC power generation, synchronization, and distribution – I’m no electrical engineer!). Ive learned much by reading over there, and it has sparked further research on interesting subjects.
However, the site serves a purpose that is obviously different than WUWT – it has a more ‘lukewarm’ approach the CO2 issue. In the quote above, Dr. Curry states ‘Yes, we need to reduce CO2 emissions over the course of the 21st century ‘. Here, we would answer ‘Why?’, and for the most part rightfully so. I see her excellent website as a purposeful information liason, a bridge from skepticism on CO2 as the climate control switch, to where most here understand that except for a small amount of LWI activity, CO2 has little to do with warming beyond the lower 200 ppm range. I think her efforts to budge the hearts and minds in both scientific and political circles, the CO2 acolytes of this strange new religion must be applauded.

Happy New Year and Best Regards,

MCR

Richard Greene
Reply to  Michael C. Roberts
December 28, 2022 8:15 am

Lukewarmers are like people who stand in the middle of the road and get hit by traffic on all sides. They are worse than Climate Howlers. They know the Climate Howlers are wrong but want to compromise (to satisfy leftists who will NEVER compromise?), and make nice, so leftists don’t get too upset. In my book, lukewarmers are total losers. That’s not how we win The Climate Wars.

Allan MacRae
Reply to  Richard Greene
December 28, 2022 9:16 am

I agree with you Richard.
The cost of unscientific compromise with warmist fraudsters will be writ large this winter. I expect to see Excess Winter Deaths (EWD) in Britain (and Germany?) increase substantially over previous years. EWD figures are not typically released until near year-end, but if we can access total all-cause deaths by month for England and Wales and compare to the previous ~five years we can see if I am correct.
I have predicted that this winter will be the year of the Big Cull of the elderly and poor in Europe, caused by extreme cold, energy shortages and exacerbated by the toxic Covid-19 “vaccines”. Hope to be wrong, but batting 1000 to date.

Mr.
Reply to  Allan MacRae
December 28, 2022 11:22 am

Allan, the problem with registering any facts with the MSM informed public these days is that the vast majority only look at the pictures and the false scary article headlines.

To sheet home the pitiful tragedies of excess and preventable cold seasons deaths in the most vulnerable groups in societies, we need to present
PICTURES OF VICTIMS
rather than bland statistical tables and graphs.

Remember the basics of passive-audience communication steps –

Attention
Interest
Desire (to know more)
Conviction (convince me)
Acceptance

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Richard Greene
December 28, 2022 2:02 pm

Lukewarmers are the Neville Chamberlains of our time, thinking they can appease the Climate Fascists by ceding a limited amount of “ground.”

Richard Greene
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
December 28, 2022 3:43 pm

Concise and exactly right. Takes me 220 words to say what you said perfectly in 22 words!

ATheoK
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
December 28, 2022 6:21 pm

No.
Accusing lukewarmers of collusion is totally specious.

Lukewarmism is acceptance of facts.
CO₂ has never been proven to cause the level of warming adjusted into the various land temperature series datasets; NOAA, BOM, UK.

As others have demonstrated, at current levels of CO₂ a GHG, with a very weak level of temperature increase per every additional “parts per million” ppm increase.

Most of the CO₂ scam are the maliciously adjusted land temperature series, that are utilized by communists desirous of spreading wealth (spend other people’s monies) and ruining governments worldwide.

Richard Greene
Reply to  ATheoK
December 28, 2022 9:50 pm

“Most of the CO₂ scam are the maliciously adjusted land temperature series,”

FALSE
The historic temperature data are irrelevant, except for the fact that both CO2 and global average temperature were both rising from 1975 to 2015.

The surface temperature data could be perfectly accurate … and we would SILL be hearing predictions of climate doom from those pesky leftists.

The ECS predictions since the 1970 Charney Report are unrelated to any historical temperature observations.

They are merely climate scaremongering, not based on climate history, not based on climate science, and not based on data.

They are data-free predictions of doom, wrong for the past 43 years since 1979. (There are no data for the future climate, just speculation).

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Richard Greene
December 28, 2022 8:46 pm

‘Lukewarmers are like people who stand in the middle of the road and get hit by traffic on all sides.’

Ungawa, Richard. ‘Lukewarmers’ acknowledge that CO2 has a role in radiative heat transfer, but that adding additional amounts to Earth’s atmosphere will have little, if any, impact on climate. So, based on your many comments here, I’d characterize you accordingly, unless you’ve recently decided to become a ‘climate howler’ or a ‘crank’.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
December 29, 2022 3:38 am

Lukewarmers have a variety of opinions.
The general consensus, in my opinion, is that something has to be done to reduce CO2 emissions, but let’s not panic like the Climate Howlers do — we have plenty of time. Their main debate with Climate Howlers appears to the timing of CO2 reductions, not the goal of CO2 reductions. That’s a generalization, not true for every lukewarmer.

My position on CO2 is very unusual, and has been based on-reading about 200 CO2-plant growth studies since 1997:

I favor a minimum of DOUBLE the current CO2 level to accelerate C3 plant growth. 90% of about 300,000 plant species are C3 plants. They are the primary food source for humans and animals on our planet. Optimum C3 plant growth will support the maximum possible amount of life on our planet. I am pro-CO2, and believe that is the ultimate pro-life position.

Feel free to categorize me as a crank. I can take criticism — I’ve been married for 45 years!

But my position on CO2 are based on facts, data and logic. Never wild guess predictions or popularity contests. If the added CO2 causes more global warming in the future, and that is likely, I love that too. We all love the mild global warming here in Michigan since the 1970s and would like a lot more of that, Our warmer winters are GREAT news.

Give us MORE CO2 and MORE global warming please!

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Richard Greene
December 29, 2022 5:44 am

‘That’s a generalization, not true for every lukewarmer.’

Then you need a fourth category to describe those who disagree with the ‘climate howlers’ but still want to eliminate fossil fuels. How about ‘carbon quisling’?

Coeur de Lion
December 28, 2022 7:07 am

Dear Judith -why do we need to reduce CO2 emissions? Not a chance anyway, but what harm do we expect? Surely not ‘global warming’! Isn’t the buzz getting round that ECS is very low and no need to worry.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
December 28, 2022 9:52 pm

Because many people believe CO2 emissions are pollution, and Judith doesn’t want to hurt their feelings, or her climate related business. She is compromised by financial incentives.

Coeur de Lion
December 28, 2022 7:13 am

Btw I’ve noticed Judith stepping out of her calm evenhanded terrain and deliver a scathing attack on alarmists. Thrust of which is yes alarmists have indeed found a human caused climate effect – their propaganda has frightened children around the globe. Can’t quote ref – perhaps someone can?

Bob Weber
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
December 28, 2022 7:34 am

You are referring to this article, where she exposed the alarmists’ terrible effect on children

Conclusion
It is difficult to avoid concluding that children are being used as tools in adults’ political agenda surrounding climate change. This tooldom is having adverse impacts on the mental health of children and young adults.”

Gums
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
December 28, 2022 2:47 pm

Salute!

I have also noticed the doctor’s slight change of tone lately.

I also agree that the biggest effect humans have had WRT climate change has been to scare the hell outta many young folks as well as older ones that think anything someone says that is wearing a lab coat or behind large eyeglasses is 100% the “gospel”.

The current weather situation in the U,S, will have a positive result, best I can tell. Many folks that glommed on the electric vehicles will understand what I am talking about by next week. And surely by St Patrick’s Day after a cold winter if forecasts are even close. BUt I must remember that predictions are hard, especially about the future( Yogi and Albert).

As far as compromise goes, there are a very few situations that assuredly require “no compromise”, no surrender, fight to the last man, etc. I think of the Alamo and several military examples. Nobel causes, but our skeptic position of climate change requires a few survivors. Doctor Curry was drummed outta her very respected position for fairly moderate resistance to the alarmists. Nevertheless she has lived to fight another day. Ditto for the Pielke family and others.

I am not personally educated enough in several sciences related to the overall climate of the Earth, but well enough in several to throw the B.S. flag on many assertions by the alarmists and back my skeptic position with facts and , oh the horror, common sense. Make no mistake, I would sacrifice my career and financial well-being along with my family’s if we could stop the insane rush to disaster, especially political. I say political because until enough folks are educated, then totalitarian governments will be required to satisfy the alarmists goals.. So now all I can do is “educate” my family and friends

Gums sends…

Richard Greene
Reply to  Gums
December 28, 2022 3:55 pm

“I am not personally educated enough in several sciences related to the overall climate of the Earth”

Irrelevant:
CAGW is NOT based on science or data

CAGW has never happened in 4.5 billion years

Every CAGW climate prediction has been wrong for the past 50 years.

Every climate prediction has been wrong for at least a century

There are no observations of CAGW

CAGW is nothing more than a wild guess prediction that has been wrong for about 50 years in a row.

I have a BS degree, so I know CAGW is BS.
Wrong predictions are NEVER science.
CAGW is leftist politics, not science.

” I say political because until enough folks are educated, then totalitarian governments will be required to satisfy the alarmists goals.”

That’s exactly correct, and that IS the goal of climate scaremongering. You are brilliant.

PS: Yogi didn’t say that.
I’ve been a big Yogi fan for almost 60 yeas, have read every book “he” wrote, and every book about him. He did say “I really didn’t say everything I said”. His book, “The Yogi Book”, would make a great birthday present for anyone.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Richard Greene
December 28, 2022 5:37 pm

Good comment!

ResourceGuy
December 28, 2022 7:16 am

We’ve already lost a lot as a society in the Climate Agenda Crusades. Science was replaced with agenda science. News reporting has been replaced by agenda news feeds and routine censorship. Federal agencies and programs, already in zombie mode for competency, have been further misdirected into climate spending dead ends. Climate cycles and other inconvenient facts that depart from climate religion orthodoxy are routinely ignored and relabeled by climate communication specialists as unprecedented regardless of direction or historical fact checking.

At least we don’t have to worry about land wars in Europe, unreliable grid buildout, and underinvestment in reliable fuels with lagged energy crisis. /sarc

Bonus:
I observed this “zero emission” “clean hydrogen” bus being transported long distance by a diesel truck across Texas and New Mexico to Foothills Transit in California. Nearby there were a lot of lifeless wind turbines not spinning. And so it goes in La La land.
Sustainability (foothilltransit.org)

Richard Greene
December 28, 2022 7:43 am

Yes, we need to reduce CO2 emissions over the course of the 21st century.”   Judith Curry, Ph.D., climate scientist, from her website:

THAT STATEMENT IS COMPLETELY FALSE.

More CO2 is a benefit for humans, animals, and ESPECIALLY C3 plants that humans and animals eat.

NO harm has been done by the almost +50% increase of CO2 estimated since 1850.

No harm was done by the global warming from 1975 to 2015.

In fact, people in colder climates have warmer winter nights now compared with the 1970s, which is great news for them. Antarctica is not melting, because CO2 does not have a warming effect with the temperature inversion over Antarctica.

If there was any harm done by the global warming since 1975, and manmade CO2 enrichment since about 1850, then such harm MUST be described before you make the FALSE claim: “Yes, we need to reduce CO2 emissions over the course of the 21st century.” 

Humans have no ability to make long term climate predictions. Even merely extrapolating the next 30 to 50 years of climate based on the past 30 to 50 years of climate, does not work.

Sorry, but you should not be taken seriously as a scientist, if you really believe the long-term climate can be predicted, the future climate can only get worse, which must be your house of cards foundation for the false statement:“Yes, we need to reduce CO2 emissions over the course of the 21st century.”.

Real scientists should be very skeptical. I am not a scientist, but a I am properly skeptical. You are not skeptical enough about an energy transition that IS NOT NEEDED. The US electric grids are NOT broken, and do not need to be fixed, at great expense, with the result of less reliable electricity. That is an insane waste of money.

Richard Greene
Bingham Farms, Michigan
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

Duane
December 28, 2022 7:51 am

As quite a few have commented here, Dr. Curry concedes on a claimed need to reduce CO2 emissions, a point that is not supported by rational scientific investigation, though the “consensus” people base their entire ideology on the claimed need.

What I think it is honest for climate skeptics to admit is that burning fossil fuel is probably not going to be humanity’s long term source of energy … both for the reasons of the fact that we are consuming it far faster than it is being created, and that generally it is better for our environment and air quality if we don’t have to burn anything to produce energy, because true pollutants are discharged.

There will be no instant conversion of the world’s energy economy from fossil fuels to anything else. But there can and must be a gradual transition to nuclear energy – both fission and eventually fusion – over time (as in over multiple human generations). And improved engineering of electrically powered transportation over the generations.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Duane
December 28, 2022 4:03 pm

Over 6000 products are made from petroleum

Hydrocarbon fuels burned with modern pollution controls are beneficial, increasing CO2 and C3 plant growth. Over 90% of about 300,000 plant species are C3 photosynthesis, including most plants used for human and animal food. They prefer CO2 in the 750 ppm to 1500 ppm range for optimum growth, Anyone who is anti-CO2 is anti-life,

Too many people oppose nuclear energy to make your prediction come true.
It would have been a logical replacement for coal but we don’t live in a logical world.

We are NOT consuming hydrocarbon fuels faster than they are being created. They were created millions of years ago. We are not even close to recovering all the fuels that are underground.

You sound like a green dreamer and, unfortunately, there is no cure for that.

antigtiff
December 28, 2022 7:55 am

Awwww, c’mon…….we need to waste trillions of $$$…..some people will become rich off this scam….government is a racket that will invent another scam after this one fizzles out…….can’t we?…..can’t we all just pretend?

Richard Greene
Reply to  antigtiff
December 28, 2022 9:55 pm

Areyou jealous that you’re not getting a piece of the action?

David Wojick
December 28, 2022 8:59 am

My solution is Federal constraint on the penetration of renewables. We are inching toward that. Here is my latest on this:

https://www.cfact.org/2022/12/27/ferc-considers-constraining-renewables/

The widespread Christmas blackouts and warnings may help things along.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  David Wojick
December 28, 2022 1:57 pm

David,

If, and when, the Federal political horsepower exists to address the intermittency of wind and solar at FERC, the rightful remedy will be to implement a level playing field for energy supply that eliminates ‘must take’ provisions for non-dispatchable resources and requires their owners to compensate grid operators for non-performance. Of course, ERCOT, which is wholly within TX, will have to figure this out on their own.

climedown
December 28, 2022 9:16 am

I agree with the sentiments of Dr Curry but, like others, cannot agree with kow-towing to leftist ideology of reducing CO2 to ‘save the world’.

I do strongly agree with, however, the reduction of particulates also CO and NO2 from ICE vehicles.

strativarius
December 28, 2022 9:19 am

The [wokish] public institutions in the UK are not letting up

“The National Trust has warned that extreme weather seen in the UK in 2022 has set a benchmark for what a typical year could be like from now on.

The charity said high temperatures, drought and back-to-back storms have created major challenges for nature”. – BBC

They believe their own hyperbole

We’ve always had back-to-back weather

Last edited 1 month ago by strativarius
The Dark Lord
December 28, 2022 9:25 am

Yes, we need to reduce CO2 emissions over the course of the 21st century”

Why ? there is no reason to state this in an otherwise thoughtful article other than the fear of being labeled a denier by ignorant fools … and fearing ignorant fools is not a sign of courage or intelligence …

vuk
December 28, 2022 9:35 am

Daily mail is reporting:
“Tesla owners blast Christmas car charging chaos with dozens of electric vehicles forced to wait in THREE HOUR queues at charge stations across the UK”
comment image

Last edited 1 month ago by vuk
mleskovarsocalrrcom
December 28, 2022 9:46 am

Nobody wants to die but everyone wants to go to heaven is the phrase that describes NetZero participation. Until viable energy alternatives are discovered, tested, and implemented fossil fuels will remain the primary source. When it really comes down to it no country will commit energy suicide.

rckkrgrd
December 28, 2022 10:08 am

I so often see the assumption stated that it is necessary to reduce CO2 emissions. Never do I see logical or concrete reasons why we must. The only reasonable requirement would be effectiveness. The likelihood of a successful result Is even less than the likelihood that global warming will have serious undesirable consequences. Give your heads a shake and concentrate on doable projects with desirable goals.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  rckkrgrd
December 28, 2022 10:48 am

I could probably accept that reducing the increase in CO2 with natural gas and nuclear should be our long term objective :<)

rckkrgrd
Reply to  Joe Crawford
December 28, 2022 4:16 pm

I can partially agree. I could accept a reduction in CO2 emissions as a side effect (not necessarily beneficial), but not as a goal. There are good reasons to pursue NG and nuclear generation. One would be to reduce the environmental degradation from coal mining or hydro. Another is to conserve oil reserves for future use.

AGW is Not Science
December 28, 2022 11:56 am

I appreciate the general concept of the “divorced from human well-being” of pressing for “renewables” without regard to the effect on energy security “needs,” but there’s entirely too much acceptance of the ‘climate’ bullshit in this essay.

First of all, before governments started cramming “renewables” down people’s throats as their non-solution to the imaginary “climate crisis,” WE ALREADY HAD a “secure energy future.” It’s called “the continuing use of fossil fuels and nuclear power.”

Second, THERE IS NO “climate crisis” and WE DO NOT “need to reduce CO2 emissions.” Atmospheric CO2 levels HAVE NEVER BEEN EMPIRICALLY SHOWN to do ANYTHING to the Earth’s temperature/”climate.” We DON’T “need” to chase catastrophic non-solutions to imaginary problems based on what is essentially “hypothetical bullshit” just because some so-called “scientists” are in love with a pet hypothesis regarding what CO2 increases “would” do when an increase is considered IN ISOLATION.

So-called “attribution” of “bad weather” to “climate change” has no basis in science. Furthermore, there is no kind of “bad weather” or “bad weather related event” that is getting worse in any event. No increase in frequency OR severity is occurring for anything you want to talk about – not hurricanes, not tornadoes, not droughts, not floods, not wildfires, once you stop cherry picking and failing to account for vast improvements in our monitoring of the weather. If there is any “trend,” it is down, though not “significantly” so. The only thing getting worse about the weather is the HYPE about the weather.

Finally, THERE IS NOT, AND NEVER WILL BE, a “transition” away from fossil fuels. Low density, intermittent, unreliable, unpredictable, inconsistent so-called “renewables” CANNOT provide our energy needs. “Renewables” ARE 100% DEPENDENT ON FOSSIL FUELS FOR THEIR EXISTENCE, and they REQUIRE 100% BACKUP by fossil fuels or nuclear (or hydro where available). Discussing a “transition” to worse-than-useless “renewables” is divorced from energy reality.

PLEASE, stop playing their stupid game!

PLEASE, stop parroting ANY PART OF their nonsense like it has any basis in reality.

Richard Greene
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
December 28, 2022 4:10 pm

Please keep your skepticism and passion running at 100%
Never compromise to be nice, as Ms, Curry does.
If people think climate scaremongering and Nut Zero are BS, they should explain why with facts, data logic and passion. Otherwise, the leftist scaremongers will win The Climate War.

Tom Abbott
December 28, 2022 5:50 pm

From the article: “the Earth’s climate has already warmed by 1.1C.”

NASA claims the “hottest year evah!”, 2016, was 1.2C above their average for the period 1850 to the present.

NOAA claims the “hottest year evah!”, 2016, was 1.1C above their average for the period from 1850 to the present.

So the Earth’s climate did reach the 1.1C mark in 2016 (and 1998, too), but since that time the temperatures have cooled by 0.5C, so the Earth has only warmed 0.6C above the average as of this month.

We all should endeavor to be as accurate as we can. Things might not seem to be so scary if we do. 1.1C above the average is old news.

comment image

Last edited 1 month ago by Tom Abbott
Richard Greene
Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 28, 2022 10:00 pm

+1.5 degrees C. was reached temporarily in April 1998 and February 2016, at the peak heat months of two huge El Ninos. Millions of people died. It was in all the newspapers. The biggest catastrophe since World War II, and also the time I bought a 25% share of the Brooklyn Bridge for my Get Rich Quick investment portfolio. It’s going up, up, up: Now at $129.

Martin Cornell
December 28, 2022 6:00 pm

Yes, we need to reduce CO2 emissions over the course of the 21st century.” Why? Even higher industrial CO2 emissions are likely to yield even more benefits to the biosphere.

John Hultquist
December 28, 2022 6:32 pm

 Back when ol’Shep was pup, about 1960, autos in the USA got about 12 miles per gallon. It is common now for autos to get upwards of 30 mpg. Thus, driving is more efficient – fuel wise – and produces less CO2 and fewer pollutants. I’m better off because I have more mobility.
There are many other examples, and the bottom line is that human produced CO2 involves a cost that, with ingenuity, can be reduced. I’m in favor of the efficiency outcome.
Reducing costs on one thing allows improvements elsewhere. World population is expected to grow by 20% or more during the next 50 years. Human produced emissions from using carbon-base fuels will also grow.
The “climate” won’t care.

ferdberple
December 29, 2022 7:54 am

All nations burn in order; wood/dung, coal, oil, gas on their way to industrialization. Most of the earth is still in the early stages.

The world has huge reserves of coal. Gas is almost everywhere we look. The limitations are political, not resources.

For example Germany came to Canada to buy gas, of which Canada has huge reserves. However, while Germany has built a gas port in 6 months, Canada would be hard pressed to build a pipeline in 20 years.

Thus Canada cannot deliver its gas, even to Eastern Canada let alone load it onto ships to deliver to Germany. This has nothing to do with gas reserves and everything to do with politics.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights