Just Stop Oil, a UK-based campaign group, has recently caught the attention of the media and the public by disrupting public transport and high-profile sporting events. As the name implies, they wish to abruptly halt oil production. The group’s inflammatory manifesto insists that if our reliance on fossil fuels doesn’t end within eight years, we will witness the “starvation and slaughter of billions of the poor – and the utter betrayal of our children and their future.”
In his article titled “What if We Just Stop Oil?” Pielke Jr. suggests that this campaign is not just misguided but potentially catastrophic. He asserts,
“Advocating for the impossible is a good way to get nothing done.”
Moreover, he points out that no scientific literature suggests it’s even remotely possible to eliminate fossil fuel use in the next eight years.
Pielke criticizes the campaign’s ill-informed call to just stop oil, noting that such a sudden halt would result in a severe global energy crisis. As evidence, he points to the 1973 oil crisis, when an abrupt change in oil supply led to prices spiking by 400%. A similar situation today would result in oil prices reaching $300 per barrel, leading to inflation, depressed economic growth, and a significant increase in global hunger and malnutrition.
Just Stop Oil’s rhetoric can be traced back to what Richard Hofstadter’s famous 1964 essay termed the “paranoid style” of politics. Hofstadter describes this approach as having an “anxiety of those who are living through the last days” and setting a date for the apocalypse.
The article suggests that the paranoid approach feeds on demands for impossible goals, leading to inevitable failure, which further fuels the sense of powerlessness among the movement’s followers. This concept is encapsulated in Hofstadter’s words:
“This demand for total triumph leads to the formulation of hopelessly unrealistic goals, and since these goals are not even remotely attainable, failure constantly heightens the paranoid’s sense of frustration.”
The fact that Just Stop Oil and their fellow travelers believe that we face a looming apocalypse is not simply the result of some millenarian cult leader — it is in part the result of being egged on by scientists and political leaders. Below is the header found on the homepage of Just Stop Oil.
Probably the most scathing part of Pielke’s essay is this:
Here are some other quotes that Just Stop Oilcites in support of its impossible demands, based on a belief that “Further expansion of oil and gas production globally is putting us on course for human extinction”:
“If governments are serious about the climate crisis, there can be no new investments in oil, gas and coal, from now – from this year.” Fatih Birol, Executive Director of the International Energy Agency, 2021
“If damaging tipping cascades can occur and a global tipping point cannot be ruled out, then this is an existential threat to civilization. No amount of economic cost–benefit analysis is going to help us. We need to change our approach to the climate problem.” Lenton et al, 2020
‘If we go into a runaway climate effect, the damage may be between €100 trillion and the loss of civilisation” Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber
“The scientific evidence is unequivocal: climate change is a threat to human wellbeing and the health of the planet. Any further delay in concerted global action will miss a brief and rapidly closing window to secure a liveable future” Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Sixth Assessment Report, Working Group II Co-Chair Hans-Otto Pörtner, 28th February 2021
I am aware of no scientist — including those cited above and those leading the IPCC — who has offered any sort of corrective to the scientific misunderstandings advanced by Just Stop Oil. If I’ve missed such correctives, please let me know.
What makes this situation even more problematic is the fact that Just Stop Oil, despite its misguided stance, is backed by wealthy Americans whose fortunes came from the very fossil fuels they’re now opposing. This situation creates an ironic and potentially harmful dynamic in which wealth and influence stoke the fires of anxiety and fear among regular people, many of whom are young activists.
Pielke’s views would not generally be considered those of a climate skeptic:
Let me remind readers here that I am fully on board with the importance of decarbonizing the global economy, a topic I wrote a PhD dissertation on almost 30 years ago and my book The Climate Fix much more recently.
In conclusion, Pielke asserts that “we need to do better by these activists.” He implores us to move away from apocalyptic rhetoric and instead engage these young people with realistic and effective policies that can make a tangible difference. As he rightly puts it,
Since wind turbines and solar panels CANNOT manufacture any products for society, what is the replacement, if we stop oil?
Without a Replacement for Oil, countries and companies are ramping up Alternatives to Renewables
As ESG enthusiasts know, wind and solar manufacture nothing for the eight billion on this planet as they can only generate intermittent electricity from unreliable breezes and sunshine.
Summary: Alternatives to occasional electricity from renewables are required to support the worlds’ demand for the products currently made from oil.
Zip Tie yourself to the goal post…And the winner of the Darwin Award goes to…
Time for both teams to line up for a Shootout. Free Kicks on Goal anyone???
Those zip ties look a bit too loose. Should really cinch them up good and tight that way the blood will be completely cut off from going to the space in his skull where a brain should be.
It is the public education system who created these Green Shirts and Climate Jugend. So your puppet politicians are to blame for this situation. That’s why these protesters are free to act whenever and where ever they like with impunity. It is Big Brother against you making you feel defenseless.
Perhaps instead of protesting against the extraction of OIL, they should be more concerned with its usage and Just Stop Buying “OIL PRODUCTS”
PLASTICS
…cell phones
…laptops
…desktops
…prescription medication
…most all wire insulation
SYNTHETICS
…warm jackets
…waterproof rain gear
…weatherproof components
…nylon/rayon/neoprene/elastic/etc.
AUTOMOTIVE/TRAMSPORTATION
…lightweight EV components
…synthetic rubber tires
…durable seat covers
PETROLEUM JELLY
MECHANICAL LUBRICANTS
MAKE-UP
HAIR CARE
DENTAL BRUSHES
ENERGY GENERATION
…LIGHTWEIGHT WIND TURBINE BLADES
…STRONG WIND TURBINE STEEL MASTS
…PURIFIED SILICON FOR SOLAR PV PANELS
Over 6000 different things we use every day depends on FF mining and extraction
Perhaps JSO could lead the charge and JUST STOP BUYING OIL PRODUCTS.
Show the world it can be done.
Well, there does seem to be quite a few whale corpses washing up on coastlines around off shore wind farms – the blob say nothing to do with the wind farms or their associated sonar surveys etc, so maybe they’d already thought of that get around?!
And the mining, refining, processing, assembly and transportation of the materials to build the whilygigs is impossible without oil and it’s by-products, to say nothing of the thousands of tons of steel and concrete for the foundations, the plastics in the blades and millions of gallons of white paint. Try to replace them with tofu, hemp and yoghurt.
Janice Moore
July 13, 2023 2:16 pm
“… in fear and IGNORANCE.”
No. We do NOT need to engage these young people with realistic and effective policies that can make a tangible difference. No.
We need to counter their ignorant assertions with facts and data.
The boy is Ignorance. The girl is Want. Beware of them both, and all of their degree, but most of all beware this boy, for on his brow I see that written which is Doom, unless the writing be erased.
Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol(speech by The Ghost of Christmas Present)
We need to counter their ignorant assertions with facts and data.
That would be arguing to zero when you should be arguing to one hundred.
Their smooth brains are not accustomed to operating in terms of rational, coherent thought, rather in emotional manipulation and pig ignorant fantasy.
If one is foolish enough to engage them, the other side of ledger needs to be looked in to. Ask them if billions of people dying from lack of refrigeration, drugs, fertilizers, transport, plastics and a host of other oil derived products suits their dystopian world view.
If they say that billions of people sacrificed to serve their No Oil vanity, then the realization that they are monsters should be sufficient.
Facts and data matter not an iota to so many and many will (deliberately) not even hear or see them, no matter (almost) what.
Someone who studied such things (psychologist? sociologist? psychiatrist? I don’t recall as it was decades ago that I read the study) concluded that virtually the only way anyone changes a fundamental belief (no matter how wacky or mistaken) is through/because of an emotional crisis.
Our usual trolls like to complain that no responsible scientist makes such ludicrous claims.
However none of them say a word when irresponsible people (none of them are scientists) make ludicrous claims. Instead they silently accept the support and by omission support the ludicrous claims.
The thing populist climate “scientists” fear most is any criticism from their own side.
Look how Climategate ringleader Michael Mann treated other “scientists” who didn’t get fully onboard with “The Cause” (as he terms the AGW conjecture).
You might find the work of Mattias Desmet interesting. If you don’t like listening to Tucker Carlson, you can find a fair number of other videos and articles explaining the basics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZltdPfal5x0
My point being that the 40,000 may well be the small percentage that usually appear under bad conditions. That they are willing to speak out probably makes them a small percentage of the small percentage, most of whom try to find safety in silence. He who puts his head up is the first to get it chopped off.
Absolute truth there- I’ve watched the burreacracy for 50 years in Woke-achusetts. I’ve seen some who never did a day’s work but their heads stay low. They stick around and get to enjoy a lucrative pension (80% of their last salary).
I believe the fact they have signed a public document stating there is no climate emergency and politics should stay out of the climate debate, is quite reassuring – it is a significant section of academia and highly experienced scientists and Engineers in climate related topics, that won’t be cowed into submission on the political narrative – together, we are legion
I’m repeating myself- but signing a document is one thing- actually speaking up is different and I doubt many of those 40,000 are challenging openly the dogma.
Maybe enough courage to sign a document but do they dare to speak up at conferences and do they publish research oppossed to the “emergency” dogma? A few yes, not many or we’d hear about it. Certainly the public doesn’t hear about such resistance.
But Pielke himsef says “Let me remind readers here that I am fully on board with the importance of decarbonizing the global economy…”. No wonder the young and naive get worked up enough to pull such stunts.
Edward Katz
July 13, 2023 2:19 pm
Pielke’s too optimistic if he thinks that these protesters would agree to any “:realistic and effective policies”. What they really want is some magic, pie-in-the-sky solutions which would be unattainable since these young protestors wouldn’t agree to change their lifestyles drastically in the first place. They just figure that if they demonstrate loudly enough, it’ll lead to what they really want: wealth redistribution.
They just figure that if they demonstrate loudly enough, it’ll lead to what they really want: wealth redistribution.
Except the trustafarians are overrepresented in the Climate Protest crowd. It isn’t their family’s wealth they want redistributed, they have no purpose, no creed, no reason for being, so some half-wit professor at an overpriced school gives these nihilist narcissists fawning praise for being soldier for the environment.
It is a cult meant to give losers who will contribute absolutely nothing of value to this earth a reason for being.
Janice Moore
July 13, 2023 2:22 pm
We could begin with these facts:
1. CO2 is plant food.
2. There is no data proving human CO2 emissions cause meaningful shifts in the climate zones of the earth.
3. Rise in atmospheric CO2 lags (follows) temperature by a quarter cycle (per ice core data). That means that temperature causes CO2 to rise, not the other way around (and the conjecture has been and, despite being re-labeled “climate change,” to this day remains: global “warming” (mid-level troposphere)).
The fact that CO2 concentration change follows temperature change in the ice core data does not logically refute the ‘greenhouse effect’ of CO2: “Our informed scientific opinion is that doubling CO2 concentrations will cause about 1 C or less of warming” (William Happer, Richard Linden).
If the rise isn’t being caused by human emissions, what sink do you propose rose out up out of the blue to absorb all those emissions.
Beyond that, the historical record shows that CO2 changes lag temperature changes by 900 to 1000 years.
The increases in temperature since the LIA are too recent to have had much impact on how much CO2 the oceans are holding.
For that matter, the oceans are still reacting to the cooling that occurred at the end of the MWP.
Why do you allow your computer to make changes to what you have written? Would you allow AI to launch nuclear rockets? My computer flags anything it doesn’t like and I do with it as I please.
When I type on my phone that damn thing changes the spelling all on its own. And then when you go back to change it, the phone balks at the change you are trying to make.
I should probably turn the spellchecker off, since I don’t need it, except the hassle only happens occasionally, so I haven’t gone to the trouble of dealing with it.
It does come in handy if I mistype some word, and will put the correct spelling up as a choice that can be clicked on. I like that feature. And it is easy to mistype a word with those little keyboards! 🙂
Might not be spell checker, there’s a good chance that it is auto-complete that is giving you problems.
I’ve changed the settings for both of them to just give suggestions. For example, if a word has an apostrophe in it, I just type it out without the apostrophe, then select the correct spelling from the list of suggestions. (Since I have to switch to the symbols keyboard to get the apostrophe, then switch back to continue. Too much work.)
An oversimplification maybe totally wrong.
If the atmospheric temperature rises then the ocean temperature rises but slower. As the water temperature rises carbon dioxide comes out of solution. When the atmospheric temperature drops the oceans start to cool down but with a lag and so continue to release carbon dioxide.
The seas around the U.K. are not warm at the best of times, but they reach their highest temperature in July/August and their coldest January/February some 4-6 weeks after the solstices.
““Our informed scientific opinion is that doubling CO2 concentrations will cause about 1 C or less of warming” (William Happer, Richard Lindzen).”
Yet Mr. Pielke thinks it is a good idea to reduce CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Why? To prevent 1C or less of warming? Isn’t that rather silly, Roger? And counterproductive: Spending $TRILLIONS to decarbonize and getting nothing for it?
And let’s not forget that Happer and Lindzen’s 1C increase, does not take into account any negative feedbacks to such a temperature increase, so it is possible that CO2’s warming is offset by negative feedbacks and nobody can say differently with authority.
So there is still no evidence that human-derived CO2, or any CO2 source, is doing anything unprecedented to the Earth’s atmosphere.
There is no evidence for a connection between CO2 and any of Earth’s weather phenomenon.
Informed scientific opinion is not a deduction from unfalsified physical theory.
There is no physical theory of climate that will predict the effect of a 0.035 Wm⁻² annual increase in forcing, and unlikely to be one in the foreseeable future.
Yes. Natural CO2 at ~ 150 gigatons is 2 orders of magnitude greater than human emissions at around 5 gt.. Atmospheric CO2 is an overwhelmingly NATURAL phenomenon.🙂
On the other hand, we know with a reasonable level of accuracy how much fossil fuels have been burned in the last 100 years or so.
The CO2 generated by that burning is more than big enough to explain the increase in CO2 over the same time period.
It isn’t that straightforward. Natural CO2 sources and SINKS outweigh human emissions by 2 orders of magnitude (roughly 150 gigatons to 5 gt). Thus, even a small imbalance in natural can completely overwhelm (either in effects as a source, or, as a sink, uptaking/canceling any meaningful effects of human emissions).
Janice, you’d have to calculate the natural imbalance to determine if it is sufficient to cause the 50% increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations since 1750. Calculations show that Man’s sins of emissions is about double that necessary to reach current concentrations.
Natural sources are balanced by natural sinks. If this were not the case, CO2 levels would have swung wildly over the years, and they haven’t.
What is the natural source of CO2 that you propose has swamped the natural sinks? It can’t be the oceans, they take centuries to begin to respond to temperature changes. It hasn’t been long enough since end of either the LIA or the MWP for the oceans to have responded.
Either that, or there is a sink that has stopped absorbing. What is your alternative theory?
Given how you have been ridiculing those who believe that man caused emissions are the source of the sink, you must have solid proof that your theory is the only correct one. I would appreciate seeing it.
I don’t think I have ever seen an estimation of the mass of all that greenery, but I would think it substantial. Might that not account for the amount of CO2 emitted by human activity?
As Dave points out, the amount of known man caused emissions is enough to have caused around twice the increase that has been seen. I propose that the missing half of that increase went into the extra greenery.
Remember, enhanced plant growth is a negative feedback and negative feedbacks can never completely eliminate the signal that started the cycle.
Add:
4. WHO statistics show a 95% decrease in climate related deaths in the last century. These are the facts. Only unproven climate models predict otherwise.
It is well documented that most of the “green” groups get a lot of their funding from Russia and I would bet now China – 2 countries that would love to see the US implode which is what will happen if JSO has its way
Russia and I would bet now China – 2 countries that would love to see the US implode
Why would you think that? They need, just as the US needs, bogeymen to generate fear in their population that permits sending billions of dollars to arms manufacturers, although neither the Russians nor the Mandarins are very worried about the pseudo-elites of the Potomac tidewater. Maybe the lapsed Commies actually do believe the Green Fantasies since they believe many other unlikely things.
Both Russia and China want to be regional overlords.
Putin wants to re-establish the Soviet Union, he views the west in general and US in particular as his opponent in this desire.
China likewise wants to create a regional hegemony in south east Asia as well as the south Pacific. Xi likewise views the US as the main obstacle to those goals.
Yes Dale Vince owner of Ecotricity has had £110Mn of Govt green subsidies over the last 20 years and continues to get them
He then sends JSO hundreds of thousands to protest against his energy competitors (oil & gas)
So in effect, taxpayers are funding the higher renewables costs inc subsidies and green levies, then struggling to pay high energy bills caused by intermittent, heavily subsidised wind & solar farms – perverse really
bnice2000
July 13, 2023 2:24 pm
Irony, the guy is tied to the goal post with a plastic zip-tie.
The response to this mindless protesting has got to have a deterrent element to it. In this case they should have replaced the entire goal with the protester attached..
So the monster that he helped create, with his pseudo religion/ecocult beliefs pretending to be The Science™, has now embarrassed him or has he evolved a conscience? All those people terrified into the makings of a witch-burning mob, protesting the weather and just plain living. I was going to say protesting the weather and prosperity but really these idiots don’t even want us to survive, let alone prosper.
I’d happily make a donation to help with relocation ….
Dena
July 13, 2023 2:33 pm
The problem is you can’t reason with an idiot and unfortunately the idiots are either leading us or trying to lead us. We prove that we are idiots if we allow them to do so.
That’s what my Lone Ranger/Tonto joke reference meant. For those of you that aren’t aware of the cultural reference, there is a joke:
The Lone Ranger and Tonto are surrounded by hundreds of hostile Indians that are preparing to attack. The Lone Ranger says; “Well, Tonto, it looks like we have had it this time.” Tonto says; “What you mean we, Whiteman?” as he points his weapon at the Lone Ranger.
“That’s what my Lone Ranger/Tonto joke reference meant.”
I knew that. I was just saying “me, too”. 🙂
I used to watch the Lone Ranger when I was a kid. I used to love watching the Lone Ranger ride into the scene and see his horse,Trigger, rear up on his hind legs!
We owe them a clip about the ears, and swift boot up to the rear end. !
They are nothing but petulant little children.
kalsel3294
July 13, 2023 2:42 pm
What is being overlooked on both sides of the debate is that oil is not just used to generate energy, but it is also feedstock for the petrochemical industry, and this is perhaps where it is most valuable for long term use.
Perhaps the argument should be that burning fossil fuels is a waste when it can be replaced by nuclear energy, and it should be conserved to extend the long term higher value for petrochemicals.
Bill Powers
July 13, 2023 2:43 pm
In fact the “…the loss of civilisation” is a design element and ultimate goal of the movement orchestrated by the ruling class elite and deployed by the upper middle class brainwashed college drones. They have an optimistic vision of wiping out the poverty class with their “just end oil” initiatives.
“If we go into a runaway climate effect, the damage may be between €100 trillion and the loss of civilisation” Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber
Yes, so let’s trade a hypothetical improbably existential threat for the real existential certainty of the collapse of civilization back to the stone age.
No, not improbable. It is impossible.
We have millions and tens of millions and billions of years of Earth history, during which time no such runaway effects have ever occurred, even when temps were far higher than now, and even when CO2 was far in excess of the concentrations that now exist.
In fact, every cycle of re-glaciation has commenced when CO2 was at a peak, and every cycle of interglacial melting has occurred at the time that CO2 was at a far lower level than present, at a trough on the time series records.
Every time.
In the longer term, CO2 and global average surface temps are not correlated.
So it is impossible that somewhat higher CO2 levels will lead to any runaway effects, just as it is impossible that if the Earth was a bunch of degrees warmer, it would be catastrophic for life.
A warmer Earth is far more hospitable, and a colder Earth is deadly.
The geological record is clear on many things.
Among them is that when the Earth is in general a warmer place, the water cycle is supercharged, and the result is a more humid climate regime from pole to pole, and an explosion of life.
And when CO2 is higher, the mass of the biosphere increases accordingly.
Again, an explosion of life.
When it gets too cold and/or CO2 gets lower, the opposite things happen.
One only need to look back about 8000 years to find a time where it was far warmer than it is now, and one result was, the entire Sahara Desert was bursting with life, and flowing with water.
Every word from the warmista alarmists is very literally the opposite of the truth.
Every.
Single.
Word.
There is no such animal as a runaway greenhouse effect caused by CO2. Not in all of Earth’s history.
Gregory Woods
July 13, 2023 3:00 pm
I wonder about these ‘deadlines’. Are they reached gradually, or is it that one day everything is normal and the next day is Armageddon all over again?
The ‘deadlines’ are never reached – the old ones are immediately forgotten and the new ones are a few more years ahead. Rinse and repeat but no-one ever mentions the passed ‘deadlines’ – it’s as if they never existed.
King Charlie has just launched a new doomsday clock giving us just over 6 years to save the planet (2030) – King Charlie also does very nicely from Crown Estate incomes for renting out his nations seabeds to off shore wind farm developers – it made £440Mn last year, that goes to the treasury and a percentage goes to the Royal Family purse, likely to be around £111Mn – you’ve got to love something that makes you very wealthy, even if it impoverishes your minions – it’s important he keeps the Family in their private jet, private helicopter, multi V12 ICE lifestyle – none of that eco battery car, heat pump claptrap for his loved ones
Bob
July 13, 2023 3:03 pm
There is one simple solution. Anyone who says this must be made to sign an affidavit stating so. All of those who sign will be removed from our fossil fuel based society and moved to reservations that are fossil fuel free. In other words give them what they want. No fossil fuel for fuel or lubrication or energy, no synthetic fibers or plastics, no fossil fuel based chemicals of any kind. I don’t know how they will make it but I don’t really care what happens to them. They can leave the reservation if they admit that fossil fuels are a good thing when used responsibly and we can’t live without them. If they lie and cause more problems they are returned to the reservation for life.
All of those who sign will be removed from our fossil fuel based society and moved to reservations that are fossil fuel free.
I’m pretty sure that during the Summer of Love, when these folks were burning down cities while showing support for a drugged up felon who died in police custody, they had their little commune experiment, CHAZ, where in the block or so of private property they violently commandeered, they quickly formed a warlord government that engaged in robbery, beatings and murder.
I found it particularly charming where they took Bloomberg’s agricultural wisdom “throw some seeds in some dirt” and attempted the experiment by laying out some plastic sheeting, throw some dirt on top, cast seed on top of it, then come out disappointed the next morning that there wasn’t a ready harvest.
They would rejoin society and sign any pledge as soon as the drugs and booze were exhausted and they craved a HotPocket.
They won’t do that, same as they won’t give up their private jets, helicopters, V12 ICE vehicles, gas boilers, beach front properties, fine foods inc meats
The mischievous part of me wishes we did go full on renewable energy and stop all oil & gas production – the ensuing anarchy would impoverish the mega rich elite globalists too, a great told you so moment – they maybe rich, but they’re not fools, they won’t allow that to happen to themselves
David Wojick
July 13, 2023 3:13 pm
If the solution to alarmism is for alarmism to stop being alarmist then that is as impossible as stopping oil. I see no point here. The most we can do is fight bad arguments with good ones. That these folks can cite prominent authorities is important. They may be extreme but they are not fringe.
Happily I see no prospect of global oil production being slowed, much less stopped.
“Happily I see no prospect of global oil production being slowed, much less stopped.”
I agree with that. Reality/self-interest demands it.
Energywise
July 13, 2023 3:18 pm
The JSO activists are useful idiots and paid for being so – no doubt their fines, if ever fined, are also paid for them
One of the UK funders, Ecotricity’s owner, Dale Vince, has a self serving vested interest in funding JSO as they protest against his energy sector competitors (oil & gas) – in the last 20 years, Ecotricity has received over £110Mn in Govt renewables subsidies and continues to do so
He has donated hundreds of thousands of pounds sterling to JSO in recent times and £1.5Mn to the UK Labour Party, who shortly afterwards announced they would stop any further oil & gas development licenses if they get into power in 2024
JSO are just the old renta-mob, in modern day orange hi-viz vests
The UK net zero peddling blobs (inc all mainstream political parties) hesitancy to deal with them slow marching on public roads, vandalising property etc would lead you to believe they also support, albeit at arms length, these eco malingerers in pursuit of yet another nudge towards their net zero objectives
“JSO are just the old renta-mob, in modern day orange hi-viz vests”
Made from oil
CD in Wisconsin
July 13, 2023 3:31 pm
“Just Stop Oil’s rhetoric can be traced back to what Richard Hofstadter’s famous 1964 essay termed the “paranoid style” of politics. Hofstadter describes this approach as having an “anxiety of those who are living through the last days” and setting a date for the apocalypse.”
***********
….a date for the apocalypse.
If we all think about this, JSO and other like-minded believers in CAGW are writing a suicide note for themselves when we understand that the elimination of crude oil (and all fossil fuels for that matter) will bring about the collapse of society as it is now known.
With the widespread suffering from hunger, disease and societal and economic breakdown that is brought about from the elimination of fossil fuels, JSO members and their sympathizers have only to decide how they want to die sometime in the years ahead. Shall it be from the oncoming climate catastrophe, a collapsed economy or from self-inflicted suicide? That is some choice.
Like the members of Jonestown, the Branch Davidians and Heaven’s Gate before them, JSO gloom-and-doom cultists are just living each day not knowing they are in a cult to begin with. The manipulation and abuse of science that brought this massive cult into being demonstrates what can happen when the vast majority of the members of societies (and especially those in power) are not scientifically literate. Societies pays a dear price for it.
Of course, the tendency for humanity to succumb to mass hysteria and groupthink (especially on the Left with their collectivist thinking) is not new here. It has happened in the past to different degrees. The only real difference this time is that we are finding out that mass hysteria and cults can be based on scientific theories and hypotheses as much as they are on religion.
This is misguided – the article, not just the Stop Oil fanatics. Notwithstanding Hofstadter’s cod philosophy.
For decades, climate alarmists, including scientists, have proclaimed that we have only a few years to restructure the world or face destruction from climate change (tipping points, etc) – and that the severe effects have already begun.
After the AR6 Synthesis Report, many world leaders issued literally apocalyptic statements – the Pope, the UN Secretary General, President Biden, and others. No leaders of major science institutions objected; many echoed the dire warnings.
Several generations of children have been raised from the cradle with this indoctrination.
It’s sensible to listen to experts and leaders about technical matters. Life is too short to try and figure out everything, especially for non-technical folks. So of course some people freak out. Complaining about that is like complaining that water is wet. The fault is that of our leaders.
He is spot-on in his analysis – making the same points as in my comment.
If this was a revolution, his mild and reasonable tone would be effective. But, to borrow Mao’s words, this is a Leftist revolution – not a dinner party. He is spitting into a hurricane.
Good luck with that.
He will make – well-deserved – money from subscriptions – from those who already understand.
Larry K:
Agree: Pielke’s take that stoppng oil (fossil fuels) is impossible is correct and the
JSO crowd is spouting nonsense.
Civilization is so dependent on FF that the current climate policies being promoted are likely far more dangerous to human flourishing than the climate change they fear.
And I subscribe to RP’s substack. You are correct that many [most?] of the climate related commenters there [that I’ve seen] are climate skeptics or “lukewarmers”.. There are a few who take him to task for not being sufficiently alarmist. However, for the most part he seems to emphasize rational use of models [see his work on RCP8.5 & 6.0] and realistic energy related policy. For that we should encourage him .
btw He listed several reasons why we might want to at least partially decarbonize [decrease CO2 emissions] that were not climate related: energy security, save money [decrease CO2 per unit of GDP], decrease pollution, and increase energy access to the poorer countries. All quite logical. Unlike JSO, or Extinction Rebellion, or … !
Other things released when coal, oil and natural gas are burnt, are pollutants. While modern pollution control equipment is very, very effective, they aren’t perfect.
They are however good enough that no measurable harm is being done in areas surrounding FF power plants.
Getting these areas a little bit cleaner is desirable, but you need to justify the cost.
In my opinion being more efficient is always a good thing, for all the reasons listed by Pielke, however, as always you have to balance the benefit against the cost.
If switching away from incandescents to LEDs is cost effective, people will do it on their own. If it isn’t, the benefit from a little less pollution is not sufficient to force them to switch.
If people want to buy cars that burn less fuel, then more power to them.
They can feel good about the money they save and the pollution they are preventing. But I would never advise forcing them into those smaller cars. The benefit to others is simply too small to justify the loss of liberty.
How in the WORLD did YOU (given the nonsense you have posted on WUWT over the past few years since you suddenly appeared on the scene at WUWT and were instantly granted publication of your junk articles)
I prefer Clintels rebuttal of the IPCCs latest computer modelled comic AR6, far more competent and scientific data based
Nicholas McGinley
July 13, 2023 4:25 pm
Look, it sounds reasonable to engage with them and take positive steps to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.
But let us not forget for an instant that these same people are opposed to the only two sources of carbon free power that can offer a plentiful supply, and do so inexpensively, those two being hydro power and nuclear.
Wind and solar are never going to solve anything.
On top of these basic facts, is the issue of materials.
The world needs vast amounts of raw materials on a continuous basis, and this need is only ever going to grow, at least for the near future.
The more reliance our power grids have on low density sources of energy like wind and solar, the more resources are need to gather that power…and here again, those same activists and politicians are opposed to mineral extraction, to say nothing or greatly increased mineral extraction.
On top of all of that, is the issue of energy usages that do not involve electric power, which are going to be difficult to convert to electric even if we had all we could ever use.
What this all adds up to is, the same people who want us to stop using fossil fuels are also opposed to any alternatives that are truly viable.
They block new mines, they block new power lines, they block new dams and insist we get rid of the ones we already have, they close down nuclear power plants and block even any discussion of building any new ones…
And meanwhile, these same hypocrites use just as much resources and energy as anyone, perhaps more than most people of modest means.
Besides for all of that, the result of instantly stopping all extraction of fossil fuels would be far more dire than is stated here. One immediate result would be the nearly instant cessation of crop production, transportation, and food manufacturing, at all but a de minimis level, insuring the onset of mass starvation within months. And not just any run of the mill famine, but the complete lack of food for billions of people, all at once. If it happened right this minute, the crops in the ground could not be irrigated or harvested, could not be transported to where the people that need it to eat are located, there would be no fuel for the mills and bakeries that turn the grains into flour and bread, etc, and there would be no way to preserve what we do have in storage, let alone any of what could be somehow salvaged.
IOW, it would almost instantly be a calamity far beyond the scope of what has ever occurred in all of history, and would in fact lead very quickly to the exact consequence that these fools are screaming about…billions dead, the end of civilization, and the imperilment of the majority of all human alive on the planet.
And these citified, sissified, know-nothing, do-nothing, skill-less, landless, spoiled brat rich kid activists, would live just long enough to get a very thorough education in just how ignorant they truly are.
Rud Istvan
July 13, 2023 4:34 pm
While I respect Pielke’s reasoned take, I have a more sanguine JSO view.
JSO are obviously nutters, demanding impossible thing since . They are causing big UK problems. That helps wake people up who maybe thought climate change was a future problem because IPCC said so. Waking people up so they figure stuff out for themselves is good.
My own awakening happened in 2011 while researching the food chapter of the ebook that became published as Gaia’s Limits. No less than the NRDC provided a briefing to Congress that deliberately misrepresented an NSF summary of possible crop yield impacts, its worst case based on a provably flawed single alarmist paper about US corn and soybean yields with AGW. Was the subject of my first ever post here back then. The paper’s statistical flaw was not even subtle. it deliberately omitted from its massive by county corn yield over time regression a key cross term variable. Corn yield suffers when it is hot and dry, but NOT when it is hot and wet, during anthesis. Deliberately (yes, they provided a bogus logic for this omission of well known corn biology) omit the known hot/soil moisture anthesis term and voila—a statistically bogus future catastrophe then hyped to Congress as the expected rather than worst case.
Thanks for all the debunking you have done over the years, Rud. It’s a pleasure to read something from someone who knows what they are talking about.
You are a Great Asset for the people here at WUWT.
ToldYouSo
July 13, 2023 4:51 pm
Hey, Just Stop Oil . . . you go first.
To show your commitment to what you espouse to—and even demand of—others, please stop your immediate purchases and use of products that contains chemicals and materials derived directly from petroleum (i.e., “oil”) resources.
I’m sure your community is, in large, ignorant of these facts, but that would include, as a minimum, clothes made from synthetic fibers such as nylon, rayon and polyester and pharmaceutical drugs derived from raw petroleum feed stock, as per:
“Petrochemicals cumene, phenol, benzene, and other aromatics are used to make not only aspirin, but also penicillin and cancer-fighting drugs. Ultimately, most drugs are organic molecules made using petrochemical polymer.”
— https://sciencenotes.org/petrochemicals-in-medicine/#
Yes, I fully realize that as zealots, you don’t care sh#t about how your protests might adversely impact the lives of others struggling to have a comfortable life, let alone just live.
I actually think they don’t know that all that stuff is made from petroleum products. And if you tried to tell them they would accuse you of lying.
J Boles
July 13, 2023 4:56 pm
An unrealistic demand rooted in HYPOCRISY! JSO people use FF every day and they think that should not matter to others. CRAZY!
2hotel9
July 13, 2023 4:58 pm
I don’t owe a bunch of narcissistic, leftarded morons who want to wipe out the human race by destroying humanity’s energy production a damned thing.
CO2isLife
July 13, 2023 5:10 pm
No one is stopping these people from not using oil. I’m pretty sure that if they tried it, they would be demanding more oil after a single day without it. Be careful what you wish for, these people look like the last group that could survive in a world with no oil.
spren
July 13, 2023 5:54 pm
No Pielke, we don’t owe these idiots anything. And we don’t need to de-carbonize our economy either. I used to think Pielke Jr. was on the ball, but apparently Pielke Sr. didn’t pass the intelligence on to his son.
There may be reasons to lessen CO2 emissions that have nothing to do with climate.
Example: removing heavy metals, sulfur & particulates from the burning of coal is costly and yet incomplete. Switching to natural gas might be worthwhile.
Pielke is articulate, smart and occasionally witty. You may not agree with everything he says,
[I don’t] but don’t denigrate him personally. We [skeptics] need more people like him.
As the adage goes: “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good”.
BobM
July 13, 2023 7:25 pm
Make them stop first.
observa
July 13, 2023 9:05 pm
A poignant pic of the Socialist Stew of Screechy Shrews emoting.
Eric Vieira
July 13, 2023 10:51 pm
The main drive behind all this activism, are the vast amounts of money that these organizations are receiving. It’s clear, that as long as their funding goes on, the worse it’s going to get, with ever increasing extreme positions, in order to generate media attention.
Sometimes, there’s not even any serious ecological rationale remaining.
Somebody ought to put their funders in jail, for the lawbreaking that has occurred, or at least under investigation. Who are these puppet masters? Do they have the best interests of the public in their minds?
I don’t see politicians or news organizations asking these questions. Perhaps because they are all funded by the same puppet masters.
Dave Fair
July 13, 2023 11:23 pm
“Pielke asserts that “we need to do better by these activists.” He implores us to move away from apocalyptic rhetoric and instead engage these young people with realistic and effective policies that can make a tangible difference.”
No. The people using such apocalyptic rhetoric are aware of their falsehoods but base their careers and livelihoods on such exaggeration; they are not going to change because of someone’s request. They must be run out of the public square by revealing their lies to the general public.
Additionally, there are no “realistic and effective policies that can make a tangible difference.” By tangible difference he means significant near to medium term (out to 2050+) reductions in Man’s CO2 emissions. There are numerous credible studies of the technical and economic impossibilities of Western countries reaching Net Zero by 2050. There is also no indications that the developing countries led by China, India, Indonesia, Brazil and Russia have any desire, much less plans to reach Net Zero at any time in the future.
I respect Dr. Pielke, Jr. greatly. But we are not served well by his continued attempts to stay in the middle of the climate crisis divide. These young people don’t want the Man soothing them with his notions of “realistic and effective policies.” With no “climate” damages accruing over the next decade or so and the ongoing economic damage of climate policies becoming manifest the various movements will die out.
Phil Salmon
July 13, 2023 11:44 pm
No armpit hair? They don’t make environmental activists like they once did.
An organisation that trumpets a quote from Sir(?!) D.King, for whom the most relevant word within the speech marks above is “former”, is really struggling if they consider this individual has a shred of credibility left. As the mouthpiece for soi disant (and I use that phrase very deliberately) “Independent SAGE”, the group of self appointed, delusional, arrogant totalitarians, he destroyed what was left of his professional credentials consistently between 2020 and 2022 by advocating far more draconian lockdown measures – amongst others. He was regularly trotted out on the …BBC which tells you everything. He is a fully paid up member of Science 101.
Tom Abbott
July 14, 2023 3:52 am
From the article: “The scientific evidence is unequivocal: climate change is a threat to human wellbeing and the health of the planet. Any further delay in concerted global action will miss a brief and rapidly closing window to secure a liveable future” Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Sixth Assessment Report, Working Group II Co-Chair Hans-Otto Pörtner, 28th February 2021″
Absolutely False!
There is no unequivocal evidence, or any evidence, that CO2 is doing anything these climate alarmists claim it is doing to the atmosphere. None, whatsoever. So this clown, Hans-Otto Pörtner, is lying to the whole world. He couldn’t prove what he is saying if his life depended on it.
Tom Abbott
July 14, 2023 3:58 am
From the article: “Let me remind readers here that I am fully on board with the importance of decarbonizing the global economy, a topic I wrote a PhD dissertation on almost 30 years ago and my book The Climate Fix much more recently.”
Ridiculous!
Even a smart guy like Mr. Pielke can be wrong. Mr. Pielke doesn’t have any more evidence for what he says about CO2 and the Earth’s atmosphere than does Hans-Otto Pörtner. Both of them think CO2 needs regulation, but there is NO evidence this is the case. Both people are indulging in pure speculation.
How disappointing.
Joseph Zorzin
July 14, 2023 4:06 am
“Let me remind readers here that I am fully on board with the importance of decarbonizing the global economy…”
????
Sapper2
July 14, 2023 5:06 am
The Government has much to answer for in not rebutting those extreme and ridiculous claims by JSO. Public information is part of its remit. For failing the majority the parliamentarians deserve to be ousted eat the next GE. Whether decent, intelligent, and having scientific or technical understanding under their belt candidates are elected is another matter.
“The Government has much to answer for in not rebutting . . .”
Actually, no. Follow the money (and the power).
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
— H.L. Mencken
Pat Frank
July 14, 2023 7:56 am
Let me remind Roger Piekle jr. that being fully on board with the importance of decarbonizing the global economy makes him as much a part of the problem as Just Stop Oil.
As Roger jr. agrees with the premise, he creates the circumstances and supports the logic that produces extremist partisans. Like the liberal who wrings his hands over Antifa burning a city, all the while supporting the politics and declaiming their sincerity.
Roger jr. creates the context and provides the social matrix of agreement — the soil — from which the crazies emerge.
I let Roger jr. know about Propagation years ago. He is no more willing to change his stance on CO₂ than the most ardent just stop oil nutcase.
You’re part of the problem, Roger, jr. And no part of the solution.
“You’re part of the problem, Roger, jr. And no part of the solution.”
I agree.
More Soylent Green!
July 14, 2023 7:59 am
What is a realistic and effective policy for a non-existent problem? Group therapy, perhaps?
Gunga Din
July 14, 2023 11:14 am
That picture.
Looks like AOC forgot her glasses.
dmcintyre
July 15, 2023 12:49 pm
Just Stop Oil seems unaware that, in addition to fuel, some 6000 by-products are made from oil and gas compounds. If Just Stop Oil succeeds, we will have to do without these products, and that would bring modern life to a screeching halt. Asphalt for roads, synthetic rubber for tires, plastic for computer cases, cell phone cases, credit cards, blood bags, trash bags, rain coats, running shoes, insulation on electrical wires, food packaging… none of these conveniences are made from unavailium, unobtainium or pixies’ nose boogers. All of them are born in oil and gas wells. The Just Stop Oil ignoramuses need to be bodily removed from any policy-making venues and deposited in the nearest frog pond.
willhaas
July 16, 2023 4:51 pm
They themselves should lead the way by stop making use of all goods and services that make use of fossil fuels. That would include products such as wearing apparel, and food that has been moved by truck. That would include entering buildings or walking on surfaces made from materials moved by truck, plane, train, or ship that makes use of fossil fuels Apparently they have not done that.
Since wind turbines and solar panels CANNOT manufacture any products for society, what is the replacement, if we stop oil?
Without a Replacement for Oil, countries and companies are ramping up Alternatives to Renewables
As ESG enthusiasts know, wind and solar manufacture nothing for the eight billion on this planet as they can only generate intermittent electricity from unreliable breezes and sunshine.
Summary: Alternatives to occasional electricity from renewables are required to support the worlds’ demand for the products currently made from oil.
Published July 13, 2023 at the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow https://www.cfact.org/2023/07/13/with-no-replacement-for-oil-countries-and-companies-are-ramping-up-alternatives-to-renewables/
Zip Tie yourself to the goal post…And the winner of the Darwin Award goes to…
Time for both teams to line up for a Shootout. Free Kicks on Goal anyone???
He could have made his protest point stronger by using say a hemp rope to tie himself up with instead of 2 plastic zip-ties.
What substitutes for plastic zip-ties are JSO dipshits proposing to use?
A plastic bag over his head and it would be JSB.
Those zip ties look a bit too loose. Should really cinch them up good and tight that way the blood will be completely cut off from going to the space in his skull where a brain should be.
His stupid skinny legs should have been kicked out underneath him so that zip tie could actually serve a useful purpose.
It is the public education system who created these Green Shirts and Climate Jugend. So your puppet politicians are to blame for this situation. That’s why these protesters are free to act whenever and where ever they like with impunity. It is Big Brother against you making you feel defenseless.
“Zip Tie yourself to the goal post”
I would have taken him more seriously if he had used a chain.
I like your “shootout” idea. 🙂
Is that a boy? No muscle to speak of,probably raised on soy by a liberal mother,
Oil does not manufacture anything either. Only people and some other animals do that.
Is that a deliberate misunderstanding of the claim or just being sarcastic?
Perhaps instead of protesting against the extraction of OIL, they should be more concerned with its usage and Just Stop Buying “OIL PRODUCTS”
PLASTICS
…cell phones
…laptops
…desktops
…prescription medication
…most all wire insulation
SYNTHETICS
…warm jackets
…waterproof rain gear
…weatherproof components
…nylon/rayon/neoprene/elastic/etc.
AUTOMOTIVE/TRAMSPORTATION
…lightweight EV components
…synthetic rubber tires
…durable seat covers
PETROLEUM JELLY
MECHANICAL LUBRICANTS
MAKE-UP
HAIR CARE
DENTAL BRUSHES
ENERGY GENERATION
…LIGHTWEIGHT WIND TURBINE BLADES
…STRONG WIND TURBINE STEEL MASTS
…PURIFIED SILICON FOR SOLAR PV PANELS
Over 6000 different things we use every day depends on FF mining and extraction
Perhaps JSO could lead the charge and JUST STOP BUYING OIL PRODUCTS.
Show the world it can be done.
Don’t forget shoes. If there is no leather (to Save the Planet) and no plastic, the only waterproof materials left are wood(clogs) and rubber.
Don’t forget wind turbines also use a lot of oil internally in the gear boxes etc – without oil, the turbines wouldn’t be manufactured, or work
Can we not just kill a few whales as a substitute lubricant?
Well, there does seem to be quite a few whale corpses washing up on coastlines around off shore wind farms – the blob say nothing to do with the wind farms or their associated sonar surveys etc, so maybe they’d already thought of that get around?!
And the mining, refining, processing, assembly and transportation of the materials to build the whilygigs is impossible without oil and it’s by-products, to say nothing of the thousands of tons of steel and concrete for the foundations, the plastics in the blades and millions of gallons of white paint. Try to replace them with tofu, hemp and yoghurt.
“… in fear and IGNORANCE.”
No. We do NOT need to engage these young people with realistic and effective policies that can make a tangible difference. No.
We need to counter their ignorant assertions with facts and data.
The boy is Ignorance. The girl is Want. Beware of them both, and all of their degree, but most of all beware this boy, for on his brow I see that written which is Doom, unless the writing be erased.
Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol (speech by The Ghost of Christmas Present)
The JSO useful idiots aren’t interested in climate facts, only in their pay packet for being useful idiots
Exactly- facts don’t matter – it’s their religion
Climate jugend and Green shirts created by your public education system/(puppet)government. Paid with your tax dollars.
That would be arguing to zero when you should be arguing to one hundred.
Their smooth brains are not accustomed to operating in terms of rational, coherent thought, rather in emotional manipulation and pig ignorant fantasy.
If one is foolish enough to engage them, the other side of ledger needs to be looked in to. Ask them if billions of people dying from lack of refrigeration, drugs, fertilizers, transport, plastics and a host of other oil derived products suits their dystopian world view.
If they say that billions of people sacrificed to serve their No Oil vanity, then the realization that they are monsters should be sufficient.
Change the ‘education’ system. There a large part of the brainwashing is done.
Facts and data matter not an iota to so many and many will (deliberately) not even hear or see them, no matter (almost) what.
Someone who studied such things (psychologist? sociologist? psychiatrist? I don’t recall as it was decades ago that I read the study) concluded that virtually the only way anyone changes a fundamental belief (no matter how wacky or mistaken) is through/because of an emotional crisis.
Like when they tell you that Santa Claus does not exist.
The problem is that a great part of the population still believe in ( demands ) free stuff. They want Santa Claus forever.
Correct Janice – the Govt nudge units are well trained in psychological warfare – carrots for the weak minded, big sticks for the rest
Here’s a better idea.
Let’s try again.
I plus’d you then and I PLUS you again. I’d pay to see that stunt.
The French police have developed a powerful deterrent to gluing yourself to things. They just lift you up ripping your skin off.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/06/27/climate-activists-discover-french-police-dont-use-glue-solvent/
Our usual trolls like to complain that no responsible scientist makes such ludicrous claims.
However none of them say a word when irresponsible people (none of them are scientists) make ludicrous claims. Instead they silently accept the support and by omission support the ludicrous claims.
The thing populist climate “scientists” fear most is any criticism from their own side.
Look how Climategate ringleader Michael Mann treated other “scientists” who didn’t get fully onboard with “The Cause” (as he terms the AGW conjecture).
And yet almost 40,000 highly competent and relevant signatories of the Clintel WCD and Oregon Petition have no fear
Yep.
That’s the difference between “populist” scientists and “competent” scientists.
Plus all relevant scientists in China, India etc – they don’t seem alarmed about the climate or CO2 either
Of course- even if they are alarmed- those in China, they wouldn’t dare say so.
You might find the work of Mattias Desmet interesting. If you don’t like listening to Tucker Carlson, you can find a fair number of other videos and articles explaining the basics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZltdPfal5x0
My point being that the 40,000 may well be the small percentage that usually appear under bad conditions. That they are willing to speak out probably makes them a small percentage of the small percentage, most of whom try to find safety in silence. He who puts his head up is the first to get it chopped off.
Ah, the old mushroom theory of management in a bureaucracy: They keep you in the dark, feed you shit and chop off your head if it pops up.
Absolute truth there- I’ve watched the burreacracy for 50 years in Woke-achusetts. I’ve seen some who never did a day’s work but their heads stay low. They stick around and get to enjoy a lucrative pension (80% of their last salary).
I believe the fact they have signed a public document stating there is no climate emergency and politics should stay out of the climate debate, is quite reassuring – it is a significant section of academia and highly experienced scientists and Engineers in climate related topics, that won’t be cowed into submission on the political narrative – together, we are legion
I’m repeating myself- but signing a document is one thing- actually speaking up is different and I doubt many of those 40,000 are challenging openly the dogma.
“That they are willing to speak out..”.
They may sign a document but do they actually “speak out”?? If 40,000 were speaking out- it would be a different world.
Maybe enough courage to sign a document but do they dare to speak up at conferences and do they publish research oppossed to the “emergency” dogma? A few yes, not many or we’d hear about it. Certainly the public doesn’t hear about such resistance.
Notice that none of the usual trolls is here to even try to defend these petulant little twerps.
Sometimes, trying to defend the indefensible is beyond even the Marxists capabilities, other than in their own echo chambers
But Pielke himsef says “Let me remind readers here that I am fully on board with the importance of decarbonizing the global economy…”. No wonder the young and naive get worked up enough to pull such stunts.
Pielke’s too optimistic if he thinks that these protesters would agree to any “:realistic and effective policies”. What they really want is some magic, pie-in-the-sky solutions which would be unattainable since these young protestors wouldn’t agree to change their lifestyles drastically in the first place. They just figure that if they demonstrate loudly enough, it’ll lead to what they really want: wealth redistribution.
Except the trustafarians are overrepresented in the Climate Protest crowd. It isn’t their family’s wealth they want redistributed, they have no purpose, no creed, no reason for being, so some half-wit professor at an overpriced school gives these nihilist narcissists fawning praise for being soldier for the environment.
It is a cult meant to give losers who will contribute absolutely nothing of value to this earth a reason for being.
We could begin with these facts:
1. CO2 is plant food.
2. There is no data proving human CO2 emissions cause meaningful shifts in the climate zones of the earth.
3. Rise in atmospheric CO2 lags (follows) temperature by a quarter cycle (per ice core data). That means that temperature causes CO2 to rise, not the other way around (and the conjecture has been and, despite being re-labeled “climate change,” to this day remains: global “warming” (mid-level troposphere)).
The fact that CO2 concentration change follows temperature change in the ice core data does not logically refute the ‘greenhouse effect’ of CO2: “Our informed scientific opinion is that doubling CO2 concentrations will cause about 1 C or less of warming” (William Happer, Richard Linden).
It refutes the conjecture that a dangerous RISE in atmospheric CO2 is caused by human emissions.
That is, the greenhouse effect is completely NATURAL.
(thank you, Mr. Hanley, for your comment — didn’t mean to “yell,” there, just to emphasize 🙂)
If the rise isn’t being caused by human emissions, what sink do you propose rose out up out of the blue to absorb all those emissions.
Beyond that, the historical record shows that CO2 changes lag temperature changes by 900 to 1000 years.
The increases in temperature since the LIA are too recent to have had much impact on how much CO2 the oceans are holding.
For that matter, the oceans are still reacting to the cooling that occurred at the end of the MWP.
The natural sinks of the planet earth have existed since it was created.
************************
This is NOT our MarkW, I am quite certain.
And this is not the first time this has happened.
Get your own pen name, “MarkW.”
I caught the computer changing Happer to ‘Harper’ but missed the change to ‘Linden’ instead of Lindzen, my apologies.
Why do you allow your computer to make changes to what you have written? Would you allow AI to launch nuclear rockets? My computer flags anything it doesn’t like and I do with it as I please.
When I type on my phone that damn thing changes the spelling all on its own. And then when you go back to change it, the phone balks at the change you are trying to make.
I should probably turn the spellchecker off, since I don’t need it, except the hassle only happens occasionally, so I haven’t gone to the trouble of dealing with it.
It does come in handy if I mistype some word, and will put the correct spelling up as a choice that can be clicked on. I like that feature. And it is easy to mistype a word with those little keyboards! 🙂
Might not be spell checker, there’s a good chance that it is auto-complete that is giving you problems.
I’ve changed the settings for both of them to just give suggestions. For example, if a word has an apostrophe in it, I just type it out without the apostrophe, then select the correct spelling from the list of suggestions. (Since I have to switch to the symbols keyboard to get the apostrophe, then switch back to continue. Too much work.)
Thanks for the tips, Mark.
I don’t know Tom, but I only use my phone for short, informational messages. Any thing longer goes on the PC or a tablet.
That’s the same with me. i type on the phone as little as possible.
But does not explain the 800 year lag nor the fact that the evidence shows CO2 continuing to rise long after temperature drops.
An oversimplification maybe totally wrong.
If the atmospheric temperature rises then the ocean temperature rises but slower. As the water temperature rises carbon dioxide comes out of solution. When the atmospheric temperature drops the oceans start to cool down but with a lag and so continue to release carbon dioxide.
The seas around the U.K. are not warm at the best of times, but they reach their highest temperature in July/August and their coldest January/February some 4-6 weeks after the solstices.
““Our informed scientific opinion is that doubling CO2 concentrations will cause about 1 C or less of warming” (William Happer, Richard Lindzen).”
Yet Mr. Pielke thinks it is a good idea to reduce CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Why? To prevent 1C or less of warming? Isn’t that rather silly, Roger? And counterproductive: Spending $TRILLIONS to decarbonize and getting nothing for it?
And let’s not forget that Happer and Lindzen’s 1C increase, does not take into account any negative feedbacks to such a temperature increase, so it is possible that CO2’s warming is offset by negative feedbacks and nobody can say differently with authority.
So there is still no evidence that human-derived CO2, or any CO2 source, is doing anything unprecedented to the Earth’s atmosphere.
There is no evidence for a connection between CO2 and any of Earth’s weather phenomenon.
Informed scientific opinion is not a deduction from unfalsified physical theory.
There is no physical theory of climate that will predict the effect of a 0.035 Wm⁻² annual increase in forcing, and unlikely to be one in the foreseeable future.
You could show them the recent daily / weekly CO2 plots from Mauna Loa that clearly show % CO2 falling again
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/weekly.html
Yes. Natural CO2 at ~ 150 gigatons is 2 orders of magnitude greater than human emissions at around 5 gt.. Atmospheric CO2 is an overwhelmingly NATURAL phenomenon.🙂
On the other hand, we know with a reasonable level of accuracy how much fossil fuels have been burned in the last 100 years or so.
The CO2 generated by that burning is more than big enough to explain the increase in CO2 over the same time period.
It isn’t that straightforward. Natural CO2 sources and SINKS outweigh human emissions by 2 orders of magnitude (roughly 150 gigatons to 5 gt). Thus, even a small imbalance in natural can completely overwhelm (either in effects as a source, or, as a sink, uptaking/canceling any meaningful effects of human emissions).
Janice, you’d have to calculate the natural imbalance to determine if it is sufficient to cause the 50% increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations since 1750. Calculations show that Man’s sins of emissions is about double that necessary to reach current concentrations.
Natural sources are balanced by natural sinks. If this were not the case, CO2 levels would have swung wildly over the years, and they haven’t.
What is the natural source of CO2 that you propose has swamped the natural sinks? It can’t be the oceans, they take centuries to begin to respond to temperature changes. It hasn’t been long enough since end of either the LIA or the MWP for the oceans to have responded.
Either that, or there is a sink that has stopped absorbing. What is your alternative theory?
Given how you have been ridiculing those who believe that man caused emissions are the source of the sink, you must have solid proof that your theory is the only correct one. I would appreciate seeing it.
The burden of proof is on the AGWists to provide data that confirms their conjecture.
But as is reported here regularly, an area equivalent to 2X United States of extra vegetation has been detected by NASA:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/25/inconvenient-study-co2-fertilization-greening-the-earth/
I don’t think I have ever seen an estimation of the mass of all that greenery, but I would think it substantial. Might that not account for the amount of CO2 emitted by human activity?
As Dave points out, the amount of known man caused emissions is enough to have caused around twice the increase that has been seen. I propose that the missing half of that increase went into the extra greenery.
Remember, enhanced plant growth is a negative feedback and negative feedbacks can never completely eliminate the signal that started the cycle.
There is a annual cycle
Add:
4. WHO statistics show a 95% decrease in climate related deaths in the last century. These are the facts. Only unproven climate models predict otherwise.
Perhaps the need to “stop oil” is unrelated to “climate related deaths” which are actually weather related deaths.
I read somewhere that the person funding JSO gets huge subsidies from wind and/or solar !
It is well documented that most of the “green” groups get a lot of their funding from Russia and I would bet now China – 2 countries that would love to see the US implode which is what will happen if JSO has its way
Russia and I would bet now China – 2 countries that would love to see the US implode
Why would you think that? They need, just as the US needs, bogeymen to generate fear in their population that permits sending billions of dollars to arms manufacturers, although neither the Russians nor the Mandarins are very worried about the pseudo-elites of the Potomac tidewater. Maybe the lapsed Commies actually do believe the Green Fantasies since they believe many other unlikely things.
Both Russia and China want to be regional overlords.
Putin wants to re-establish the Soviet Union, he views the west in general and US in particular as his opponent in this desire.
China likewise wants to create a regional hegemony in south east Asia as well as the south Pacific. Xi likewise views the US as the main obstacle to those goals.
Yes Dale Vince owner of Ecotricity has had £110Mn of Govt green subsidies over the last 20 years and continues to get them
He then sends JSO hundreds of thousands to protest against his energy competitors (oil & gas)
So in effect, taxpayers are funding the higher renewables costs inc subsidies and green levies, then struggling to pay high energy bills caused by intermittent, heavily subsidised wind & solar farms – perverse really
Irony, the guy is tied to the goal post with a plastic zip-tie.
The response to this mindless protesting has got to have a deterrent element to it. In this case they should have replaced the entire goal with the protester attached..
Just Stop Plastic
So the monster that he helped create, with his pseudo religion/ecocult beliefs pretending to be The Science™, has now embarrassed him or has he evolved a conscience? All those people terrified into the makings of a witch-burning mob, protesting the weather and just plain living. I was going to say protesting the weather and prosperity but really these idiots don’t even want us to survive, let alone prosper.
“protesting the weather”
Good way to put it.
JSO is protesting against Mother Nature. Mother Nature doesn’t care what JSO thinks. JSO should go do something more productive.
I just wish these cults would just hurry up and get to the natural end game of all of the best cults and do us all a favour!
No, they’re not going up to the spaceship nor are they going to move to Jonestown.
I’d happily make a donation to help with relocation ….
The problem is you can’t reason with an idiot and unfortunately the idiots are either leading us or trying to lead us. We prove that we are idiots if we allow them to do so.
“We” are already proven idiots for electing our so called “leaders”
What you mean we, Whiteman?
I didn’t vote for any of these fools.
That’s what my Lone Ranger/Tonto joke reference meant. For those of you that aren’t aware of the cultural reference, there is a joke:
The Lone Ranger and Tonto are surrounded by hundreds of hostile Indians that are preparing to attack. The Lone Ranger says; “Well, Tonto, it looks like we have had it this time.” Tonto says; “What you mean we, Whiteman?” as he points his weapon at the Lone Ranger.
“That’s what my Lone Ranger/Tonto joke reference meant.”
I knew that. I was just saying “me, too”. 🙂
I used to watch the Lone Ranger when I was a kid. I used to love watching the Lone Ranger ride into the scene and see his horse,Trigger, rear up on his hind legs!
Then I would watch “Lassie”.
Bursting another childhood bubble, Lassie in the movies was actually a dog (male) named “Pal”. That’s one benefit (to move makers) of Rough Collies.
And some of them are not so “young” ….
Topping up the pension
Yep, there’s no fool like an old fool.
Dementia is a terrible thing.
As Jill Biden is learning.
Maybe it is actually easier for her that way. You rarely know what goes on behind the scenes.
There’s no Fool like a Fossil Fool
““We owe them at least that.””
NO and just NO !!!
We owe them a clip about the ears, and swift boot up to the rear end. !
They are nothing but petulant little children.
What is being overlooked on both sides of the debate is that oil is not just used to generate energy, but it is also feedstock for the petrochemical industry, and this is perhaps where it is most valuable for long term use.
Perhaps the argument should be that burning fossil fuels is a waste when it can be replaced by nuclear energy, and it should be conserved to extend the long term higher value for petrochemicals.
In fact the “…the loss of civilisation” is a design element and ultimate goal of the movement orchestrated by the ruling class elite and deployed by the upper middle class brainwashed college drones. They have an optimistic vision of wiping out the poverty class with their “just end oil” initiatives.
dyed in the wool romantics
Yes, so let’s trade a hypothetical improbably existential threat for the real existential certainty of the collapse of civilization back to the stone age.
No, not improbable. It is impossible.
We have millions and tens of millions and billions of years of Earth history, during which time no such runaway effects have ever occurred, even when temps were far higher than now, and even when CO2 was far in excess of the concentrations that now exist.
In fact, every cycle of re-glaciation has commenced when CO2 was at a peak, and every cycle of interglacial melting has occurred at the time that CO2 was at a far lower level than present, at a trough on the time series records.
Every time.
In the longer term, CO2 and global average surface temps are not correlated.
So it is impossible that somewhat higher CO2 levels will lead to any runaway effects, just as it is impossible that if the Earth was a bunch of degrees warmer, it would be catastrophic for life.
A warmer Earth is far more hospitable, and a colder Earth is deadly.
The fixed points at which water changes state provides limiting factors to any runaway effects.
The geological record is clear on many things.
Among them is that when the Earth is in general a warmer place, the water cycle is supercharged, and the result is a more humid climate regime from pole to pole, and an explosion of life.
And when CO2 is higher, the mass of the biosphere increases accordingly.
Again, an explosion of life.
When it gets too cold and/or CO2 gets lower, the opposite things happen.
One only need to look back about 8000 years to find a time where it was far warmer than it is now, and one result was, the entire Sahara Desert was bursting with life, and flowing with water.
Every word from the warmista alarmists is very literally the opposite of the truth.
Every.
Single.
Word.
You said it all, Nicholas.
There is no such animal as a runaway greenhouse effect caused by CO2. Not in all of Earth’s history.
I wonder about these ‘deadlines’. Are they reached gradually, or is it that one day everything is normal and the next day is Armageddon all over again?
The ‘deadlines’ are never reached – the old ones are immediately forgotten and the new ones are a few more years ahead. Rinse and repeat but no-one ever mentions the passed ‘deadlines’ – it’s as if they never existed.
Agreed. We are now well past the first deadlines.
Also, the Hale Bopp comet has come and gone, and except for the hysterics who suicided, nothing bad happened.
1) the Hale Bopp comet has come and gone,
2) 39 hysterics from the Heaven’s Gate cult successfully indulged in suicide.
So …nothing bad happened.
No, everything in life happens on even-numbered decades.
King Charlie has just launched a new doomsday clock giving us just over 6 years to save the planet (2030) – King Charlie also does very nicely from Crown Estate incomes for renting out his nations seabeds to off shore wind farm developers – it made £440Mn last year, that goes to the treasury and a percentage goes to the Royal Family purse, likely to be around £111Mn – you’ve got to love something that makes you very wealthy, even if it impoverishes your minions – it’s important he keeps the Family in their private jet, private helicopter, multi V12 ICE lifestyle – none of that eco battery car, heat pump claptrap for his loved ones
There is one simple solution. Anyone who says this must be made to sign an affidavit stating so. All of those who sign will be removed from our fossil fuel based society and moved to reservations that are fossil fuel free. In other words give them what they want. No fossil fuel for fuel or lubrication or energy, no synthetic fibers or plastics, no fossil fuel based chemicals of any kind. I don’t know how they will make it but I don’t really care what happens to them. They can leave the reservation if they admit that fossil fuels are a good thing when used responsibly and we can’t live without them. If they lie and cause more problems they are returned to the reservation for life.
Ah the ‘Lord of the Flies’ gambit.
I’m pretty sure that during the Summer of Love, when these folks were burning down cities while showing support for a drugged up felon who died in police custody, they had their little commune experiment, CHAZ, where in the block or so of private property they violently commandeered, they quickly formed a warlord government that engaged in robbery, beatings and murder.
I found it particularly charming where they took Bloomberg’s agricultural wisdom “throw some seeds in some dirt” and attempted the experiment by laying out some plastic sheeting, throw some dirt on top, cast seed on top of it, then come out disappointed the next morning that there wasn’t a ready harvest.
They would rejoin society and sign any pledge as soon as the drugs and booze were exhausted and they craved a HotPocket.
They won’t do that, same as they won’t give up their private jets, helicopters, V12 ICE vehicles, gas boilers, beach front properties, fine foods inc meats
The mischievous part of me wishes we did go full on renewable energy and stop all oil & gas production – the ensuing anarchy would impoverish the mega rich elite globalists too, a great told you so moment – they maybe rich, but they’re not fools, they won’t allow that to happen to themselves
If the solution to alarmism is for alarmism to stop being alarmist then that is as impossible as stopping oil. I see no point here. The most we can do is fight bad arguments with good ones. That these folks can cite prominent authorities is important. They may be extreme but they are not fringe.
Happily I see no prospect of global oil production being slowed, much less stopped.
I empathise David, but you cannot fight stupid – they have an agenda and will enforce it no matter how stupid you make them look
“Happily I see no prospect of global oil production being slowed, much less stopped.”
I agree with that. Reality/self-interest demands it.
The JSO activists are useful idiots and paid for being so – no doubt their fines, if ever fined, are also paid for them
One of the UK funders, Ecotricity’s owner, Dale Vince, has a self serving vested interest in funding JSO as they protest against his energy sector competitors (oil & gas) – in the last 20 years, Ecotricity has received over £110Mn in Govt renewables subsidies and continues to do so
He has donated hundreds of thousands of pounds sterling to JSO in recent times and £1.5Mn to the UK Labour Party, who shortly afterwards announced they would stop any further oil & gas development licenses if they get into power in 2024
JSO are just the old renta-mob, in modern day orange hi-viz vests
The UK net zero peddling blobs (inc all mainstream political parties) hesitancy to deal with them slow marching on public roads, vandalising property etc would lead you to believe they also support, albeit at arms length, these eco malingerers in pursuit of yet another nudge towards their net zero objectives
“JSO are just the old renta-mob, in modern day orange hi-viz vests”
Made from oil
“Just Stop Oil’s rhetoric can be traced back to what Richard Hofstadter’s famous 1964 essay termed the “paranoid style” of politics. Hofstadter describes this approach as having an “anxiety of those who are living through the last days” and setting a date for the apocalypse.”
***********
….a date for the apocalypse.
If we all think about this, JSO and other like-minded believers in CAGW are writing a suicide note for themselves when we understand that the elimination of crude oil (and all fossil fuels for that matter) will bring about the collapse of society as it is now known.
With the widespread suffering from hunger, disease and societal and economic breakdown that is brought about from the elimination of fossil fuels, JSO members and their sympathizers have only to decide how they want to die sometime in the years ahead. Shall it be from the oncoming climate catastrophe, a collapsed economy or from self-inflicted suicide? That is some choice.
Like the members of Jonestown, the Branch Davidians and Heaven’s Gate before them, JSO gloom-and-doom cultists are just living each day not knowing they are in a cult to begin with. The manipulation and abuse of science that brought this massive cult into being demonstrates what can happen when the vast majority of the members of societies (and especially those in power) are not scientifically literate. Societies pays a dear price for it.
Of course, the tendency for humanity to succumb to mass hysteria and groupthink (especially on the Left with their collectivist thinking) is not new here. It has happened in the past to different degrees. The only real difference this time is that we are finding out that mass hysteria and cults can be based on scientific theories and hypotheses as much as they are on religion.
Good point. I would say, however:
scientific theories and hypothesesconjecture and unsupported-by-data speculation.Another big difference today is the mass hysteria can be spread around the world via the Internet.
Lots of people get infected with the CAGW “virus” (actually a mental disease).
The zip tie looks a little loose. Just sayin’
Pielke’s “need to decarbonise is nonsense.
Without oil you can’t manufacture, transport or operate solar panles and wind “turbines”.
“Pielke’s “need to decarbonise is nonsense.”
Thank you, very much! 🙂
This is misguided – the article, not just the Stop Oil fanatics. Notwithstanding Hofstadter’s cod philosophy.
For decades, climate alarmists, including scientists, have proclaimed that we have only a few years to restructure the world or face destruction from climate change (tipping points, etc) – and that the severe effects have already begun.
After the AR6 Synthesis Report, many world leaders issued literally apocalyptic statements – the Pope, the UN Secretary General, President Biden, and others. No leaders of major science institutions objected; many echoed the dire warnings.
Several generations of children have been raised from the cradle with this indoctrination.
It’s sensible to listen to experts and leaders about technical matters. Life is too short to try and figure out everything, especially for non-technical folks. So of course some people freak out. Complaining about that is like complaining that water is wet. The fault is that of our leaders.
Mocking elements of the public doesn’t help.
I read Pielke’s article, and I misjudged it.
He is spot-on in his analysis – making the same points as in my comment.
If this was a revolution, his mild and reasonable tone would be effective. But, to borrow Mao’s words, this is a Leftist revolution – not a dinner party. He is spitting into a hurricane.
Good luck with that.
He will make – well-deserved – money from subscriptions – from those who already understand.
Larry K:
Agree: Pielke’s take that stoppng oil (fossil fuels) is impossible is correct and the
JSO crowd is spouting nonsense.
Civilization is so dependent on FF that the current climate policies being promoted are likely far more dangerous to human flourishing than the climate change they fear.
And I subscribe to RP’s substack. You are correct that many [most?] of the climate related commenters there [that I’ve seen] are climate skeptics or “lukewarmers”.. There are a few who take him to task for not being sufficiently alarmist. However, for the most part he seems to emphasize rational use of models [see his work on RCP8.5 & 6.0] and realistic energy related policy. For that we should encourage him .
btw He listed several reasons why we might want to at least partially decarbonize [decrease CO2 emissions] that were not climate related: energy security, save money [decrease CO2 per unit of GDP], decrease pollution, and increase energy access to the poorer countries. All quite logical. Unlike JSO, or Extinction Rebellion, or … !
“decrease pollution”
CO2 is not pollution.
Other things released when coal, oil and natural gas are burnt, are pollutants. While modern pollution control equipment is very, very effective, they aren’t perfect.
They are however good enough that no measurable harm is being done in areas surrounding FF power plants.
Getting these areas a little bit cleaner is desirable, but you need to justify the cost.
In my opinion being more efficient is always a good thing, for all the reasons listed by Pielke, however, as always you have to balance the benefit against the cost.
If switching away from incandescents to LEDs is cost effective, people will do it on their own. If it isn’t, the benefit from a little less pollution is not sufficient to force them to switch.
If people want to buy cars that burn less fuel, then more power to them.
They can feel good about the money they save and the pollution they are preventing. But I would never advise forcing them into those smaller cars. The benefit to others is simply too small to justify the loss of liberty.
How in the WORLD did YOU (given the nonsense you have posted on WUWT over the past few years since you suddenly appeared on the scene at WUWT and were instantly granted publication of your junk articles)
get the status of an “Editor??”
A TROLL Editor??
Make the at least 10,000 years, probably longer. Just replace climate alarmist with medicine man, shaman, tribal headman, etc.
I prefer Clintels rebuttal of the IPCCs latest computer modelled comic AR6, far more competent and scientific data based
Look, it sounds reasonable to engage with them and take positive steps to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.
But let us not forget for an instant that these same people are opposed to the only two sources of carbon free power that can offer a plentiful supply, and do so inexpensively, those two being hydro power and nuclear.
Wind and solar are never going to solve anything.
On top of these basic facts, is the issue of materials.
The world needs vast amounts of raw materials on a continuous basis, and this need is only ever going to grow, at least for the near future.
The more reliance our power grids have on low density sources of energy like wind and solar, the more resources are need to gather that power…and here again, those same activists and politicians are opposed to mineral extraction, to say nothing or greatly increased mineral extraction.
On top of all of that, is the issue of energy usages that do not involve electric power, which are going to be difficult to convert to electric even if we had all we could ever use.
What this all adds up to is, the same people who want us to stop using fossil fuels are also opposed to any alternatives that are truly viable.
They block new mines, they block new power lines, they block new dams and insist we get rid of the ones we already have, they close down nuclear power plants and block even any discussion of building any new ones…
And meanwhile, these same hypocrites use just as much resources and energy as anyone, perhaps more than most people of modest means.
Besides for all of that, the result of instantly stopping all extraction of fossil fuels would be far more dire than is stated here. One immediate result would be the nearly instant cessation of crop production, transportation, and food manufacturing, at all but a de minimis level, insuring the onset of mass starvation within months. And not just any run of the mill famine, but the complete lack of food for billions of people, all at once. If it happened right this minute, the crops in the ground could not be irrigated or harvested, could not be transported to where the people that need it to eat are located, there would be no fuel for the mills and bakeries that turn the grains into flour and bread, etc, and there would be no way to preserve what we do have in storage, let alone any of what could be somehow salvaged.
IOW, it would almost instantly be a calamity far beyond the scope of what has ever occurred in all of history, and would in fact lead very quickly to the exact consequence that these fools are screaming about…billions dead, the end of civilization, and the imperilment of the majority of all human alive on the planet.
And these citified, sissified, know-nothing, do-nothing, skill-less, landless, spoiled brat rich kid activists, would live just long enough to get a very thorough education in just how ignorant they truly are.
While I respect Pielke’s reasoned take, I have a more sanguine JSO view.
JSO are obviously nutters, demanding impossible thing since . They are causing big UK problems. That helps wake people up who maybe thought climate change was a future problem because IPCC said so. Waking people up so they figure stuff out for themselves is good.
My own awakening happened in 2011 while researching the food chapter of the ebook that became published as Gaia’s Limits. No less than the NRDC provided a briefing to Congress that deliberately misrepresented an NSF summary of possible crop yield impacts, its worst case based on a provably flawed single alarmist paper about US corn and soybean yields with AGW. Was the subject of my first ever post here back then. The paper’s statistical flaw was not even subtle. it deliberately omitted from its massive by county corn yield over time regression a key cross term variable. Corn yield suffers when it is hot and dry, but NOT when it is hot and wet, during anthesis. Deliberately (yes, they provided a bogus logic for this omission of well known corn biology) omit the known hot/soil moisture anthesis term and voila—a statistically bogus future catastrophe then hyped to Congress as the expected rather than worst case.
Thanks for all the debunking you have done over the years, Rud. It’s a pleasure to read something from someone who knows what they are talking about.
You are a Great Asset for the people here at WUWT.
Hey, Just Stop Oil . . . you go first.
To show your commitment to what you espouse to—and even demand of—others, please stop your immediate purchases and use of products that contains chemicals and materials derived directly from petroleum (i.e., “oil”) resources.
I’m sure your community is, in large, ignorant of these facts, but that would include, as a minimum, clothes made from synthetic fibers such as nylon, rayon and polyester and pharmaceutical drugs derived from raw petroleum feed stock, as per:
“Petrochemicals cumene, phenol, benzene, and other aromatics are used to make not only aspirin, but also penicillin and cancer-fighting drugs. Ultimately, most drugs are organic molecules made using petrochemical polymer.”
— https://sciencenotes.org/petrochemicals-in-medicine/#
“Pharmaceuticals represent about 3% of petrochemical use but almost 99% of pharmaceuticals contain petrochemicals.”
— https://petroleumservicecompany.com/blog/history-evolution-medicine-2/#
Yes, I fully realize that as zealots, you don’t care sh#t about how your protests might adversely impact the lives of others struggling to have a comfortable life, let alone just live.
The glues they used, are almost certainly derived from oil in some way.
Too many believe that by growing hemp crops there would be enough material to make everything people need. The illogic is too obvious to belabor.
“Hey, Just Stop Oil . . . you go first.”
My sentiment exactly!
The should change their name to Just Stop Using Oil
you go first.
I actually think they don’t know that all that stuff is made from petroleum products. And if you tried to tell them they would accuse you of lying.
An unrealistic demand rooted in HYPOCRISY! JSO people use FF every day and they think that should not matter to others. CRAZY!
I don’t owe a bunch of narcissistic, leftarded morons who want to wipe out the human race by destroying humanity’s energy production a damned thing.
No one is stopping these people from not using oil. I’m pretty sure that if they tried it, they would be demanding more oil after a single day without it. Be careful what you wish for, these people look like the last group that could survive in a world with no oil.
No Pielke, we don’t owe these idiots anything. And we don’t need to de-carbonize our economy either. I used to think Pielke Jr. was on the ball, but apparently Pielke Sr. didn’t pass the intelligence on to his son.
spren:
See my post to Larry K above.
There may be reasons to lessen CO2 emissions that have nothing to do with climate.
Example: removing heavy metals, sulfur & particulates from the burning of coal is costly and yet incomplete. Switching to natural gas might be worthwhile.
Pielke is articulate, smart and occasionally witty. You may not agree with everything he says,
[I don’t] but don’t denigrate him personally. We [skeptics] need more people like him.
As the adage goes: “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good”.
Make them stop first.
A poignant pic of the Socialist Stew of Screechy Shrews emoting.
The main drive behind all this activism, are the vast amounts of money that these organizations are receiving. It’s clear, that as long as their funding goes on, the worse it’s going to get, with ever increasing extreme positions, in order to generate media attention.
Sometimes, there’s not even any serious ecological rationale remaining.
Somebody ought to put their funders in jail, for the lawbreaking that has occurred, or at least under investigation. Who are these puppet masters? Do they have the best interests of the public in their minds?
I don’t see politicians or news organizations asking these questions. Perhaps because they are all funded by the same puppet masters.
“Pielke asserts that “we need to do better by these activists.” He implores us to move away from apocalyptic rhetoric and instead engage these young people with realistic and effective policies that can make a tangible difference.”
No. The people using such apocalyptic rhetoric are aware of their falsehoods but base their careers and livelihoods on such exaggeration; they are not going to change because of someone’s request. They must be run out of the public square by revealing their lies to the general public.
Additionally, there are no “realistic and effective policies that can make a tangible difference.” By tangible difference he means significant near to medium term (out to 2050+) reductions in Man’s CO2 emissions. There are numerous credible studies of the technical and economic impossibilities of Western countries reaching Net Zero by 2050. There is also no indications that the developing countries led by China, India, Indonesia, Brazil and Russia have any desire, much less plans to reach Net Zero at any time in the future.
I respect Dr. Pielke, Jr. greatly. But we are not served well by his continued attempts to stay in the middle of the climate crisis divide. These young people don’t want the Man soothing them with his notions of “realistic and effective policies.” With no “climate” damages accruing over the next decade or so and the ongoing economic damage of climate policies becoming manifest the various movements will die out.
No armpit hair? They don’t make environmental activists like they once did.
ROFL
Very non-PC. I love it!
An organisation that trumpets a quote from Sir(?!) D.King, for whom the most relevant word within the speech marks above is “former”, is really struggling if they consider this individual has a shred of credibility left. As the mouthpiece for soi disant (and I use that phrase very deliberately) “Independent SAGE”, the group of self appointed, delusional, arrogant totalitarians, he destroyed what was left of his professional credentials consistently between 2020 and 2022 by advocating far more draconian lockdown measures – amongst others. He was regularly trotted out on the …BBC which tells you everything. He is a fully paid up member of Science 101.
From the article: “The scientific evidence is unequivocal: climate change is a threat to human wellbeing and the health of the planet. Any further delay in concerted global action will miss a brief and rapidly closing window to secure a liveable future” Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Sixth Assessment Report, Working Group II Co-Chair Hans-Otto Pörtner, 28th February 2021″
Absolutely False!
There is no unequivocal evidence, or any evidence, that CO2 is doing anything these climate alarmists claim it is doing to the atmosphere. None, whatsoever. So this clown, Hans-Otto Pörtner, is lying to the whole world. He couldn’t prove what he is saying if his life depended on it.
From the article: “Let me remind readers here that I am fully on board with the importance of decarbonizing the global economy, a topic I wrote a PhD dissertation on almost 30 years ago and my book The Climate Fix much more recently.”
Ridiculous!
Even a smart guy like Mr. Pielke can be wrong. Mr. Pielke doesn’t have any more evidence for what he says about CO2 and the Earth’s atmosphere than does Hans-Otto Pörtner. Both of them think CO2 needs regulation, but there is NO evidence this is the case. Both people are indulging in pure speculation.
How disappointing.
“Let me remind readers here that I am fully on board with the importance of decarbonizing the global economy…”
????
The Government has much to answer for in not rebutting those extreme and ridiculous claims by JSO. Public information is part of its remit. For failing the majority the parliamentarians deserve to be ousted eat the next GE. Whether decent, intelligent, and having scientific or technical understanding under their belt candidates are elected is another matter.
Actually, no. Follow the money (and the power).
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
— H.L. Mencken
Let me remind Roger Piekle jr. that being fully on board with the importance of decarbonizing the global economy makes him as much a part of the problem as Just Stop Oil.
As Roger jr. agrees with the premise, he creates the circumstances and supports the logic that produces extremist partisans. Like the liberal who wrings his hands over Antifa burning a city, all the while supporting the politics and declaiming their sincerity.
Roger jr. creates the context and provides the social matrix of agreement — the soil — from which the crazies emerge.
I let Roger jr. know about Propagation years ago. He is no more willing to change his stance on CO₂ than the most ardent just stop oil nutcase.
You’re part of the problem, Roger, jr. And no part of the solution.
“You’re part of the problem, Roger, jr. And no part of the solution.”
I agree.
What is a realistic and effective policy for a non-existent problem? Group therapy, perhaps?
That picture.
Looks like AOC forgot her glasses.
Just Stop Oil seems unaware that, in addition to fuel, some 6000 by-products are made from oil and gas compounds. If Just Stop Oil succeeds, we will have to do without these products, and that would bring modern life to a screeching halt. Asphalt for roads, synthetic rubber for tires, plastic for computer cases, cell phone cases, credit cards, blood bags, trash bags, rain coats, running shoes, insulation on electrical wires, food packaging… none of these conveniences are made from unavailium, unobtainium or pixies’ nose boogers. All of them are born in oil and gas wells. The Just Stop Oil ignoramuses need to be bodily removed from any policy-making venues and deposited in the nearest frog pond.
They themselves should lead the way by stop making use of all goods and services that make use of fossil fuels. That would include products such as wearing apparel, and food that has been moved by truck. That would include entering buildings or walking on surfaces made from materials moved by truck, plane, train, or ship that makes use of fossil fuels Apparently they have not done that.