By Robert Bradley Jr. — October 1, 2024
“The climate movement is dealing with a host of problems of its own making. The anti-CO2 crusade will have fewer and fewer defenders as reality continues to strike back.”
The Climate Industrial Complex wants to tax, regulate, and subsidize, not debate (“report, block, don’t engage,” says Michael Mann). But Climate Week NYC, hosted by Climate Group, allowed (a precious few) alternative voices to alarmism and forced energy transformation at its more than 600 advertised events and activities.
The hard core was upset. “Fossil Fuel Presence at Climate Week NYC Spotlights Dissonance in Clean Energy Transition,” complained Inside Climate News. “Blah, Blah, Blah,” wrote Liza Featherstone in TNR; “instead of being an urgent call to action, it is now the closest thing the climate movement has to a trade show, a week of fancy lunches and private drinks and flashy presentations announcing new investment funds, new green pledges from businesses and states, and thought leaders taking the opportunity to show their climate bona fides.”
AP described the event as a “money-focused fight ….” Time magazine called the confab “a Corporate Greenwashing Bonanza.” Remember what Enron CEO Jeff Skilling told his coal executive about the company’s interest in green energy and causes? “Mike, we are a green energy company, but the green stands for money.”
Anya Kamenetz, “award-winning journalist, former NPR correspondent, author of five nonfiction books, speaker, and consultant,” complained.
The The New York Times should be so embarrassed about platforming an oil executive during climate week, as well as Kevin Roberts of the The Heritage Foundation, the architects of Project 2025. This CEO told the reporter she wants to burn every drop of oil and gas left in the ground. She holds up the bullshit, unscaled and unscalable technology of direct air capture as her indulgence. This is textbook predatory delay. Why should it deserve a public airing? I applaud Climate Defiance and everyone working to revoke the social license of the fossil fuel industry.
She added in a comment:
To be clear, in the name of journalism, I have no problem with the New York Times interviewing oil company executives, preferably in the context of accountability stories about their lies, their persecution of their enemies, and greenwashing. Putting someone on a stage at a fancy event with finger foods during climate week is not journalism, though. It’s journalism-adjacent, at best.
Secondly, yes we all use plastic and gasoline and jet fuel today and we will probably be using it next year too. My idea would be to nationalize the oil companies and commit to a strong program of ratcheting down production, while pouring resources into real, promising alternatives. Many uses of plastic can be banned immediately. Commercial air flights could get a lot more expensive and schedules can be reduced. Etc.
Nationalization? Making transportation more expensive? What about consumers? Taxpayers? Energy freedom? My comment on all this was deleted by Ms. Kamenetz. But note how the climate movement is dealing with a host of problems of its own making. The anti-CO2 crusade will have fewer and fewer defenders as reality continues to strike back, the subject of tomorrow’s post.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What is there to complain about?
Tell them what will be now.
(It is… “Sewn in a dream”).
I should have penned this for MIliband…
“My idea would be to nationalize the oil companies and commit to a strong program of ratcheting down production, while pouring resources into real, promising alternatives.”
If the alternatives were “real” and were also “promising” then there would be no need for pushing the idea of nationalizing the companies that provide fuels, plastics, and petrochemicals. The “ratcheting down” would already be happening in the marketplace.
So snap out of the “my idea” mode. It is based on the fashionable misconception that emissions of CO2 from using natural hydrocarbons as fuel have a harmful impact on the climate. Incremental CO2 is not capable of driving any aspect of the climate trends – and certainly not to any harmful outcome.
That shows why Anya is a “journalist” who’s about to be replaced by AI.
Which AI will be programmed or tuned to spew the same nonsense.
maybe even more so!
Just wait until the material on which the AI is “trained” is contaminated by its own output. We may already be at that point.
Nationalize the oil companies… you can’t be serious. I think a ludicrous idea lacking merit.
Not in a socialist state.
Great lead illustration of today’s La-de-dah do-gooder intelligentsia, really is spot on.
People who spend all their time thinking about themselves and making the world a worse place.
Thank you.
Hot off the press:
In the grand scheme of things, Michael Mann has done vastly more harm to Western Society than Al Capone.
Al Capone was actually filling a need.
“Organized Bullshit”.
Another way of saying that is “The systematizing of error”.
MM a huge bullshitter, not worthy of wasting words on. Has not produced anything worthy that does not manipulate and cherry pick data in order to fit his original claim rather than the other way around. His lawsuit against National Review, CEI, Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg should / will be overturned.
“”What about consumers? Taxpayers? “”
What about dairy cows?
They have to be milked.
As usual, no numbers from the anti- CO2 warriors. At a CO2 level of 427 PPM the ratio of CO2 to atmosphere is 1/2342. In other words, each cubic foot of atmospheric CO2 is spread across 2342 cubic feet of air. Ask any heating specialist how much heat loss that tiny level of a gas would prevent.
They have one aim, well, two: deindustrialisation and rewilding
back to the glorious Paleolithic!
The concentration of CO2 is for dry air. One cubic meter of this air contains only 0.839 grams of CO2 and has a mass of 1.29 kgs. This minor trace greenhouse
gas can heat up such a large amount air by only a very, very small amount when
it absorbs OLW IR from the earth’s surface.
For a nice sunny day with temperature of 70 deg F and a RH of 70% the concentration of H20 is 17,780 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air has a mass
of 1.20 kgs and contains 14.3 grams of H20 and 0.780 grams of CO2. The amount of greenhouse effect in this air due to H20 is 97.8%
The claim by the IPCC since 1988 that CO2 is cause of global warming is a deliberate lie.
For example, if the turn around time is 1 millisecond, the potential is 1000X greater than the concentration.
Then there is this paper
https://notrickszone.com/2024/10/01/physicists-non-greenhouse-gases-o2-and-n2-are-mainly-responsible-for-the-33c-greenhouse-effect/
That paper is nonsense. O2 and N2 do not absorb IR light.
Shown in Fig. 7 is the IR absorption spectrum of humid and warm Philadelphia inner city air from 400 to 4,000 wavenumber. Integration of spectrum determined that H2O absorbed 92% of the IR light and CO2 only 8%. Since the air sample was city air, it is quite likely that the concentration of CO2 was greater than that at remote location such as rural area or over the ocean.
The paper reference is shown in the figure and the author is Joel M. Kauffman. The figure was prepared by sherro01.
The reason that a desert gets very cold at night is due the extremely low concentration of H2O in the air, i.e., no greenhouse effect.
I stand by what I posted.
As an east coast guy- I was amazed at my first trip to the American desert. I noticed the minute the sun went down- you could feel the temperature plummet.
That is nonsense. There is more to it than IR. Specific heat through convection with a warm surface has a lot to do with it.
Yes H2O is much more dominant than CO2 plus H2O has a unique molecular structure that interacts with the EM wave due to its molecular dipole moment, which CO2 does not have. H2O due to its dipole moment is energized (kinetic energy) in your microwave oven due to interaction with the uW wavefront.
But then at least half the comments here claim any IR absorbed energy is transferred to the major atmospheric gases through collisions within microseconds. Obviously the atmosphere radiates at frequencies other than IR and there is an overwhelming greater quantity of those other gases (N2 and O2).
If there is too little CO2 to be a significant factor in absorbing IR, how can such a tiny amount be significant is radiating energy away to space?
Found this on social media. I find it a great way to visualize man made CO2.
From the same people who say “If it will save one life” comes, “We should nationalize the oil industry.” It’s beyond parody. The poor governance of Atlas Shrugged was cautionary allegory, not a blueprint for how to order things.
So, then, they propose to save one life by killing millions/billions?
That seems fair. /sarc
I guarantee you that Ms Kamenetz can’t tell you the most basic properties of the Earth’ atmosphere, such as its composition and CO2 content. Another numbskull to ignore.
I would almost wager a bet she does not know what the C and the O are.
Like those chanting “from the river to the sea” but can’t name either the river or the sea.
Story tip
Petrol and diesel drivers could pay more fuel duty to stop EVs being taxed
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/motoring/motoring-news/petrol-diesel-drivers-could-pay-30045716?utm_source=mynewsassistant.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=embedded_search_item_mobile
Ya think?
Since the climate movement is indistinguishable from the Globalist, Communist and Socialist movements, I think you are on to something here.
Persecution of enemies?
WTF do they think THEY were doing?
Why can’t it be both? Every other one has been. What’s so special about this one?
I would like to have the menus published.
Award winning journalist Anya Kamenetz. You don’t need to know anymore than this to understand you are about to be deluged with mind numbing gibberish. We are not in a climate crisis, CO2 is not the control knob for our climate, we are not going to reach a tipping point and suffer irreversible global warming. Therefore Net Zero is not needed, eliminating fossil fuel is not needed, wind and solar are not needed, EVs are not needed and that means the way is clear for new fossil fuel and nuclear plants to be built. Fossil fuel and nuclear are the future, outdated and useless wind and solar should only be seen in the rear view mirror as we move on to a cleaner and prosperous future. Say goodbye to award winning journalists, they are nothing but propagandists.
I only wish the governor of Wokeachusetts would read your comment! Unfortunately, almost nobody in this state reads WUWT.
Doing the due diligence so no one else has to… you’re welcome. 🙂
Anya Kamenetz: BA in Literature
David,
Only yesterday on WUWT I commented “the green movement is populated by people so thick that their ideas seldom advance past elementary. They promote such stuff as new, fresh, innovative, when in reality there no little substance to it. “
Then today we have this green reporter woman Anya Kamenetz giving a splendid example of being as thick as two planks.
It is past time to take the gloves off. Simpleton creatures like her are doing too much damage with their kindy level dreams and a compliant press. We sceptics have been polite and gentle for too long now. We should be telling it like it is in future comments everywhere an opportunity is made or presents itself. Geoff S
“We sceptics have been polite and gentle for too long now.”
As I have said several times.. Well passed time for appeasement and politeness.
You get a chance, you attack hard.
If the namby-pambies don’t like it… So what.
Climate skeptics should have a convention here in Wokeachusetts- that would tick off the state’s “leaders” and media.
Scroll up and see your Fig. 7 from the Kauffman essay. After viewing the Fig. 7, how could these climate protesters still claim that CO2 from use of FF causes global warming and climate?
I would then ask them why is the IPCC since 1988 is making these claims that CO2 is dangerous and menacing greenhouse gas? I would inform them that these form the basis of the UN’s scheme to distribute funds via the UNFCCC and the UN COP from the rich donner countries to the poor countries to help them cope with global warming and climate change.
How are we going to inform the people of the greatest scientific fraud of recent human history and in particular the politicians before they destroy the
the economies of countries as is occurring in the UK and Germany?
BTW: my email address is: harold.d.pierce at proton.me
Nationalization ==> Socialism, the bane of mankind. Central planning by idiot bureaucrats. Lack of economic incentives. Gradual slide into the lowest economic denominator of everything. Nationalize oil and what is next? Steel? Railroads? Trucking? Agriculture? Anything the Bureaucratic Hegemony decides should be distributed by the government in order to insure “equity”?
“Central planning by idiot bureaucrats.”
burro-crats
They already have made significant progress nationalizing education and the media.
Did she name any real, promising alternatives? I didn’t think so.
The real, promising alternatives are….
“You will have nothing, but you will be happy.”
— WEF