Coming out of academia, I accepted AGW. I voted dem. Then, I met Howard Hayden at a local American Chemical Society meeting and a brief discussion with him prompted me to question assumptions.
He along with the smartest scientist that I had ever met, set me along the skeptic path. Today, brainwashing of students is stronger than ever. Yet, I see signs of growing skepticism among them. But still, most scientists are indeed part of a mad and deranged climate crowd.
I think you and I have travelled a similar arc. We both make snarky comments and scientific comments on this site.
I was a Democrat too, but while attending an “elite” university, the steep level of indoctrination made it obvious that the main goal was not teaching. Being fed an almost constant stream of BS caused me to re-evaluate and ultimately shift my world view.
As the brainwashing of students at the middle school and high school levels becomes more obvious and more oppressive, a larger number of the kids are noticing. IMO, propaganda becomes much less effective as more and more people notice that it is obvious manipulation.
“As the brainwashing of students at the middle school and high school levels becomes more obvious and more oppressive, a larger number of the kids are noticing. “
Alas, there is no limit to the oppression that can be applied to impressionable young minds. In 1960s World History HS class We would read a few sentences about how folks in 1930s Germany were ostracized, kept out of professions, etc. prior to the rounding up.
Propaganda has to be challenged, mocked at every instance.
Q: How smart is it to teach obvious silliness for middle school and high school teacher pay levels?
Based on the answer to that question I presume that some number of students will behave more intelligently than the people serving up obvious silliness.
Let’s try to keep the highly political climate change issue non-political. Asking people to abandon bad feelings about the president at the same time as asking them to walk away from climate change is a big ask. I get political, everybody gets political, but molecules don’t vote (Irony: “molecules don’t vote” invites 2020 election retort – sure, go for it, but beware how it sounds to someone who thinks that’s a conspiracy theory).
Bashing climate science to protect fossil fuel interests is quite outdated by now. Nations install renewables to gain independence. Maybe authors here should update their talking points?
In order to establish “Truth”, science has overtaken religion. The problem however, as with religion, is who to trust. There are truths to be discovered in science but unfortunately much of what we call “science” has jumped into bed with powerful political entities. This has also happened throughout the ages with religion. Powerful empires of the past would often have religious leaders validate their campaigns. These days science is used in the same way.
So tell me this, are you really such a great arbiter of Truth, that you can absolutely and without any doubt, sincerely claim that climate science is completely untainted?
When science trades its Honest Broker status and chooses sides on an issue it has sold its heart and become just another special interest.Sadly most of our scientific societies have become just another special interest.
I think repeating these quotes by some of the “untainted” is a useful reminder.
— “We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” – Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports.
— “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” – Timothy Wirth, president of the UN Foundation.
— “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony. … climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” – Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
— “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.” – Professor Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research.
— “The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.” – Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University.
— “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” – Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace.
Remember, most scientific societies are run by people who have failed at being scientists in the first place.
Those who are good at doing science, stick with science.
Special interests never exist without an agenda. Someone has to determine what is “special” and what is not in order to get the free stuff, which is the main objective of special interests anyway.
I have many, varied “special interests”. But I don’t have an agenda I’m willing to promote that will get me free stuff, so instead, I pay the bills for those that do.
Are you referring to the reporters and so-called journalists who have forgotten (if they ever learned) about the dangers of radioactive fallout and spend their time attacking and denigrating the president for trying to prevent Iran from getting deliverable nuclear weapons? It is a problem that both American and European politicians have ignored for decades. There is little to brag about if the world economy is preserved but our children and their children die of cancers caused by radioactive iodine, strontium, cesium, carbon, and plutonium. It is a deal with the Devil to put the economy above the health of children. The hatred of Trump by the Left is so great that they can’t even see when he is doing something essential, which no one other than Israel was willing to tackle.
Not that I think M.U.R. knows what he’s talking about, but this is a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black. What were you “told to believe” about the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Professor?
Don’t you mean ” far less tainted”, or far more ” “untainted”? Rather than “far less untainted”….. which is a double negative, and therefore renders your claim as, “”climate science is “far, far more”tainted” than what is presented here””! 😉
I do agree to an extent with your sentiments though, because there are some contributors here, who are very partisan in their views. However, there are others who are highly qualified, and whose views are well worthy of careful and diligent consideration.
Mr. 1966: I’m so glad somebody else caught how his double negative boomeranged on this simple troll.
On that second point, I’m partisan but I mostly mock the lefty partisans who post here, rather than evangalizing my pov. This guy, who admits to using a different name, makes the CliScis look ridiculous.
Yep, communication is key. It’s also important to provide evidence. If the claim is that climate science is less tainted than what’s presented here (on WUWT), then the maker of the claim must provide examples or some form of evidence. Otherwise, he/she fails instantly in showing any sort of understanding of even basic science.
So, the challenge then for MyUsernamereloaded is this: give me examples of some of the tainted “science” that is presented here on WUWT. And by science, I don’t mean opinion articles, some of which definitely stray into fantasy land. Rather, I mean scientific research that has been presented by the likes of Andy May, Willis Eschenbach, Pielke Senior, and several others. Please show me how and why their science is tainted …..and particularly by comparison with mainstream climate science. I would be very interested to understand your reasoning! And please don’t just make unsubstantiated claims that they’re all in the payroll of fossil fuel entities. But if you do try going down that line, please balance this by reviewing how many climate science studies have been funded by powerful, sympathetic political entities 😉 . Now there’s a little project for you! 😅
Here’s another wee question for you, talking of independence (albeit in a different context).
Who is more likely to produce independent scientific research: retired or unfunded scientists, who don’t have any skin in the game; or scientists funded by political and/or economic interest groups?
Not exactly a Ponzi Scheme as it was originally defined.
Language is fluid and context derived definitions abound.
So we let it stand that “it is one great ponzi scheme.”
What independence? My country has gone from being able to run a reliable inexpensive electricity grid to totally importing the solar panels and wind turbines now despoiling the countryside and our reliable grid system is gone replaced by expensive power that only works some of the time and our previous generators that were slowly being shut down are now being desperately held on to, to provide power at night. We have no where safe to dispose of the solar panels when they reach the end of their useful life and we have to replace them about every 20 years. How is that independence? And why is it that the poorest in our community suffer the most from the “consciences” of the rich, supposedly educated with no f***ing idea about how things actually work.
“Maybe authors here should update their talking points?”
Maybe you should read for comprehension rather than be an example of the madness of crowds.
“climate science” as presented by the propagandists who duped you is preposterous nonsense that multiple lines of scientific evidence prove to be blatant fraud. Impossible for that to be bashed as harshly as it deserves.
Installing systems that require an increase in fossil fuel usage is the best way to become independent of fossil fuels?
Really?
Can you show anywhere in the world, where an increase in grid wide wind/solar has resulted in an actual decrease in the amount of fossil fuels being used?
Remember to factor out decreases in total energy being used that is caused by increased costs in energy and increasing grid blackouts caused by the over reliance on power systems that don’t work.
And once again, LooserName can’t support any of the wild claims it has made.
Are you stupid enough to beleive that the only reason why Germany’s energy prices are higher than it’s neighbors, is because of taxes?
Are you planning to support any of your “wild claims” about the Second Law of Thermodynamics any time soon, Professor? Are you “stupid enough to beleive [sic]” that it comes with an exception?
If you have noticed, there has been a rash of MSN articles show up starting last week that have the byline, “Curated by AI.” The major problem with them is that they only present one side. That is invariably the side they were trained with, the left-leaning news outlets on the internet.
Australia has wasted hundreds of billions of dollars on grid wind and solar. They produced 2.9% of the country’s primary energy in 2025. And none of it was actually required because there was ample coal capacity to meet the demand. So a tiny reduction in coal consumption in Australia completely offset by the increase in coal consumption in China and India.
“Nations install renewables to gain independence. Maybe authors here should update their talking points?” Which AGAIN shows how gullible they are.
To gain independence, they MUST develop domestic fossil fuel energy sources, not ban it like too many European countries have done in response to Russia directing their green idiots.
Show us that offshore wind advocates care about whales, or anything really, except raking in big bucks at the expense of taxpayers and ratepayers.
Oh wait, you can’t, because they don’t.
Kerosene was cheaper and became more available than whale oil. Period.
But what are you really advocating?
Whale oil is fine because it’s not a “fossil” oil?
Burning tree pellets from recently killed trees for Drax for power is OK but burning long dead tree fossils (coal) is not?
Kill what lives today to protect what might still be alive tomorrow?
What a cretinous article. The author seems to think the only application of whale oil was in illumination. How were mechanical devices lubricated before petroleum?
I don’t love the blunt instrument approach, it risks unnecessary pressure on the whales, but the underlying push for energy production isn’t irrational or evil.
Policy is about priorities and probabilities, not slogans. The Gulf isn’t pristine wilderness; it’s a working energy province. We can (and should) do both better: produce responsibly and conserve what we can.
Targeted mitigations, better spill prevention/tech, monitoring, and acknowledging trade-offs explicitly rather than procedural overreach or pretending energy policy has no costs.
Species recovery often succeeds better with habitat funding and active management than pure obstruction.
Rice’s whale survival probably needs more than boat slowdowns anyway.
That is a website that boasts talking about technology.
The author of that non-technical political hit piece?
Kiley Price is a reporter at Inside Climate News, with a particular interest in wildlife, ocean health, food systems, and climate change. She writes ICN’s “Today’s Climate” newsletter, which covers the most pressing environmental news each week.
Ah, I see – the whales you are refering to are the O&G Shareholders. That makes sense. Otherwise this would be the most stupid sentence from a “lead whale researcher” I’ve ever seen:
Mr. loaded: If you had a clue about the subject, you’d know it pays well. Instead, you demonstrate your ignorance (again). Here, you imagine that you’re qualified to argue with a person who has studied and published on the subject. Please reply and keep your clown act up.
If you think an “expert” on whales stating “&G is no threat” is in any shape or form credible – well, that probably explains why you fall for that climate denier nonsense.
Mr. unloaded: I think it doesn’t take much expertise to observe that whale populations recovered from near extinction after humans learned to refine oil. Mere observation puts the lie to the headline of your ridiculous article, and (per my request) keeps your clown show on the road.
What happened to my previous replies for you? I had a little project for you….. remember?
You seem to have conveniently switched track.
Just as a reminder….I asked you you to complete a little project, it was actually included within a response to another contributor, so just in case you missed it here it is:
Please give me examples of some of the tainted “science” that is presented here on WUWT. And by science, I don’t mean opinion articles, some of which definitely stray into fantasy land. Rather, I mean scientific research that has been presented by the likes of Andy May, Willis Eschenbach, Pielke Senior, and several others. Please show me how and why their science is tainted …..and particularly by comparison with mainstream climate science. I would be very interested to understand your reasoning! And please don’t just make unsubstantiated claims that they’re all in the payroll of fossil fuel entities. But if you do try going down that line, please balance this by reviewing how many climate science studies have been funded by powerful, sympathetic political entities 😉 . Now there’s a little project for you!
Apologies to all those who have already read this, I just waned to be sure MyUsernamereloaded wasn’t being distracted by whales when he already had some work to do….🧐
I guessed as much! I was pretty certain he wouldn’t be up for the challenge! I would nevertheless be very interested to learn from any fiercely stauch believer in catastrophic AGW, of their reasoning in tackling the little project I’ve set for MyUsernamereloaded.
Is “How dare you!” the phrase analogous to “Abracadabra” that allows mere mortals to perform magic? Can everyone see CO2 if they utter “How dare you!”?
strativarius
May 18, 2026 8:07 am
It would be fascinating to see someone like Dr Ridd debate a true believer, a zealot like our mad Ed. In the UK the madness more than persists, it governs. But it is in total chaos and likely will be until September allowing mad Ed to do his worst in the meantime.
They are on borrowed time. At the local and devolved elections Labour had its fundament handed to it and in a big way, massive losses. The Guardian put this out prior to the elections:
It would be fascinating to see someone like Dr Ridd debate a true believer
The problem is the true believers won’t debate, wasn’t it Gavin who walked out of an interview and a whole team of true believers refuse to debate Nigel Lawson, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer?
I recently debated with a climate true believer on the Spectator website. Said true believer cited the Hockey Stick and quoted Professor Michael Mann as an authority. I merely pointed out that Mann had been caught inflating the value of the grants supposedly lost as a result of Mark Steyn’s libel. I never received a reply.
Michael Mann may have “climate” in his job title, but his academic background — geophysics and math — makes him qualified to work for fossil fuel companies as an exploration geophysicist.
Every eco-type-scientist type I know is some level of government employee and has their salary, promotability, and prestige somewhere in the back of their mind whenever they study pine beetles, forest fires, caribou migration, icebergs, snowpack and snowmelt, fish counts in
streams on the pipeline right-of-way, and such. Not one of them can do heat transfer calcs, radiation calcs with ModTran, one of them kinda knows about Skew-T diagrams cuz is a pilot, most of them think you can curve fit fly specks on a calendar and get a scientific result about insect attraction to 2D printed patterns. One of the ecologists in our regulatory department (not government, just performing government bidding through regulatory compliance) clearly didn’t know what ambient atmospheric CO2 levels already were in stack emissions reports…such is the sorry state of practical analysis of graduates of our current education indoctrination system.
At senior levels, to protect their jobs and lifestyles they push the meme that “without them, this problem they have identified might get worse, so needs more of them, bigger departments, bigger budgets, more research, more public information disseminated, more university programs, more lectures, more published papers and journalist interviews”
….They are biased in every way and many more…with 100 times more media exposure… than they used to claim of “oil industry shills”….They don’t invite me to their parties any more…
If you live on a lonely island and start from scratch to run a mine and a company that produces renewable devices
with an abudance of renewable energy supply,
your entire renewable energy infrastructure will fall apart before you get to the point when
you can start producing renewable devices.
Even when it is finally up and running, unless you are willing to accept frequent and prolonged blackouts, you can’t run a renewable power grid without using more fossil fuels than you would have used had you just gone with the fossile fuel grid alone.
Those “pushing the buttons” don’t care. “CAGW” (and what it’s morphed into) has never been more than a lever to power and wealth.
As the projections fail (and people notice), they’ll fish around for something to scare people into submission.
(Al Gore seems to have been on the edge of the last two attempts. The “Ozone Hole” didn’t really work so he switched to “Global Warming”. And got very rich in the process.)
PS Back then, “Global Warming” was background stuff for me. It came to the foreground with Al’s “Inconvenient Truth”. Being familiar with his political “truthfulness”, I knew from the start (of my awareness of the meme), it was all political BS.
PPS Thanks, Al, for the headsup!
Actually, we’ve discovered that this ‘madness’ is a genetic mutation of the DRD4 dopamine receptor. “The Science: at USC at others say it occurs in about 25-30% of the World’s population, and causes a person to be a crazy collectivist leftist, It also can make them sociopathic, psychotic, attention seeking, violent, bi polar, depressed, artsy,
It is my impression that the ‘fossils’ associated with Bierman (University of Vermont) in the video were actually from the ice cores retrieved by Chester Langway (CRREL, Hanover, NH) during the drilling program at Camp Century (Greenland) in 1966. I don’t think that Bierman is giving proper credit to Langway both for running the US Army Corps of Engineers ice-drilling program and having the foresight to preserve the detritus found at the bottom of the drill-hole, representing the surface conditions during the Eemian. For anyone interested, search for, Langway, Chester C., (2008), US Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, ERDC/CRREL TR-08-1
I was assigned to CRREL from 1966-1968 as a Physical Science Assistant and spent a month there ostensibly supervising the last annual ice-deformation survey at Camp Tuto (east of Thule AB), which was the jump-off point for building and supplying Camp Century.
I agree wholeheartedly with Dr. Ridd.
Coming out of academia, I accepted AGW. I voted dem. Then, I met Howard Hayden at a local American Chemical Society meeting and a brief discussion with him prompted me to question assumptions.
He along with the smartest scientist that I had ever met, set me along the skeptic path. Today, brainwashing of students is stronger than ever. Yet, I see signs of growing skepticism among them. But still, most scientists are indeed part of a mad and deranged climate crowd.
I think you and I have travelled a similar arc. We both make snarky comments and scientific comments on this site.
I was a Democrat too, but while attending an “elite” university, the steep level of indoctrination made it obvious that the main goal was not teaching. Being fed an almost constant stream of BS caused me to re-evaluate and ultimately shift my world view.
As the brainwashing of students at the middle school and high school levels becomes more obvious and more oppressive, a larger number of the kids are noticing. IMO, propaganda becomes much less effective as more and more people notice that it is obvious manipulation.
“As the brainwashing of students at the middle school and high school levels becomes more obvious and more oppressive, a larger number of the kids are noticing. “
Alas, there is no limit to the oppression that can be applied to impressionable young minds. In 1960s World History HS class We would read a few sentences about how folks in 1930s Germany were ostracized, kept out of professions, etc. prior to the rounding up.
Propaganda has to be challenged, mocked at every instance.
It’s weird behavior from a generation with outlook _still_ influenced by anti-Vietnam-war and civil rights lore.
I resemble that remark.
Q: How smart is it to teach obvious silliness for middle school and high school teacher pay levels?
Based on the answer to that question I presume that some number of students will behave more intelligently than the people serving up obvious silliness.
Let’s try to keep the highly political climate change issue non-political. Asking people to abandon bad feelings about the president at the same time as asking them to walk away from climate change is a big ask. I get political, everybody gets political, but molecules don’t vote (Irony: “molecules don’t vote” invites 2020 election retort – sure, go for it, but beware how it sounds to someone who thinks that’s a conspiracy theory).
Bashing climate science to protect fossil fuel interests is quite outdated by now. Nations install renewables to gain independence. Maybe authors here should update their talking points?
In order to establish “Truth”, science has overtaken religion. The problem however, as with religion, is who to trust. There are truths to be discovered in science but unfortunately much of what we call “science” has jumped into bed with powerful political entities. This has also happened throughout the ages with religion. Powerful empires of the past would often have religious leaders validate their campaigns. These days science is used in the same way.
So tell me this, are you really such a great arbiter of Truth, that you can absolutely and without any doubt, sincerely claim that climate science is completely untainted?
No, but it’s far, far less untainted than what is presented here.
When science trades its Honest Broker status and chooses sides on an issue it has sold its heart and become just another special interest.Sadly most of our scientific societies have become just another special interest.
I think repeating these quotes by some of the “untainted” is a useful reminder.
— “We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” – Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports.
— “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” – Timothy Wirth, president of the UN Foundation.
— “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony. … climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” – Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
— “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.” – Professor Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research.
— “The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.” – Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University.
— “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” – Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace.
Thanks for the list! Saved,
Add this statement by Ottmar Edenhoffer to your list:
“Climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”
For more quotes about wealth redistribution by him go to:
http://www.azquotes.com/author/30381-Ottmar-Endhoffer.
You missed this statesman’s campaign platform plank:
“We choose truth over facts.” – Joe Biden
Inconvenient facts!
Remember, most scientific societies are run by people who have failed at being scientists in the first place.
Those who are good at doing science, stick with science.
influenced by the “rewards” they are offered by political movements
Special interests never exist without an agenda. Someone has to determine what is “special” and what is not in order to get the free stuff, which is the main objective of special interests anyway.
I have many, varied “special interests”. But I don’t have an agenda I’m willing to promote that will get me free stuff, so instead, I pay the bills for those that do.
Care to prove that, or are you just repeating what you have been told to believe again?
Have you watched the news recently? Thought about it?
In other words, you can’t prove that.
BTW, are you really trying to claim that the news is unbiased and untainted?
Are you referring to the reporters and so-called journalists who have forgotten (if they ever learned) about the dangers of radioactive fallout and spend their time attacking and denigrating the president for trying to prevent Iran from getting deliverable nuclear weapons? It is a problem that both American and European politicians have ignored for decades. There is little to brag about if the world economy is preserved but our children and their children die of cancers caused by radioactive iodine, strontium, cesium, carbon, and plutonium. It is a deal with the Devil to put the economy above the health of children. The hatred of Trump by the Left is so great that they can’t even see when he is doing something essential, which no one other than Israel was willing to tackle.
Not that I think M.U.R. knows what he’s talking about, but this is a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black. What were you “told to believe” about the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Professor?
Maybe if you decided to become an adult or possibly to give up your addiction and cease posting nonsense, this would be a tad less tainted.
Don’t you mean ” far less tainted”, or far more ” “untainted”? Rather than “far less untainted”….. which is a double negative, and therefore renders your claim as, “”climate science is “far, far more”tainted” than what is presented here””! 😉
I do agree to an extent with your sentiments though, because there are some contributors here, who are very partisan in their views. However, there are others who are highly qualified, and whose views are well worthy of careful and diligent consideration.
Mr. 1966: I’m so glad somebody else caught how his double negative boomeranged on this simple troll.
On that second point, I’m partisan but I mostly mock the lefty partisans who post here, rather than evangalizing my pov. This guy, who admits to using a different name, makes the CliScis look ridiculous.
Yep, communication is key. It’s also important to provide evidence. If the claim is that climate science is less tainted than what’s presented here (on WUWT), then the maker of the claim must provide examples or some form of evidence. Otherwise, he/she fails instantly in showing any sort of understanding of even basic science.
So, the challenge then for MyUsernamereloaded is this: give me examples of some of the tainted “science” that is presented here on WUWT. And by science, I don’t mean opinion articles, some of which definitely stray into fantasy land. Rather, I mean scientific research that has been presented by the likes of Andy May, Willis Eschenbach, Pielke Senior, and several others. Please show me how and why their science is tainted …..and particularly by comparison with mainstream climate science. I would be very interested to understand your reasoning! And please don’t just make unsubstantiated claims that they’re all in the payroll of fossil fuel entities. But if you do try going down that line, please balance this by reviewing how many climate science studies have been funded by powerful, sympathetic political entities 😉 . Now there’s a little project for you! 😅
Here’s another wee question for you, talking of independence (albeit in a different context).
Who is more likely to produce independent scientific research: retired or unfunded scientists, who don’t have any skin in the game; or scientists funded by political and/or economic interest groups?
So-called “climate science” is massively tainted by the HUGE funds available in the climate trough.
It is one great ponzi scheme.
Not exactly a Ponzi Scheme as it was originally defined.
Language is fluid and context derived definitions abound.
So we let it stand that “it is one great ponzi scheme.”
The funding for “climate propaganda” is several magnitudes more than the funding for “climate reality”.
We all know which one is tainted, twisted and deranged by the HUGE amount of funds available from the climate trough.
Here’s my proposal: we’ll stop bashing climate “scientists” when they stop lying. Note that this has nothing to do with “fossil fuel interests”.
What independence? My country has gone from being able to run a reliable inexpensive electricity grid to totally importing the solar panels and wind turbines now despoiling the countryside and our reliable grid system is gone replaced by expensive power that only works some of the time and our previous generators that were slowly being shut down are now being desperately held on to, to provide power at night. We have no where safe to dispose of the solar panels when they reach the end of their useful life and we have to replace them about every 20 years. How is that independence? And why is it that the poorest in our community suffer the most from the “consciences” of the rich, supposedly educated with no f***ing idea about how things actually work.
“Maybe authors here should update their talking points?”
Maybe you should read for comprehension rather than be an example of the madness of crowds.
“climate science” as presented by the propagandists who duped you is preposterous nonsense that multiple lines of scientific evidence prove to be blatant fraud. Impossible for that to be bashed as harshly as it deserves.
Some are willing dupes.
Installing systems that require an increase in fossil fuel usage is the best way to become independent of fossil fuels?
Really?
Can you show anywhere in the world, where an increase in grid wide wind/solar has resulted in an actual decrease in the amount of fossil fuels being used?
Remember to factor out decreases in total energy being used that is caused by increased costs in energy and increasing grid blackouts caused by the over reliance on power systems that don’t work.
Still waiting for you to respond to my line by line smackdown of your comment on the open thread here
I’ll not hold my breath.
About what? Yes, Pakistan isn’t perfekt, but EVs ans solar offer their best way forward.
And it’s nice that you discovered taxes on energy, remember it next time people talk about energy prices in germany 😉
You need to go back and reread slowly
Pakistan has next to ZERO wind and solar.
Pakistan is a basket case. But then you knew that?
Why did Germany increase taxes on energy? Was there something they were trying to pay for?
And once again, LooserName can’t support any of the wild claims it has made.
Are you stupid enough to beleive that the only reason why Germany’s energy prices are higher than it’s neighbors, is because of taxes?
“LooserName” doesn’t make sense. “LoserName” maybe?
Are you planning to support any of your “wild claims” about the Second Law of Thermodynamics any time soon, Professor? Are you “stupid enough to beleive [sic]” that it comes with an exception?
You are long on opinions but short on facts.
To gain independence.
bwahahaha
Thanks for the belly laugh.
Salon, as described on the website is a woke, DEI infested, anti-Trump rag that claims to do balanced reporting but only covers one side of any issue.
If you have noticed, there has been a rash of MSN articles show up starting last week that have the byline, “Curated by AI.” The major problem with them is that they only present one side. That is invariably the side they were trained with, the left-leaning news outlets on the internet.
And speaking of brainwashed children, here’s LooserName.
Along with the Professor, who tells us that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is more like a “Guideline” or “Suggestion” of Thermodynamics.
Yes, countries do want reliable energy of their own.
That is why Oil and Gas are surging around the world.
https://www.gep.com/blog/mind/south-americas-offshore-oil-boom
https://energyinafrica.com/insights/oil-and-gas-projects-africa/
https://angolanminingoilandgas.com/africas-energy-sector-surges-in-2025-with-major-oil-and-gas-discoveries/
https://www.moore-global.com/news/africas-41-billion-upstream-oil-and-gas-investment-surge-in-2026/
https://www.el-balad.com/17006073
(Norway’s massive expansion.)
https://energyinafrica.com/insights/nigeria-libya-race-oil-producer/
https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/malaysia-oil-and-gas-market
https://www.afr.com/companies/energy/qld-s-taroom-trough-emerges-as-australia-s-new-oil-frontier-20260210-p5o11p
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Argentinas-Shale-Boom-Is-Rewriting-South-Americas-Energy-Map.html
https://panamericanworld.com/en/magazine/homepage-sections/guyanas-oil-boom-growth-records-and-challenges/
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Brazils-Oil-Production-Keeps-Growing.html
Such deluded garbage.
Australia has wasted hundreds of billions of dollars on grid wind and solar. They produced 2.9% of the country’s primary energy in 2025. And none of it was actually required because there was ample coal capacity to meet the demand. So a tiny reduction in coal consumption in Australia completely offset by the increase in coal consumption in China and India.
“Nations install renewables to gain independence. Maybe authors here should update their talking points?”
Which AGAIN shows how gullible they are.
To gain independence, they MUST develop domestic fossil fuel energy sources, not ban it like too many European countries have done in response to Russia directing their green idiots.
Story tip for CFACT:
Whales need to be saved!
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/03/trump-convenes-god-squad-to-override-endangered-species-act-up-oil-production/
Show me you care about them when it’s not offshore-wind.
Show us that offshore wind advocates care about whales, or anything really, except raking in big bucks at the expense of taxpayers and ratepayers.
Oh wait, you can’t, because they don’t.
No whataboutism, I know there is someone from CFACT posting here, maybe they are brave enough to reply to this.
The guy who employs wataboutism as it’s sole argument, get’s it’s panties in a wad when the tactic is thrown back in it’s face.
100%!!!!!!!!
Around the world:
There are over 15,000 WTG platforms in the ocean.
There are approximately 12,000 O&G platforms in the ocean.
Not ironically, Standard Oil and companies like it that refined crude oil saved whales.
Quality of their kerosene was on par with that of whale lamp oil. We could always go back to renewable lamp oil and even jet fuel.
The Whale Oil Myth
https://www.egr.uh.edu/parameters/2020-spring/whale-oil-myth
In your opinion, there was never a need for whales to be harvested for their oil. The whalers were just out there for kicks?
They just liked to tickle the old ivories.
You’re on top denial form today.
Long before the discovery of petroleum, the world turned to whales to power its lamps, machines, and industries.
https://uptownerd.wordpress.com/2024/12/10/before-petroleum-the-era-of-whale-oil/
Another Attenborough prize beckons.
Kerosene was cheaper and became more available than whale oil. Period.
But what are you really advocating?
Whale oil is fine because it’s not a “fossil” oil?
Burning tree pellets from recently killed trees for Drax for power is OK but burning long dead tree fossils (coal) is not?
Kill what lives today to protect what might still be alive tomorrow?
What was whale oil used for in the 1800s? – The Institute for Environmental Research and Education
What a cretinous article. The author seems to think the only application of whale oil was in illumination. How were mechanical devices lubricated before petroleum?
For once, I’m on board with MUR (well mostly):
I don’t love the blunt instrument approach, it risks unnecessary pressure on the whales, but the underlying push for energy production isn’t irrational or evil.
Policy is about priorities and probabilities, not slogans. The Gulf isn’t pristine wilderness; it’s a working energy province. We can (and should) do both better: produce responsibly and conserve what we can.
Targeted mitigations, better spill prevention/tech, monitoring, and acknowledging trade-offs explicitly rather than procedural overreach or pretending energy policy has no costs.
Species recovery often succeeds better with habitat funding and active management than pure obstruction.
Rice’s whale survival probably needs more than boat slowdowns anyway.
That is a website that boasts talking about technology.
The author of that non-technical political hit piece?
Kiley Price is a reporter at Inside Climate News, with a particular interest in wildlife, ocean health, food systems, and climate change. She writes ICN’s “Today’s Climate” newsletter, which covers the most pressing environmental news each week.
O&G is no threat while OSW is a huge threat. I do not speak for CFACT but I am their lead whale researcher.
Ah, I see – the whales you are refering to are the O&G Shareholders. That makes sense. Otherwise this would be the most stupid sentence from a “lead whale researcher” I’ve ever seen:
Hope it pays well to be a “whale researcher”
Mr. loaded: If you had a clue about the subject, you’d know it pays well. Instead, you demonstrate your ignorance (again). Here, you imagine that you’re qualified to argue with a person who has studied and published on the subject. Please reply and keep your clown act up.
If you think an “expert” on whales stating “&G is no threat” is in any shape or form credible – well, that probably explains why you fall for that climate denier nonsense.
If you put more thought into your points and less into creative insults, you might be better received.
Mr. unloaded: I think it doesn’t take much expertise to observe that whale populations recovered from near extinction after humans learned to refine oil. Mere observation puts the lie to the headline of your ridiculous article, and (per my request) keeps your clown show on the road.
What happened to my previous replies for you? I had a little project for you….. remember?
You seem to have conveniently switched track.
Just as a reminder….I asked you you to complete a little project, it was actually included within a response to another contributor, so just in case you missed it here it is:
Please give me examples of some of the tainted “science” that is presented here on WUWT. And by science, I don’t mean opinion articles, some of which definitely stray into fantasy land. Rather, I mean scientific research that has been presented by the likes of Andy May, Willis Eschenbach, Pielke Senior, and several others. Please show me how and why their science is tainted …..and particularly by comparison with mainstream climate science. I would be very interested to understand your reasoning! And please don’t just make unsubstantiated claims that they’re all in the payroll of fossil fuel entities. But if you do try going down that line, please balance this by reviewing how many climate science studies have been funded by powerful, sympathetic political entities 😉 . Now there’s a little project for you!
Apologies to all those who have already read this, I just waned to be sure MyUsernamereloaded wasn’t being distracted by whales when he already had some work to do….🧐
Mr. 1966: He disappears and changes user names as necessary, don’t expect actual, intelligent engagement.
I guessed as much! I was pretty certain he wouldn’t be up for the challenge! I would nevertheless be very interested to learn from any fiercely stauch believer in catastrophic AGW, of their reasoning in tackling the little project I’ve set for MyUsernamereloaded.
Why, you – you – you Witch Denier! How dare you!
Is “How dare you!” the phrase analogous to “Abracadabra” that allows mere mortals to perform magic? Can everyone see CO2 if they utter “How dare you!”?
It would be fascinating to see someone like Dr Ridd debate a true believer, a zealot like our mad Ed. In the UK the madness more than persists, it governs. But it is in total chaos and likely will be until September allowing mad Ed to do his worst in the meantime.
They are on borrowed time. At the local and devolved elections Labour had its fundament handed to it and in a big way, massive losses. The Guardian put this out prior to the elections:
A reason to vote Labour tomorrow: we are the only party taking the climate crisis seriously
Well, people didn’t vote Labour. Ergo…
The problem is the true believers won’t debate, wasn’t it Gavin who walked out of an interview and a whole team of true believers refuse to debate Nigel Lawson, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer?
It would be fascinating- and highly unlikely.
I recently debated with a climate true believer on the Spectator website. Said true believer cited the Hockey Stick and quoted Professor Michael Mann as an authority. I merely pointed out that Mann had been caught inflating the value of the grants supposedly lost as a result of Mark Steyn’s libel. I never received a reply.
Michael Mann may have “climate” in his job title, but his academic background — geophysics and math — makes him qualified to work for fossil fuel companies as an exploration geophysicist.
Every eco-type-scientist type I know is some level of government employee and has their salary, promotability, and prestige somewhere in the back of their mind whenever they study pine beetles, forest fires, caribou migration, icebergs, snowpack and snowmelt, fish counts in
streams on the pipeline right-of-way, and such. Not one of them can do heat transfer calcs, radiation calcs with ModTran, one of them kinda knows about Skew-T diagrams cuz is a pilot, most of them think you can curve fit fly specks on a calendar and get a scientific result about insect attraction to 2D printed patterns. One of the ecologists in our regulatory department (not government, just performing government bidding through regulatory compliance) clearly didn’t know what ambient atmospheric CO2 levels already were in stack emissions reports…such is the sorry state of practical analysis of graduates of our current education indoctrination system.
At senior levels, to protect their jobs and lifestyles they push the meme that “without them, this problem they have identified might get worse, so needs more of them, bigger departments, bigger budgets, more research, more public information disseminated, more university programs, more lectures, more published papers and journalist interviews”
….They are biased in every way and many more…with 100 times more media exposure… than they used to claim of “oil industry shills”….They don’t invite me to their parties any more…
Activists with a degree are that kind of people whose only interest is to get a coffe job,
where they get a well paid government employment for life.
And therefore they are capitalistic to the core as they want an eternal return of investment.
“get a coffe job,”
Did you mean like a job at Starbucks? 😎
(Sorry. It was there. I had to ask.)
You cannot build a renewable power grid without increasing fossil fuel usage to actually build the grid.
Thus the proposed solution will make the problem worse.
If you live on a lonely island and start from scratch to run a mine and a company that produces renewable devices
with an abudance of renewable energy supply,
your entire renewable energy infrastructure will fall apart before you get to the point when
you can start producing renewable devices.
Which has already happened in some African countries.
Unreliable electricity supply is not much better than no electricity supply at all.
If you can’t use it when you need it.. it is pointless.
Bamboos is a poor conductor of electricity.
Even when it is finally up and running, unless you are willing to accept frequent and prolonged blackouts, you can’t run a renewable power grid without using more fossil fuels than you would have used had you just gone with the fossile fuel grid alone.
Those “pushing the buttons” don’t care. “CAGW” (and what it’s morphed into) has never been more than a lever to power and wealth.
As the projections fail (and people notice), they’ll fish around for something to scare people into submission.
(Al Gore seems to have been on the edge of the last two attempts. The “Ozone Hole” didn’t really work so he switched to “Global Warming”. And got very rich in the process.)
PS Back then, “Global Warming” was background stuff for me. It came to the foreground with Al’s “Inconvenient Truth”. Being familiar with his political “truthfulness”, I knew from the start (of my awareness of the meme), it was all political BS.
PPS Thanks, Al, for the headsup!
Actually, we’ve discovered that this ‘madness’ is a genetic mutation of the DRD4 dopamine receptor. “The Science: at USC at others say it occurs in about 25-30% of the World’s population, and causes a person to be a crazy collectivist leftist, It also can make them sociopathic, psychotic, attention seeking, violent, bi polar, depressed, artsy,
We need to test for it. And reopen the asylums.
It is my impression that the ‘fossils’ associated with Bierman (University of Vermont) in the video were actually from the ice cores retrieved by Chester Langway (CRREL, Hanover, NH) during the drilling program at Camp Century (Greenland) in 1966. I don’t think that Bierman is giving proper credit to Langway both for running the US Army Corps of Engineers ice-drilling program and having the foresight to preserve the detritus found at the bottom of the drill-hole, representing the surface conditions during the Eemian. For anyone interested, search for, Langway, Chester C., (2008), US Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, ERDC/CRREL TR-08-1
I was assigned to CRREL from 1966-1968 as a Physical Science Assistant and spent a month there ostensibly supervising the last annual ice-deformation survey at Camp Tuto (east of Thule AB), which was the jump-off point for building and supplying Camp Century.