NASA and NOAA’s Latest Climate Warning Is a Result of Purposefully Flawed Data

Image result for al gore mad

Because science is the pursuit of knowledge, and political actions almost necessarily restrict personal freedom, science, laws, and regulations should use the best available data. Using bad data undermines both the pursuit of truth and the legitimate justification of laws and regulations.

Everyone, from the far left to the far right on the political spectrum, should be able to agree about this.

Sadly, in the field of climate research and climate policy, good data, when not ignored entirely, is increasingly twisted to fit the narrative claiming that humans are causing a climate crisis. Climate action partisans, in pursuit of political power and ever increasing resources, force data to fit their delusion that humans must forego modern, industrial civilization to save humanity and the earth from climate doom.

This problem is more than evident in a recent report from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on global temperature trends. Between them, the two agencies operate the most accurate, comprehensive system of temperature measuring instruments in the world. But rather than cite data from their best sources when NASA and NOAA reported global temperatures on January 15, they chose to use severely compromised data from temperature readings adjusted—in a process called “homogenization”—they and others gathered from biased monitoring stations.

NASA and NOAA announced that 2019 was the second warmest year since modern record keeping began in 1880, helping to make the 2010s the “warmest decade on record.”

These claims are based on the utterly unreliable adjusted temperature measurements recorded by surface temperature stations scattered across the globe. These measurements, at least the raw data from them, are usually sufficiently accurate to inform local inhabitants of the temperature and weather anomalies in their area on a particular day, but as measures of actual trends telling us something important about whether humans are causing global warming, most of them are virtually worthless.

As has been hammered home repeatedly over the years by meteorologist Anthony Watts (who is also a Senior Fellow with The Heartland Institute), many of the monitoring stations throughout the United States fail to meet the standards established by the agencies themselves for reliable data measurement. Watts recorded hundreds of stations on pavement, at airports collecting jet exhaust, located next to artificial sources of hot and cold, such as air conditioning systems or commercial grill heat exhausts. Many of these stations were once located in rural areas, but are now surrounded by development, and others are rural stations where data is not recorded or monitored regularly.

After Watts’ 2014 revelations, the U.S. Office of the Inspector General issued a scathing report, almost entirely ignored by the media, that found lack of oversight, non-compliance, and a lax review process for the climate recording network led it to conclude program data “cannot be consistently relied upon by decision-makers.” In a panic, during the investigative process that resulted in the Inspector General’s report, NOAA closed approximately 600 of its most problematic weather stations.

Numerous reports have shown data manipulation is not limited to the United States, but is common across the globe. Temperatures recorded at pristine rural monitoring stations in far flung locations such as Australia, Paraguay, and Switzerland have been inexplicably homogenized so that past temperatures are now reported as cooler than were actually recorded, and recent temperatures are now reported as warmer than were recorded, necessarily making the temperature rise at these locations over the past century appear steeper and larger than the unadjusted data indicate.

NOAA violated its own rules when it undertook a similar adjustment process for recording ocean temperatures, beginning in 2015. As David Rose wrote for the Daily Mail, “[NOAA scientists] took reliable readings from [ocean] buoys but then ‘adjusted’ them upwards—using readings from seawater intakes on ships … even though readings from the ships have long been known to be too hot.” When you mix bad data with good, you no more produce reliable results than you do by adding muddy river water to purified bottle water to produce safe drinking water.

NASA and NOAA’s new report is another instance of “garbage in, garbage out,” in which their use of bad data produces flawed results, which, based on experience, will be used to push bad policies.

NASA and NOAA jointly or separately operate the U.S. Climate Reference Network, the gold standard of surface temperature data, global satellites, and weather balloons. The temperature data recorded by these three independent, unbiased temperature-measuring networks show minimal warming over the past 40 years. Yet the agencies ignored these data sets in their recent report—proving their dogmatic belief in a human-caused climate catastrophe.

NASA and NOAA are like toddlers trying to fit square pegs into round holes, and just as likely as toddlers to throw fits when their efforts are stymied by reality.

The Trump administration should steeply cut NASA and NOAA’s climate budgets until agency heads and career staff get the message they will not be rewarded for repeatedly telling “sky is falling” climate scare stories, when the truth about temperature and climate trends is, in fact, far from alarming.

H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D. ( is a senior fellow on energy and the environment at The Heartland Institute, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research center headquartered in Arlington Heights, Illinois.

Climate Predictions – Doubling Down on Stupid

Image result for Facepalm

If the “science is settled” regarding global warming, climate change, extreme weather, or whatever it goes by these days, why are past predictions not more accurate?

Weather forecasting, although frequently off the mark, is usually fairly accurate.  If snow is predicted, it typically falls.  It may be a few inches more or less than predicted but it isn’t sunny and 80 degrees on a day a major snowstorm is forecast.

Yet climate, which is a longer-term measure of weather, cannot be predicted with any more accuracy than flipping a coin or throwing dice.  Let’s look at some past predictions.

Almost twenty years ago, in 2004, the Guardian reported what U.S. defense officials at the Pentagon warned about the future climate:

Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters.

A secret report, suppressed by US defense chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020.  Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies.  The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.

As 2020 has just arrived, let’s see how those predictions turned out.  For New Year’s Day, London is predicted to have a high of 46 degrees.  While in Novosibirsk, the largest city in Siberia, the New Year’s Day high was only 23 degrees.  So much for “Britain is plunged into a Siberian climate by 2020.”

London was Siberia at one time, but 200 years ago.  Remember the snow and ice in Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol? “Dickens grew up during the coldest years of the Little Ice Age, between 1805 to 1820.”

<img src="; alt="YouTube

YouTube screen grab

As to the “nuclear conflicts, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting,” I don’t see any of that either as 2020 arrives.  Well, perhaps big media is rioting as its dreams of overturning the last election have been fruitless.

This climate prophesy also claimed, “As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions.”  One year after the 2004 report would be 2005, 15 years ago.

I don’t recall any rising sea levels or major upheavals, other than Hurricane Katrina, which flooded the below sea level city of New Orleans due to city officials not spending allocated monies on levee reinforcement.  Don’t blame corrupt financial mismanagement of American cities on global warming.

One of the report’s authors warned, “It was already possibly too late to prevent a disaster happening.  We don’t know exactly where we are in the process.  It could start tomorrow and we would not know for another five years.”  Well it didn’t start tomorrow and five years later, in 2009, the only brewing disaster facing America was Obamacare.

There is a plethora of other failed catastrophic climate predictions.  Thirty years ago, the Indian Ocean was to swallow the Maldives.  Al Gore, in 2009, predicted the North Pole Ice cap would be melted within the next five to seven years.  Yet the Maldives are still there and icebreakers are getting stuck in Arctic Sea ice.

Paul Ehrlich, a Stanford University biologist, wrote The Population Bomb in 1968.  Among his predictions:

“The battle to feed all of humanity is over.”  He later went on to forecast that hundreds of millions would starve to death in the 1970s, that 65 million of them would be Americans, that crowded India was essentially doomed, that odds were fair “England will not exist in the year 2000.”   Dr. Ehrlich was so sure of himself that he warned in 1970 that “sometime in the next 15 years, the end will come.”  By “the end,” he meant “an utter breakdown of the capacity of the planet to support humanity.”

The only end that is coming is for dirty deep state players, assuming Barr and Durham do their jobs.  But England is alive and well, and soon leaving the EU.  India seems to be thriving too.  It wasn’t a population bomb but instead a prediction bomb.

Speaking of England, Prince Charles has been predicting the end of the world as often as MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow has been telling everyone that Trump is about to be found guilty of collusion, treason, tax evasion, and coloring his hair.

In July 2009, the good prince predicted there were only 96 months to save the world.  That’s eight years, or July 2017, just a couple of months after Robert Mueller began his investigation witch-hunt against President Trump.  It wasn’t the end of the world, only the end of Rachel Maddow and the credibility of her fellow “journalists.”.

In 2015, Charles extended the deadline by 33 years.  How generous.  Too bad he didn’t give his brother, Andrew, a 33-year extension to talk his way out of his Jeffrey Epstein mess.

This year, the Prince of Wales changed his tune again, “Warning that if we don’t tackle climate change in 18 months the human race will go extinct.”  If the prince doesn’t get a handle on his brother and his underage girls, the royal family may go extinct within 18 months.

One year ago, Rep Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told us the world will end in 12 years.  Now we are down to 11 years.  The failed or flailing Democrat presidential candidates agree.

Beto O’Rourke says, “We don’t have more than 10 years to get this right.”  Mayor Pete is a bit more generous, saying, “Science tells us we have 12 years before we reach the horizon of catastrophe when it comes to our climate.”  Andrew Yang threw in the towel, announcing, “We are 10 years too late.  We need to do everything we can to start moving the climate in the right direction, but we also need to start moving our people to higher ground.”

Why don’t they all give it up and stop trying to predict the unpredictable?  The IPCC acknowledges, “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

We can only predict the obvious, that the climate does change over time.  Cooling leads to ice ages and warming melts the ice, as has been occurring on the planet for millions of years.  This has been happening long before humans roamed the Earth, drove SUVs, and grilled burgers in their backyards.

We don’t even know what normal climate is.  Is today colder than normal or warmer? Not over the past hundred years but over the past hundred million years.

For those who claim to know the unknowable, I say “How dare you,” borrowing the catch phrase of the world’s foremost climate expert, a bratty teenager from Sweden.

YouTube screen grab

The left has corrupted climate in the cause of wealth redistribution, making their braying and doomsaying nothing but noise.  This may get them a few votes, but will not prevent the next heat wave, snowstorm, or hurricane.  Time for them to give it up rather than continuing to double down on stupid.

Remember: Ice Age is Coming 1978 Science Facts?

Image result for leonard nimoy star trek

“Climate experts believe the next ice age is on its way…within a lifetime…” Leonard Nimoy 1978

The really sad part of all this is that Leonard Nimoy was right. In 1978 this is what “climate experts” believed. Like today, they were blaming the weather on humans and their polluting lifestyles. And, like today, part of the problem, along with particulate matter, was the evil carbon dioxide. As one government scientist concludes according to this 1970 article in the St. Petersburg Times, “doubling CO2 in the atmosphere…would raise surface temperatures by 3.6 Fahrenheit and [here’s the kicker] cool the lower stratosphere some 27 degrees.”  Holy iceberg, Batman!!!

Below you’ll find similar hysterics from the 1970s global cooling alarmist crowd in a long (but partial) list of 100 newspaper and magazine articles from the period. I wonder, after 15 years of no global warming, when will we start to view the hundreds if not thousands of scare stories from newspapers, magazines, and TV newscasts over the last 20 years with the same sense of humor with which we now view these stories from 40 years ago? Have fun!

Find this full list and additional videos here.

1970 – New Ice Age May Descend On Man (Sumter Daily Item, January 26, 1970)

1970 – Pollution Prospect A Chilling One (Owosso Argus-Press, January 26, 1970)

1970 – Pollution’s 2-way ‘Freeze’ On Society (Middlesboro Daily News, January 28, 1970)

1970 – Cold Facts About Pollution (The Southeast Missourian, January 29, 1970)

1970 – Pollution Could Cause Ice Age, Agency Reports (St. Petersburg Times, March 4, 1970)

1970 – Scientist predicts a new ice age by 21st century (Boston Globe, April 16, 1970)

1970 – Pollution Called Ice Age Threat (St. Petersburg Times, June 26, 1970)

1970 – Dirt Will Bring New Ice Age (The Sydney Morning Herald, October 19, 1970)

1971 – Ice Age Refugee Dies Underground (The Montreal Gazette, Febuary 17, 1971)

1971 – Pollution Might Lead To Another Ice Age (Schenectady Gazette, March 22, 1971)

1971 – Pollution May Bring Ice Age – Scientist Rites Risk (The Windsor Star, March 23, 1971)

1971 – U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming (The Washington Post, July 9, 1971)

1971 – Ice Age Around the Corner (Chicago Tribune, July 10, 1971)

1971 – New Ice Age Coming – It’s Already Getting Colder (L.A. Times, October 24, 1971)

1971 – Another Ice Age? Pollution Blocking Sunlight (The Day, November 1, 1971)

1971 – Air Pollution Could Bring An Ice Age (Harlan Daily Enterprise, November 4, 1971)

1972 – Air pollution may cause ice age (Free-Lance Star, February 3, 1972)

1972 – Scientist Says New ice Age Coming (The Ledger, February 13, 1972)

1972 – Ice Age Cometh For Dicey Times (The Sun, May 29, 1972)

1972 – There’s a new Ice Age coming! (The Windsor Star, September 9, 1972)

1972 – Scientist predicts new ice age (Free-Lance Star, September 11, 1972)

1972 – British Expert on Climate Change Says New Ice Age Creeping Over Northern Hemisphere (Lewiston Evening Journal, September 11, 1972)

1972 – Climate Seen Cooling For Return Of Ice Age (Portsmouth Times, September 11, 1972)

1972 – New Ice Age Slipping Over North (Press-Courier, September 11, 1972)

1972 – Ice Age Begins A New Assault In North (The Age, September 12, 1972)

1972 – Weather To Get Colder (Montreal Gazette, September 12, 1972)

1972 – British climate expert predicts new Ice Age (The Christian Science Monitor, September 23, 1972)

1972 – Scientist Sees Chilling Signs of New Ice Age (L.A. Times, September 24, 1972)

1972 – Science: Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, November 13, 1972)

1972 – Geologist at Case Traces Long Winters – Sees Ice Age in 20 Years (Youngstown Vindicator, December 13, 1972)

1972 – Ice Age On Its Way, Scientist Says (Toledo Blade, December 13, 1972)

1972 – Ice Age Predicted In About 200 Years (The Portsmouth Times, December 14, 1972)

1973 – The Ice Age Cometh (The Saturday Review, March 24, 1973)

1973 – ‘Man-made Ice Age’ Worries Scientists (The Free Lance-Star, June 22, 1973)

1973 – Fear Of Man-made Ice Age (Herald-Journal, June 28, 1973)

1973 – Possibility Of Ice Age Worries The Scientists (The Argus-Press, November 12, 1973)

1973 – Weather-watchers think another ice age may be on the way(The Christian Science Monitor, December 11, 1973)

1974 – Ominous Changes in the World’s Weather (PDF) (Fortune, February 1974)

1974 – Atmospheric Dirt: Ice Age Coming? (Pittsburgh Press, February 28, 1974)

1974 – New evidence indicates ice age here (Eugene Register-Guard, May 29, 1974)

1974 – Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, June 24, 1974)

1974 – 2 Scientists Think ‘Little’ Ice Age Near (The Hartford Courant, August 11, 1974)

1974 – Ice Age, worse food crisis seen (The Chicago Tribune, October 30, 1974)

1974 – Imminent Arrival of the Ice (Radio Times, November 14, 1974)

1974 – Believes Pollution Could Bring On Ice Age (Ludington Daily News, December 4, 1974)

1974 – Pollution Could Spur Ice Age, Nasa Says (Beaver Country Times, December 4, 1974)

1974 – Air Pollution May Trigger Ice Age, Scientists Feel (The Telegraph, December 5, 1974)

1974 – More Air Pollution Could Trigger Ice Age Disaster (Daily Sentinel, December 5, 1974)

1974 – Scientists Fear Smog Could Cause Ice Age (Milwaukee Journal, December 5, 1974)

**** 1974 CIA Report on climate change (or here) ****

1975 – Climate Changes Called Ominous (The New York Times, January 19, 1975)

1975 – Climate Change: Chilling Possibilities (Science News, March 1, 1975)

1975 – B-r-r-r-r: New Ice Age on way soon? (The Chicago Tribune, March 2, 1975)

1975 – Cooling Trends Arouse Fear That New Ice Age Coming (Eugene Register-Guard, March 2, 1975)

1975 – Is Another Ice Age Due? Arctic Ice Expands In Last Decade(Youngstown Vindicator, March 2, 1975)

1975 – Is Earth Headed For Another Ice Age? (Reading Eagle, March 2, 1975)

1975 – New Ice Age Dawning? Significant Shift In Climate Seen (Times Daily, March 2, 1975)

1975 – There’s Troublesome Weather Ahead (Tri City Herald, March 2, 1975)

1975 – Is Earth Doomed To Live Through Another Ice Age? (The Robesonian, March 3, 1975)

1975 – The Ice Age cometh: the system that controls our climate (The Chicago Tribune, April 13, 1975)

1975 – The Cooling World (Newsweek, April 28, 1975)

1975 – Cooling trend may signal coming of another Ice Age (The Sun, May 16, 1975)

1975 – Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead (PDF) (The New York Times, May 21, 1975)

1975 – Summer of A New Ice Age (The Age, June 5, 1975)

1975 – In the Grip of a New Ice Age? (International Wildlife, July-August, 1975)

1975 – Oil Spill Could Cause New Ice Age (Milwaukee Journal, December 11, 1975)

1976 – The Cooling: Has the Next Ice Age Already Begun? [Book](Lowell Ponte, 1976)

1976 – Ice Age Predicted (Reading Eagle, January 22, 1976)

1976 – Ice Age Predicted In Century (Bangor Daily News, January 22, 1976)

1976 – It’s Going To Get Chilly About 125 Years From Now (Sarasota Herald-Tribune, January 23, 1976)

1976 – Worrisome CIA Report; Even U.S. Farms May be Hit by Cooling Trend (U.S. News & World Report, May 31, 1976)

1977 – Blizzard – What Happens if it Doesn’t Stop? [Book] (George Stone, 1977)

1977 – The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age [Book] (The Impact Team, 1977)

1977 – The Ice Age Cometh… (New York Magazine, January 31, 1977)

1977 – The Big Freeze (Time Magazine, January 31, 1977)

1977 – Has The Ice Age Cometh Again? (Calgary Herald, February 1, 1977)

1977 – Space Mirrors Proposed To Prevent Crop Freezes (Bangor Daily News, February 7, 1977)

1977 – We Will Freeze in the Dark (Capital Cities Communications Documentary, Host: Nancy Dickerson, April 12, 1977)

1978 – The New Ice Age [Book] (Henry Gilfond, 1978)

1978 – Winter May Be Colder Than In Last Ice Age (The Deseret News, January 2, 1978)

1978 – Current Winters Seen Colder Than In Ice Age (The Telegraph, January 3, 1978)

1978 – Winter Temperatures Colder Than Last Ice Age (Eugene Register-Guard, Eugene Register-Guard, January 3, 1978)

1978 – Little Ice Age: Severe winters and cool summers ahead(Calgary Herald, January 10, 1978)

1978 – Winters Will Get Colder, ‘we’re Entering Little Ice Age’(Ellensburg Daily Record, January 10, 1978)

1978 – Geologist Says Winters Getting Colder (Middlesboro Daily News, January 16, 1978)

1978 – It’s Going To Get Colder (Boca Raton News, January 17, 1978)

1978 – Another Ice Age? (Kentucky New Era, February 12, 1978)

1978 – Another Ice Age? (Reading Eagle, February 13, 1978)

1978 – Believe new ice age is coming (The Bryan Times, March 31, 1978)

1978 – The Coming Ice Age (In Search Of TV Show, Season 2, Episode 23, Host: Leonard Nimoy, May 1978)

1978 – An Ice Age Is Coming Weather Expert Fears (Milwaukee Sentinel, November 17, 1978)

1979 – A Choice of Catastrophes – The Disasters That Threaten Our World [Book] (Isaac Asimov, 1979)

1979 – The New Ice Age Cometh (The Age, January 16, 1979)

1979 – Ice Age Building Up (Ellensburg Daily Record, June 5, 1979)

1979 – Large Glacial Buildup Could Mean Ice Age (Spokane Daily Chronicle, June 5, 1979)

1979 – Ice Age On Its Way (Lewiston Morning Tribune, June 7, 1979)

1979 – Get Ready to Freeze (Spokane Daily Chronicle, October 12, 1979)

1979 – New ice age almost upon us? (The Christian Science Monitor, November 14, 1979)

Michael Mann, Lose it’s over Australia Bushfires?

Leading Climate Alarmist Freaks Out over Australia Bushfires?

Michael Mann, arguably the world’s no. 1 climate alarmist, writes Wednesday that he is “watching climate change in action” while on holiday in Australia.

In a Guardian essay titled “Australia, your country is burning – dangerous climate change is here with you now,” Mann, best known for his debunked “hockey stick” graph showing unprecedented 20th-century global warming after centuries of supposed level temperatures, says he is witnessing the devastating effects of climate change “first hand

Mann writes that he took his family “to see the Great Barrier Reef – one of the great wonders of this planet – while we still can.”

“Subject to the twin assaults of warming-caused bleaching and ocean acidification, it will be gone in a matter of decades in the absence of a dramatic reduction in global carbon emissions,” Mann prophesies.

The Blue Mountains, as well, “another of Australia’s natural wonders,” Mann laments, “is now threatened by climate change.”

“I witnessed this firsthand,” he states.

Mann does not explain how it was possible for him to witness climate change “first hand,” which would be difficult to do, since by definition climate change — unlike weather — takes place over long periods of time.

Instead of “vast expanses of rainforest framed by distant blue-tinged mountain ranges,” Mann looked out into “smoke-filled valleys, with only the faintest ghosts of distant ridges and peaks in the background.”

“The locals, whom I found to be friendly and outgoing, would volunteer that they have never seen anything like this before. Some even uttered the words ‘climate change’ without any prompting,” Mann declares, as apparent proof that he was witnessing climate change “first hand.”

Mann goes on to make proclamations that only a publication as ideologically compromised as the Guardian would think to publish.

“The brown skies I observed in the Blue Mountains this week are a product of human-caused climate change,” Mann states.

“The warming of our planet – and the changes in climate associated with it – are due to the fossil fuels we’re burning: oil, whether at midnight or any other hour of the day, natural gas, and the biggest culprit of all, coal,” he declares.

‘White People’ Blamed For Causing Cyclone Idai in Africa – ‘Even The White Man’s Own Science Corroborates, What We Blacks Know’

Image result for yawning
BLF president Andile Mngxitama declared that the cyclone that hit Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Malawi, was “not a natural disaster but a direct consequence of the white, Western system of ecological assault for profits.” This (cyclone) is mass murder which could be prevented if the West abandoned its ways,” Mngxitama stated. 
“It’s no longer speculation – even the white man’s own science corroborates what we blacks know: Africa is paying a heavy price for the actions of the white world,” he added with a reference to “climate change” science allegedly causing increase in extreme weather.
This is not the first time that “white people” were blamed for causing bad weather or changing the climate. See: ‘Blame White People, Science Says’ – Study: White people to blame for pollution – But blacks and Hispanics suffer the most – 2019
Climate Activists: ‘White America’ condemned to Hell!? — Warmist Bill McKibben laments ‘White America’ has failed: ‘White America has fallen short’ by voting for ‘climate deniers’
Flashback 1846: White Men Blamed For Destroying The Climate For Over 200 Years

Flashback 1846: Hey Al Gore Did You Know? That White Men Blamed For Destroying The Climate For Over 200 Year?

Image result for al gore memes

1846: ‘That great changes have taken place in the climate of Australia all testimonies satisfactorily prove…It is evident to any observer,at some period, the country has been sub-ejected to the mighty action of heavy rains, and of sweeping, deluging floods…The aborigines say that the climate has undergone this change since white-man came in country’

Al Gore Climate Derangement Syndrome: Al Gore Academic Friend’s Suggests UN Use Military To Enforce Global Warming Agenda!

Image result for global warming alarm

In an interview with ABC News in Australia, Professor Wæver cautions that what he sees as “climate inaction” might draw the U.N. into considering other means to ensure its goals are met, even if that leads to global armed conflict.

What’s the carbon footprint of a military invasion? And where’s the army that the UN would use to invade a country that emits the CO2 that makes the world greener and greener?

This guy makes me even happier that I ditched academia after getting my PhD and teaching at Harvard.  Simon Kent reports for Breitbart:

The United Nations may resort to military action against states that defy its mandates on global climate action, according to Ole Wæver, a prominent international relations professor at the University of Copenhagen.

In an interview with ABC News in Australia, Professor Wæver cautions that what he sees as “climate inaction” might draw the U.N. into considering other means to ensure its goals are met, even if that leads to global armed conflict.

If there was something that was decided internationally by some more centralised procedure and every country was told ‘this is your emission target, it’s not negotiable, we can actually take military measures if you don’t fulfil it’, then you would basically have to get that down the throat of your population, whether they like it or not,” he says.

Global dictatorship, justified by a climate hoax. Does it get any more sinister?

Rounding up SUV drivers?

Photo credit: US Army

Ever wonder why so many powerful institutions adhere to the hoax?

Read more:
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Could climate change become a security issue — and threaten democracy?

Action to address climate change has been left so late that any political response will likely become an international security issue — and could threaten democracy.

That’s the view of Ole Wæver,a prominent international relations professor at the University of Copenhagen, who also says climate inaction could lead to armed conflict.

“At some point this whole climate debate is going to tip over,” he tells RN’s Late Night Live.

“The current way we talk about climate is one side and the other side. One side is those who want to do something, and the other is the deniers who say we shouldn’t do anything.”

He believes that quite soon, another battle will replace it. Then, politicians that do ‘something’ will be challenged by critics demanding that policies actually add up to realistic solutions.

When decision-makers — after delaying for so long — suddenly try to find a shortcut to realistic action, climate change is likely to “be securitised”.

Space to play or pause, M to mute, left and right arrows to seek, up and down arrows for volume.AUDIO: Hear more from Ole Wæver on climate security (Late Night Live)

Professor Wæver, who first coined the term “securitisation”, says more abrupt change could potentially threaten democracy.

“The United Nations Security Council could, in principle, tomorrow decide that climate change is a threat to international peace and security,” he says.

“And then it’s within their competencies to decide ‘and you are doing this, you are doing this, you are doing this, this is how we deal with it’.”

A risk of armed conflict?

Professor Wæver says despite “overwhelmingly good arguments” as to why action should be taken on climate change, not enough has been done.

And he says that could eventually lead to a greater risk of armed conflict, particularly in unstable political climates.

Close-up headshot of a man in glasses sitting on steps.

PHOTO: Professor Ole Wæver is currently a James Fellow in Social Sciences at the University of Sydney until January 2020. (Supplied: Lars Svankjær)

“Imagine these kinds of fires that we are seeing happening [in Australia] in a part of Africa or South-East Asia where you have groups that are already in a tense relationship, with different ethnic groups, different religious orientations,” he says.

“And then you get events like this and suddenly they are not out of each other’s way, they’ll be crossing paths, and then you get military conflicts by the push.”

He isn’t the first expert to warn of the security risks of climate change.Climate change and the ADF
Australia’s Defence Department has spelled out clearly to a Senate inquiry that climate change will create “concurrency pressures” for the Defence Force as a rise in disaster relief operations continues.

Chris Barrie, former Defence Force chief and honorary professor at the ANU’s Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, wrote in October that “climate change is a threat multiplier”.

“It exacerbates the drivers of conflict by deepening existing fragilities within societies, straining weak institutions, reshaping power balances and undermining post-conflict recovery and peacebuilding,” he wrote.

And current Defence chief Angus Campbell has warned that increased incidences of climate change-related natural disasters could stretch the capability of the ADF.

Letting ‘the dark forces’ loose

Professor Wæver argues that delayed action will lead to more drastic measures.

“The longer we wait, the more abrupt the change has to be,” he says.

“So a transformation of our economy and our energy systems that might have been less painful if we had started 20 years ago, 30 years ago.

“If we have to do that in a very short time, it becomes extremely painful.

“And then comes the question: can you carry through such painful transformations through the normal democratic system?”

He says classifying climate change as a security issue could justify more extreme policy responses


“That’s what happens when something becomes a security issue, it gets the urgency, the intensity, the priority, which is helpful sometimes, but it also lets the dark forces loose in the sense that it can justify problematic means,” he says.

This urgency, he says, could lead to more abrupt action at an international level.

“If there was something that was decided internationally by some more centralised procedure and every country was told ‘this is your emission target, it’s not negotiable, we can actually take military measures if you don’t fulfil it’, then you would basically have to get that down the throat of your population, whether they like it or not,” he says.

“A bit like what we saw in southern Europe with countries like Greece and the debt crisis and so on.

“There were decisions that were made for them and then they just had to have a more or less technocratic government and get it through.”

Partnerships as pathways

Volunteer Qld firefighter from the Rural Fire Brigade

PHOTO: Major events like bushfires elevate concerns about climate change in Australia, Professor Mark Howden says. (Supplied: Qld Dept of Community Safety)

But Mark Howden, director of the ANU’s Climate Change Institute, does not see this happening any time soon — and says it would be counter-productive in the long-term.

“I wouldn’t support that sort of hypothesised action by the UN, because I think solutions to climate change need to be a partnership,” he says.

“The way to generate persistent, long-term and positive action is by partnerships, so actually bringing people along, developing a collective vision of what could be, and making climate change not something to fear but something to take sensible decisions over.

“So for me, taking a security approach — taking a unilateral, very militaristic, interventionist approach — would break apart all those positives.

“It wouldn’t necessarilygenerate partnerships, it wouldn’t generate bottom-up action and wouldn’t generate innovation.”Paris 2030: Will we make it?
Are Australia’s efforts to curb global warming enough to meet our Paris targets? Four Corners investigates.

But, Professor Howden says, there’s an “elevated conversation happening across many different domains” about climate change in Australia, particularly because of bushfires and droughts.

He says climate-related disasters create a “step up in terms of public concern in relation to climate change” — whether or not they are linked.

“Climate-related disasters tend to get people reflecting on their lived experience and the things they value and it raises that level of concern and tends to stay high for an extended period.”

He recognises “we haven’t solved this problem”, but says the Paris Agreement — and the national and international greenhouse gas inventories that support it — still shows promise. He says “it is the only global game in town to limit climate change”.

The 2015 agreement set targets to block global warming at well below 2C, and 1.5C if possible.

But a recent UN report revealed global fossil fuel output is currently projected to overwhelm these efforts.Listen to the podcast
From razor-sharp analysis of current events to the hottest debates in politics, science and culture, Late Night Live puts you in the big picture.

“Everyone knows that those initial commitments aren’t adequate to meet the temperature targets, but they’re a start,” Professor Howden says.

“The key to the effectiveness of the Paris Agreement is the mechanism that ratchets up those commitments over time.”

Professor Howden says we should give the Paris Agreement “a chance to work” — and if it does, it will “take a chunk out” of greenhouse gas emissions.

“The big question is: is it going to happen fast enough?”

Beware Global Warming! Not Because It Will Consume Our Planet In Fire But Rather Because It Is A Trojan Horse!

Image result for al gore liar

 one that will consume our economy, our democracy and our way of life.

Ever since Michael Mann’s fantasy “hockey stick” temperature graph was thoroughly discredited and since Climategate outed institutional scale phony climate data a decade ago, the existence of actual global warming has been rendered null.  The same is true for the impact of CO2 on climate.  No experiment can confirm its impact, models can’t predict its influence and collateral data (sea level, animal populations etc.) do not confirm a correlation.

The conclusion must be that man-made climate change and the need to eliminate carbon emissions to avoid climate change simply do not exist. None of the narrative is based on objective science.  It is a massive hoax and maybe the biggest con job in history.  All the classic elements of a con job are present; the victim (mostly liberals and other virtue signalers), the play (appeal to environmental issues), the rope (emotional foundation and persuasion – the world is coming to an end), the convincer (the way it will work to your benefit – eliminate carbon and all is well) and so on.  The dangled payoff is saving the world.  As in all con jobs, the con artist gets what he wants and the mark gets nothing.

Like all cons, this one looks good to the rubes.  Who doesn’t want to save the world and breathe clean air?  The basic problem, even if the basic mechanism of eliminating CO2 to stop increasing temperatures were real, is that it would not achieve what its adherents think it would.  Let’s look at some facts.

What if we could reduce CO2 emissions?  The U.S. produces only 15 percent of the carbon emissions in the world.  The rest we have no control over.  That leaves 85 percent of emissions in place after spending trillions of dollars.

Most, if not all, of the big proposals for reduction of Carbon emissions by reducing CO2 are simply impossible, impractical or ineffective.  Eliminating coal fired electrical generating plants in the US is just one example.  The cost of shutting down the US coal industry with the attendant loss of jobs and downstream business would be astronomical. What impact would it have globally? Seventy three percent of India’s electricity is generated from coal fired power plants.  India has no plans to reduce its production and consumption of coal.  Coal India Ltd. will produce 660 million tons of coal next year, increasing to one billion tons by 2022 – 2023. 

In other words, if the U.S. destroyed its economy and eliminated all coal fired electricity production, whatever CO2 reduction that might net would be offset by the increase in coal consumption by India alone.  The Chinese Belt and Road Initiative, the largest civil engineering project in the world, will include 700 new coal fired power stations.  When they are all in operation, these plants could consume an incredible 1.8 billion tons of coal a year.  So why are the US and the UK risking catastrophe in their economies when whatever they eliminate will be more than replaced elsewhere?

This, then, brings us to the final piece of the global warming con – what role do the Green New Deal and related decarbonization programs play?

The components of the GND are staggering in magnitude, cost and audacity.  They include such “modest” proposals as shutting down the entire coal, oil and natural gas industry, requiring all housing and buildings to be rebuilt and reinsulated, eliminating all gasoline cars and trucks, forcing populations to relocate to urban areas, controlling population by selective abortion and it just goes on.

The reality of many variants of the Green New Deal and all the other absolutely preposterous proposals is that they are not even intended to address environmental issues.  Note how often you see the word “justice” associated with certain proposals.  Social justice, environmental justice, economic justice and racial justice to name a few.  These are code words that lead one back to One World Government socialist theology and redistributive economics.  The idea, in a nutshell, is to transfer enormous sums of money and other resources from first world countries in the West to third world and developing nations.  Rest assured that a significant portion will find its way into the pockets of the charlatans promoting this con through choking the energy needs of the industrialized nations and transferring that wealth to developing nations.  This is done by socialist redistribution in the name of the nebulous concept of sustainable development. 

It was, and is, necessary to create the “existential crisis” of global warming in order to scare the multitudes into following the socialist elites blindly down the path of economic destruction to global governance.

Only in the recent round of hysteria have the concepts of Marxist redistribution been introduced and the whole concept of environmental concern been taken over by a political agenda.

If one is to examine the GND closely, it speaks of five goals and three of them are solely focused on some type of social or economic “justice” rather than an environmental outcome.  The two environmental goals use language quoted from UN literature.  Much of the current virulently Marxist bent of the GND is related directly to the 1992 UN Earth Summit from which came the infamous Agenda 21 that pledged “to change the way people live, eat, learn and communicate, all in the name of saving the earth from mankind’s mistakes, particularly global warming.”  So, tying all of what we have said together let’s see what we have.

  • There is no demonstrable or provable pattern of net temperature change over a millennium so it cannot be said that we’re confronted by catastrophic global warming or cooling. 
  • While CO2 may have some impact on global temperature, its exact influence is not known and cannot be accurately modeled.  In any case, CO2 is not the sole or dominant driver of global temperature so that controlling CO2, if it could be done, would have little predictable impact on temperature.
  • No accurate predictive model of global temperature exists because the system is too complex and too many variables are either unknown or their influences and relationships are not understood.
  • If spending untold trillions of dollars on reducing CO2 in this country actually did reduce CO2 output, that reduction would be offset many times over by increases from developing nations such as China and India that have every intention of dramatically increasing their CO2 output.
  • Reliable engineering calculations show very convincingly that the chance of replacing carbon energy sources with renewable energy is exactly zero. 
  • The current global warming narrative has been hijacked by Marxist One World Order extremists to press their revolution to destroy industrialized nations and to redistribute wealth to developing nations and create a world government.

Within the above context, we can see much more clearly that powerful Marxist forces forces are using the construct of a manufactured climate crisis, populist environmental language, and public fear to prosecute their political agenda which is to destroy the Western world and create a One World Order, nirvana to a Marxist, where a group of elites run the world.  That’s the con.

Global Warming’s Apocalyptic Path!

Jesus Warns Us about the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse

lobal warming has been characterized by its critics (and occasionally by followers like Hawaii Sen. Mazie Hirono) as a religious movement. While this is correct, it is a religious movement of a special kind, that is, an apocalyptic movement. And although it is widely known that apocalyptic movements foretell an end of days, demand huge sacrifices by followers, and demonize dissent, what is less known is that these movements follow predictable patterns. The general “laws” that an apocalyptic movement follows over time explain both its short-term strength and, fortunately, its longer-term vulnerability.

In Heaven on Earth: The Varieties of the Millennial Experience (2011), Richard Landes chronicles recurring apocalyptic eruptions over the last 3,000 years. Typically there is belief in an imminent cataclysmic destruction that can only be averted by a total transformation of society. Precisely because the stakes are so high, a successful apocalyptic movement has extraordinary initial power. Believers are committed, zealous, and passionate, the urgent need for prompt action putting them at a high pitch of emotional intensity.

Landes describes the four-part life cycle of such movements. First comes the waxing wave, as those whom Landes calls the “roosters” (they crow the exciting new message) gain adherents and spread their stirring news. Second is the breaking wave, when the message reaches its peak of power, provokes the greatest turmoil, and roosters briefly dominate public life. Third is the churning wave, when roosters have lost a major element of their credibility, must confront the failure of their expectations, and mutate to survive. Last is the receding wave, as the “owls” — those who have all along warned against the roosters’ prophecies — regain ascendancy.

While Landes does not apply his apocalyptic model to global warming, the fit is obvious. In the 1980s and ’90s, a series of UN conferences on climate launched the waxing wave. This was followed at the beginning of this century by the breaking wave. In 2006, Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth (which later became a classroom staple) persuaded a broad public that man-made global warming threatened doomsday. That same year Sir Nicholas Stern, appointed by Prime Minister Tony Blair to lead a team of economists to study climate change, prophesied it would bring “extended world war” and the need to move “hundreds of millions, probably billions of people.” In 2009, then–UN Secretary Ban Ki-moon told the Global Economic Forum, “We have just four months. Four months to secure the future of our planet.”

Remarkably, in November of that same year, 2009, at the height of its urgency, the global warming apocalypse suddenly fell into the churning wave phase. Someone hacked into the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in England and downloaded emails exchanged among the top scientific climate roosters. The messages bemoan recalcitrant data that fail to support the claim of “unprecedented warming,” describe the tricks (their term) used to coax the data to buttress the theory, report efforts to keep the views of scientific dissenters out of reputable journals and UN reports, and boast of deletion of data to make it unavailable to other researchers. Given that public belief in the global warming apocalypse depended upon its supposed rock-solid scientific foundation, the scandal, dubbed “Climategate,” was devastating. Beleaguered owls, especially at the Heartland Institute, ground zero of what the mainstream media dismissed as “science deniers,” had high expectations that the credibility of the apocalypse had suffered a fatal blow.

It didn’t. One can only speculate as to the reasons. One major factor may be that political elites had become too committed to go back. Landes writes that elites are typically a hard sell, especially in the case of prophecies demanding a society self-mutilate. In this case they were won over with astonishing ease. Only a month after Climategate, in December 2009, England passed the Climate Change Act, in the works for several years, that mandated an 80-percent cut in six greenhouse gases by 2050 (relative to 1990 emissions). Journalist James Delingpole, a long-time owl, has called it “the most stupid, pointless and wasteful piece of legislation ever passed in British parliamentary history,” with the costs likely to exceed a trillion pounds. It is a mark of the inroads the apocalypse had made in the political class that there were only five dissenting votes out of the nearly 650 cast. Not to be outdone, Germany’s politicians in 2010 passed the Energiewende, a program that looked forward to cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 80 to 95 percent by 2050.

Whatever the reasons, the churning wave turned out to be a mini-wave. For a few years polls showed greater public skepticism, with the issue ranking low compared to others. But this July, a BBC program called Climategate’: 10 years on, what’s changed? found Climategate (the charges of scientific misbehavior come off in the program as “a smear”) might as well not have happened. Since then, the BBC reports, the public has reengaged, former skeptics have changed their minds, politicians are increasingly concerned, and children are speaking out “authentically.”

Rather than completing the normal cycle by going into a receding wave, the climate apocalypse has come roaring back as a breaking wave, this time with children in the forefront. (The classroom indoctrination of the previous decade paid off.) Led by a 15-year-old (now 16) in pigtails, Greta Thunberg, beginning in March millions of children in over 120 countries skipped school to embark on a series of “climate strikes.” At the March UN climate summit, Thunberg announced, “We are at the beginning of a mass extinction.” Berating the respectful audience of world leaders for having “stolen my dreams and my childhood,” she produced her electrifying (to her followers), “How dare you?”

“Time has almost entirely run out,” say the activists of Extinction Rebellion, a civil disobedience movement launched in England in October 2018 (it expanded to the U.S. this January). Its red-robed adherents have shut down traffic from London to Australia to Washington, D.C. ER, as it is called, demands that governments declare “a disaster and ecological emergency” and reduce carbon emissions to net zero by 2025. As a think tank sympathetic to the group has pointed out, this requires an end to air travel and taking 38 million cars off the road.

Nonetheless, this second breaking wave is also doomed to give way to churning and eventually receding waves. What eventually dooms apocalyptic prophecies is their failure to materialize. In the case of global warming, true believers are in a bind. The public is likely to accept a major reduction in its standard of living only if it believes “mass extinction” is the alternative. Yet the closer and more threatening the scenarios, the more they are subject to disproof. Believers may postpone the apocalyptic date, but eventually cognitive dissonance becomes too great.

What will trigger a successful “churning wave” and when it will occur is impossible to predict. But some of the factors likely to bring it closer are obvious. EU countries, with their legally binding commitments, have taken on the chief economic burden of “saving the planet.” Pushback has already begun from segments of the population feeling the effects. France’s Yellow Vest movement originated as a protest against the fuel tax President Macron sought to impose to reduce fossil fuel use (he retracted it). Last month Dutch farmers descended on Amsterdam in thousands of tractors to protest against government demands that they cull their herds to meet EU-imposed climate targets.

As the years go by and requirements for emissions reductions rise according to existing laws, these restrictions become ever more costly and burdensome to meet. Sooner or later some in the EU are bound to ask, “Why are we making these sacrifices when world CO2 emissions are rising anyway and most countries are more interested in economic growth than saving the planet?” While the Paris Climate Agreement of 2016 was considered a milestone in bringing the world on board, a report co-authored by Sir Robert Watson, former chair of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, examined the pledges made by 184 countries and found that the 28 EU nations were the only sizable emitters of greenhouse gases to make a significant commitment to reduce them. Indeed, 127 nations made their pledges for any reduction at all conditional on funding from rich nations, to the tune of 100 billion dollars a year. The Trump administration has pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Accords, leaving the EU, already struggling economically, to foot that bill as well.

Fearful of being labeled “science deniers,” European politicians have been unwilling to challenge global warming orthodoxy. But with the rise of populist parties, even that is changing, One study by the Adelphi Institute found that seven of the 21 populist parties studied were “deniers and skeptics.” In Germany, ground zero for climate virtue, Alternative for Germany is making opposition to government policies on climate change its signature issue, with co-leader Alexander Gauland declaring that renewable energy will turn Europe into a “de-industrialised settlement region covered in wind farms.” These parties are still marginal, but if establishment politicians see that they make electoral headway with the issue, they too will be tempted to reexamine their most economically self-destructive policies.

It is very important that the receding wave come as soon as possible. That’s because, as Landes points out, that apocalyptic movements are always wrong does not mean their effects are not profound. In the case of global warming, the longer the roosters are ascendant, the more difficult it is to undo the damage. Even in the United States, where at the federal level global warming hysteria has not had the impact it has had in Europe (states like New York and California are another matter) entrenched interests become very hard to dislodge. There is an ethanol lobby, a solar lobby, and a wind energy lobby, all determined to hang on to their mandates and subsidies.

Owls can feel frustrated and helpless as they see the roosters rising. But by what they do — and avoid doing — owls can bring the end nearer. The worst thing they can do is try to compete with roosters, for example by offering, as so many have done in ostensibly conservative journals of opinion, so-called market-based plans for carbon taxes. Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz of Florida has advanced a “Green Real Deal” to counter the Democrats’ Green New Deal, with the idea of appealing to young people eager for action on climate change. All this only lends more credibility to the roosters. What’s more, appeasement doesn’t work. Despite its pioneering role in the fight against climate change, its huge investment in renewables and setting binding targets even more stringent than other EU countries, Germany has seen the largest turnout of angry child planet-savers, with an estimated 1.4 million participating in a recent (September 20) school strike.

There are issues the owls can usefully exploit. While climate science is mysterious, something the public does understand is costs, and owls can demand more transparency. Recently the state of New York legally committed itself to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 by at least 85 percent over 1990 levels. If the average citizen was made aware of the huge impact on his energy bills of this exercise in climate virtue, he might find it less alluring.

The chief apocalyptic danger is not a “sixth mass extinction,” as the current crop of roosters maintain, but an economic collapse should leaders in the West succumb to their demands. Robert Harris’ 2019 novel The Second Sleep could then prove prophetic. He describes a future in which a mysterious calamity has led drastically shrunken Western societies to revert to the horse-driven, torch-lit, homespun clothed existence of their ancestors.


Image result for sgt schultz

California is about to take one giant step toward following Germany’s failed climate goals which should be a wake-up all for governments everywhere.

California is about to take one giant step toward following Germany’s failed climate goals which should be a wake-up all for governments everywhere. Yes, you guessed it, our legislatures have authorized CalEPA in the 2019 – 2020 California State budget and Assembly Bill AB 74 to conduct studies and identify strategies to manage the decline of in-state crude oil production and decrease demand and supply of fossil fuel.

Germany tried to step up as a leader on climate change, by phasing out nuclear, and pioneered a system of subsidies for industrial wind and solar that sparked a global boom in manufacturing those technologies. Today, Germany has the highest cost of electricity in the world. 

From Alberta to Australia, from Finland to France and beyond, infuriated voters are increasingly showing their displeasure with expensive energy policies imposed by politicians in an inane effort to fight purported human-caused climate change. Now you can add Chile to the growing list of countries whose governments are suffering a backlash as average people, tired of elites forcing costly climate policies down their throats with continuous proposals to raise public transport fares and energy bills.

Like Germany and a slew of other countries, California continues to make decisions based on their believe that intermittent electricity from renewable wind and solar will be the replacement to fossil fuels to run the 5th largest economy in the world. Like Germany, this has come at a HIGH COST to Californians. 

With its green dreams of an emission free state, California has not even been unable to generate enough of its own electricity in-state and imported 29% of its needs in 2018. The bad news is that imported electricity comes at higher costs and those costs are being borne by residents and businesses alike. California households are already paying 50% more, and industrial users are paying more than double the national average for electricity. 

The future of electricity in California does not bode well as the State has chosen to not challenge the closure of the States’ last nuclear zero emission generating plant at Diablo Canyon, and 3 natural gas generating plants in Southern California. 

The four upcoming losses of continuous generating electricity are:

  • 1. PG&E’s Nuclear 2,160 megawatt Generating Plant at Diablo Canyon’s to be shuttered in 2024.
  • 2. The 823 mw Natural Gas Power Plant at Scattergood in Playa Del Rey, to be shuttered in 2024.
  • 3. The 575 mw Natural Gas Power Plant at Haynes in Long Beach, to be shuttered in 2029. 
  • 4. The 472 mw Natural Gas Power Plant at Wilmington, to be shuttered in 2029.  

With NO plans for industrial wind or solar renewable intermittent electricity projects to generate “replacement” electricity in-state, especially with the huge land requirements for those renewables, there will be a need to import from other states greater percentages of California’s electricity needs in the years ahead. And as you guessed it, more costs to the consumers and businesses who are already infuriated with high costs. 

Could it be that our legislatures are also unaware that those unstoppable costs of more regulations, taxes and increased minimum wages targeted toward businesses are just passed through to the consumers of the services and products from those businesses?  Those higher costs roll directly into housing, utilities, food, and entertainment if there’s any money left, and may be very contributory to California’s growing homelessness and poverty populations.

I know our legislatures want to sunset the oil industry, BUT imagine how life was without those fossil fuels before 1900 when we had NO militaries, NO vehicles, NO airlines that now move 4 billion people around the world, NO  cruise ships that now move 25 million passengers around the world, NO merchant ships that are now moving $50 Billion dollars of products monthly through California ports, NO space program, NO medications and medical equipment, NO vaccines, NO fertilizers to help feed billions, NO tires for vehicles, and NO asphalt for roads.

Most importantly, before the 1900’s we had NONE of the 6,000 products that are manufactured from the chemicals and by-products from fossil fuels.  Interestingly from each 42-gallon barrel of crude oil, half is for those thousands of products and the other half for the fuels to run commerce. 

We’ve had more than 100 years to find alternative or generic methods to manufacture the thousands of products we get from those deep earth minerals, and to manufacture the fuels for commerce and the military. By nearly every quantifiable measure, we are better off than our pioneer predecessors because of fossil fuels. In more than a century we’ve only come up with electricity that can be generated intermittently from sunshine and wind.

When we look at what intermittent electricity from wind turbines or solar panels CANNOT do, we see they are blatant failures to qualify as replacements for the fossil fuels that produce those 6,000 products that are the basis of our lifestyles and of our numerous infrastructures, and manufacture more than 60 million gallons of fuels every day to meet the demands of the states’ commerce and nearly 40 million residents.

I believe it’s easy to understand that wind and solar alone are obviously incapable of supporting the military, airlines, cruise ship, and merchant ships. As a reminder just in case you’re still living in the pre-1900’s, without transportation and the leisure and entertainment industries, we have no commerce. 

Imagine if politicians would tell voters that their utopian vision of a world run on solar panels and windmills is a fairy tell? But instead, they have doubled down to sunset the economy with legislature verbiage that pre-determines the outcome of the CalEPA efforts to study ways to decrease the size of the in-state oil industry that’s driving (no pun intended) the California economy.

[Originally Published at Fox & Hounds]