Energy must be abundant, reliable and affordable to meet the needs of the growing world population - its jobs, prosperity and innovation. The solutions to energy production promoted by Big Green (wind and solar) are not abundant, reliable or affordable. They are the exact opposite which is why Big Green has become the biggest threat to modern civilisation since WWII, but all that is about to change.
Since the appointment of Ebell the mood barometer at the latest ‘Climate Conference’ in Morocco has fallen from optimistic to despondent.
...thousands of politicians, regulators, scientists and activists are gathered for yet another “climate conference,” this time in Marrakech, Morocco. They are shocked and despondent over the election results, and worried that the Trump Administration won’t support their agenda. They’re right.
Under the guise of preventing “dangerous manmade climate change” and compensating poor countries for alleged “losses and damages” due to climate and weather caused by rich country fossil fuel use, they had planned to control the world’s energy supplies and living standards, replace capitalism with a new UN-centered global economic order, and redistribute wealth from those who create it to those who want it.
Back in 1992 the UN made human caused global warming its weapon of choice to achieve its goal of global government. The Secretary General of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro that kick started the assault on western democracy was Maurice Strong. He wrote:
Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialised civilisations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring this about?
He has been trying and succeeding ever since. Pseudo science forced out real science and climate sceptics (contrarians) were sacked for the heresy of urging caution in interpreting computer climate models.
One prominent scientist to lose his job for warning that data and models were exaggerating the effect of carbon dioxide emissions is Roger Pielke. In the last few days, Wikileaks has shone the light on the campaign against Pielke.
I haven’t had a chance to update this blog with anything related to the surprise (to me at least) at finding myself the subject of an email in the John Podesta email leaks from Wikileaks. That email revealed that an organization that was founded and led by Podesta, the Center for American Progress [CAP], engaged in a successful effort to have me removed as a writer at 538, the “data journalism” site created by Nate Silver.
The multi-year campaign against me by CAP was partially funded by billionaire Tom Steyer, and involved 7 writers at CAP who collectively wrote more than 160 articles about me, trashing my work and my reputation. Over the years, several of those writers moved on to new venues, including The Guardian, Vox and ClimateTruth.org where they continued their campaign focused on creating an evil, cartoon version of me and my research.
Collectively, they were quite successful. The campaign ultimately led to me being investigated by a member of Congress and pushed out of the field.
I am happy to report that sometimes good science wins out in the end. Our paper has now been cited almost 250 times (Google Scholar). More importantly, our analysis now shows up in the scenarios being used for the 6th assessment of the IPCC
Given the uncertainties in equilibrium climate sensitivity and the magnitude and phasing of natural internal variability on decadal to century timescales, combined with the failure of climate models to explain the early 20th century warming and the mid-century cooling, I conclude that the climate models are not fit for the purpose of identifying with high confidence the proportional amount of natural versus human causes to the 20th century warming.
There is growing evidence that climate models are warming too much and that climate sensitivity to CO2 is on the lower end of the range provided by the IPCC. Nevertheless, these lower values of climate sensitivity are not accounted for in IPCC climate model projections of temperature at the end of the 21st century or in estimates of the impact on temperatures of reducing CO2 emissions.
I like what this writer has to say about energy policy.
There is still much that needs to be investigated in the field of “climate change.” Perhaps the best use of our limited financial resources should be in dealing with making sure that every person in the world has clean water. Perhaps we should focus on eliminating lingering diseases around the world like malaria. Perhaps we should focus on efforts to increase food production to keep pace with an ever-growing world population. Perhaps we should be focused on developing energy sources and power production that alleviates the need for dependence on fossil fuels. We must decide on how best to proceed so that we can make lives better, safer and more prosperous.