LIFE In A Fossil-Fuel-Free Utopia

before_after_fossil_fuels.png

ANOTHER must read Paul Driessen masterpiece.

Worth an intro with a few notable comments from posting at WUWT

“Loved reading this, pure common sense and reality. Thank you for posting the truth! These enviro-nutters are dangerous.” (John on August 13, 2017 at 10:08 am)

*

“I have to agree, an excellent article. Too bad it won’t get to those who need to read it. Too bad they wouldn’t read it even if it were available to them.” (Rhoda R on August 13, 2017 at 10:21 am)

*

“Our cargo cult’s easy access to…everything

Notice there’s only two types worried about global warming…

The ones that get paid..
…and the ones in affluent societies that have the leisure time to think about it

Global warming it a product of affluent societies” (Latitude on August 13, 2017 at 10:36 am)

*

The belief that Gorebal Warming is an existential threat, requiring urgent action is the product of a dumbed-down education system.

The belief that fossil fuels and nuclear power can be replaced by “renewable energy” is the product of a “participation trophy” society.

The belief that the world can painlessly transition away from fossil fuels is the product of an affluent society.

It’s a combination of STEM ignorance, a sense of entitlement and affluence.” (David Middleton on August 13, 2017 at 10:57 am

*

Why don’t they advertise a hunter-gatherer lifestyle?” (Curious George on August 13, 2017 at 1:10 pm)

 

•••

Foreword via Anthony Watts @ WUWT:

The drumbeat for a fossil-fuel-free energy utopia continues. But few have pondered how we will supposedly generate 25 billion megawatts of total current global electricity demand using just renewable energy: wind turbines, for instance. For starters, we’re talking about some 830 million gigantic 500-foot-tall turbines – requiring a land area of some 12.5 billion acres. That’s more than twice the size of North America, all the way through Central America.

But where it really gets interesting is what life would actually be like in a totally renewable electricity world. Think back to Colonial Williamsburg – the good old days. The way they really were. Not the make-believe, idyllic version of history they teach in school these days. Read on, to take a journey to the nirvana of the “stabilized climate” future.

*

Life in fossil-fuel-free utopia

Life without oil, natural gas and coal would most likely be nasty, brutish, and short

Via CFACT

Al Gore’s new movie, a New York Times article on the final Obama Era “manmade climate disaster” report, and a piece saying wrathful people 12 years from now will hang hundreds of “climate deniers” are a tiny sample of Climate Hysteria and Anti-Trump Resistance rising to a crescendo. If we don’t end our evil fossil-fuel-burning lifestyles and go 100% renewable Right Now, we are doomed, they rail.

Maybe it’s our educational system, our cargo cult’s easy access to food and technology far from farms, mines, and factories, or the end-of-days propaganda constantly pounded into our heads. Whatever the reason, far too many people have a pitiful grasp of reality: natural climate fluctuations throughout Earth history; the intricate, often fragile sources of things we take for granted; and what life would really be like in the utopian fossil-fuel-free future they dream of. Let’s take a short journey into that idyllic realm.

Suppose we generate just the 25 billion megawatt-hours (MWh) of today’s total global electricity consumption using wind turbines. (That’s not total energy consumption, and it doesn’t include what we’d need to charge a billion electric vehicles.) We’d need more than 830 million gigantic 3-MW turbines!

Spacing them at just 15 acres per turbine would require 12.5 billion acres! That’s twice the land area of North America! All those whirling blades would virtually exterminate raptors, other birds, and bats. Rodent and insect populations would soar. Add in transmission lines, solar panels, and biofuel plantations to meet the rest of the world’s energy demands – and the mostly illegal tree cutting for firewood to heat poor families’ homes – and huge swaths of our remaining forest and grassland habitats would disappear.

The renewable future assumes these “eco-friendly alternatives” would provide reliable, affordable energy 24/7/365, even during windless, sunless weeks and cold, dry growing seasons. They never will, of course. That means we will have electricity and fuels when nature cooperates, instead of when we need it.

With backup power plants gone, constantly on-and-off electricity will make it impossible to operate assembly lines, use the internet, do an MRI or surgery, enjoy favorite TV shows, or even cook dinner. Refrigerators and freezers would conk out for hours or days at a time. Medicines and foods would spoil.

Petrochemical feed stocks would be gone – so we wouldn’t have paints, plastics, synthetic fibers, or pharmaceuticals, except what can be obtained at great expense from weather-dependent biodiesel. Kiss your cotton-polyester-lycra leggings and yoga pants good-bye.

But of course all that is really not likely to happen. It would actually be far worse.

First of all, there wouldn’t even be any wind turbines or solar panels. Without fossil fuels – or far more nuclear and hydroelectric plants, which rabid environmentalists also despise – we couldn’t mine the needed ores, process and smelt them, build and operate foundries, factories, refineries, or cement kilns, or manufacture and assemble turbines and panels. We couldn’t even make machinery to put in factories.

Wind turbines, solar panels, and solar thermal installations cannot produce consistently high enough heat to smelt ores and forge metals. They cannot generate power on a reliable enough basis to operate facilities that make modern technologies possible. They cannot provide the power required to manufacture turbines, panels, batteries or transmission lines – much less power civilization.

My grandmother used to tell me, “The only good thing about the good old days is that they’re gone.” Well, they’d be back, as the USA is de-carbonized, de-industrialized, and de-developed.

Ponder America and Europe before coal fueled the modern industrial age. Recall what we were able to do back then, what lives were like, how long people lived. Visit Colonial Williamsburg and Claude Moore Colonial Farm in Virginia, or similar places in your state. Explore rural Africa and India.

Imagine living that way, every day: pulling water from wells, working the fields with your hoe and ox-pulled plow, spinning cotton thread and weaving on looms, relying on whatever metal tools your local blacksmith shop can produce. When the sun goes down, your lives will largely shut down.

Think back to amazing construction projects of ancient Egypt, Greece, or Rome – or even 18th century London, Paris, or New York. Ponder how they were built, how many people it took, how they obtained and moved the raw materials. Imagine being part of those wondrous enterprises, from sunup to sundown.

The good news is that there will be millions of new jobs. The bad news is that they’d involve mostly backbreaking labor with picks and shovels, for a buck an hour. Low-skill, low-productivity jobs just don’t pay all that well. Maybe to create even more jobs, the government will issue spoons, instead of shovels.

That will be your life, not reading, watching TV and YouTube, or playing video games. Heck, there won’t even be any televisions or cell phones. Drugs and alcohol will be much harder to come by, too. (No more opioid crisis.) Water wheels and wind mills will be back in fashion. All-natural power, not all the time.

There’ll be no paved streets – unless armies of low-skill workers pound rocks into gravel, mine and grind limestone, shale, bauxite, and sand for cement, and make charcoal for lime kilns. Homes will revert to what can be built with preindustrial technologies, with no central heat and definitely no AC.

Ah, but you folks promoting the idyllic renewable energy future will still be the ruling elites. You’ll get to live better than the rest of us, enjoy lives of reading and leisure, telling us commoners how we must live. Don’t bet on it. Don’t even bet on having the stamina to read after a long day with your shovel or spoon.

As society and especially big urban areas collapse into chaos, it will be survival of the fittest. And that group likely won’t include too many Handgun Control and Gun Free Zone devotees.

But at least your climate will be stable and serene – or so you suppose. You won’t have any more extreme weather events. Sea levels will stay right where they are today: 400 feet higher than when a warming planet melted the last mile-thick glaciers that covered half the Northern Hemisphere 12,000 years ago.

At least it will be stable and serene until those solar, cosmic ray, ocean currents, and other pesky, powerful natural forces decide to mess around with Planet Earth again.

Of course, many countries won’t be as stupid as the self-righteous utopian nations. They will still use fossil fuels, plus nuclear and hydroelectric, and watch while you roll backward toward the “good old days.” Those that don’t swoop in to conquer and plunder may even send us food, clothing, and monetary aid (most of which will end up with ruling elites and their families, friends, cronies, and private armies).

So how about this as a better option?

Stop obsessing over “dangerous manmade climate change.” Focus on what really threatens our planet and its people: North Korea, Iran, Islamist terrorism – and rampant poverty, disease, malnutrition, and early death among the billions who still do not have access to electricity and the living standards it brings.

Worry less about manmade climate cataclysms – and more about cataclysms caused by policies promoted in the name of controlling Earth’s climate, when they really end up controlling our lives.

Don’t force-feed us with today’s substandard, subsidized, pseudo-sustainable, pseudo-renewable energy systems. When better, more efficient, more practical energy technologies are developed, they will replace fossil fuels. Until then, we would be crazy to go down the primrose path to renewable energy utopia.

About the Author: Paul Driessen

Paul Driessen

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for CFACT and author of Cracking Big Green and Eco-Imperialism: Green Power – Black Death.

Related :

•••

CLIMATE CHANGE sense and reason via Paul Driessen :

MUST read Driessen :

MORE excellent Driessen :

 


Hey @Algore ! Explain this! Bottom drops out of US hurricanes in past decade

WAITING for Australian press gallery to cross-examine Al “Hurricane” Gore on this very ‘Inconvenient’ climate data…

(crickets)

Watts Up With That?

Inconvenient data for those who still insist climate change is making hurricanes more frequent is displayed in these two slides from Dr. Philip Klotzbach. As noted by Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. The bottom dropped out of US hurricanes over the last 10 years.

CommonDreams.org quoted Al Gore back in 2005:

… the science is extremely clear now, that warmer oceans make the average hurricane stronger, not only makes the winds stronger, but dramatically increases the moisture from the oceans evaporating into the storm – thus magnifying its destructive power – makes the duration, as well as the intensity of the hurricane, stronger.

Last year we had a lot of hurricanes. Last year, Japan set an all-time record for typhoons: ten, the previous record was seven. Last year the science textbooks had to be re-written. They said, “It’s impossible to have a hurricane in the south Atlantic.” We had the first…

View original post 221 more words


Former Obama Official: Bureaucrats Manipulate Climate Stats To Influence Policy

Surprise, surprise again…

“Press officers work with scientists within agencies like the National Oceanic Administration (NOAA) and NASA and are responsible for crafting misleading press releases on climate, he added.”

Watts Up With That?

by Chris White

A former member of the Obama administration claims Washington D.C. often uses “misleading” news releases about climate data to influence public opinion.

Former Energy Department Undersecretary Steven Koonin told The Wall Street Journal Monday that bureaucrats within former President Barack Obama’s administration spun scientific data to manipulate public opinion.

“What you saw coming out of the press releases about climate data, climate analysis, was, I’d say, misleading, sometimes just wrong,” Koonin said, referring to elements within the Obama administration he said were responsible for manipulating climate data.

He pointed to a National Climate Assessment in 2014 showing hurricane activity has increased from 1980 as an illustration of how federal agencies fudged climate data. Koonin said the NCA’s assessment was technically incorrect.

“What they forgot to tell you, and you don’t know until you read all the way into the fine print is that it actually decreased in…

View original post 244 more words


Bad Weather Proves Climate Change, Says WMO

Top post. Nice work Paul.
WMO, up to their ears in man-made “Global Warming” hysteria and alarmism since they teamed up with climate criminal Maurice Strong’s UNEP in the 1970’s, later implementing the eco-political UN IPCC.

Maurice Strong, “The Creator, Fabricator And Proponent Of Global Warming” hysteria.

https://climatism.wordpress.com/2013/09/17/the-creator-fabricator-and-proponent-of-global-warming-maurice-strong/

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

image

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-real-extreme-weather-wmo-world-meteorological-organization-global-warming-a7640376.html

From the “A bit of bad weather proves climate change “ Dept.

An unbelievably crass piece from the failed Independent (and doubtlessly the BBC and the rest of the dismal MSM):

There is “no room for doubt”. The astonishing weather experienced by the world last year and advances in climate science demonstrate conclusively that fossil fuel emissions are causing global warming – and something must be done about it.

That was the reaction from scientist after scientist to a new report by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), which documented record-breaking droughts, heatwaves, rainfall, melting of sea ice and a host of tangible signs observed in 2016 that the Earth’s climate has changed.

View original post 1,282 more words


THE Climate Change Farce Explained By Two Expert “Scientists”

Holdren Obama Sicence Czar

John Holdren – Barack Hussein Obama’s Science Czar

“A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States…De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation…Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided for every human being.” – John Holdren

•••

If you’re relatively familiar with the climate “debate”, you will know that the rapid cooling period from the 1940’s to the 1970’s led to climate “experts” (climate scientists) declaring the end of life as we know it, in the form of the “Global Cooling” scare:

A few examples (And apologies if these sound all too familiar with the current global warming climate change scare) :

1. In 1976 the CIA warned that (man-made) Global Cooling would bring – “Drought, Starvation, Social Unrest And Political Upheaval”:

CIA 1974 Global Cooling.jpg

21 Jul 1976 – C.I.A. WARNING – Trove

2. The UN was so concerned about man-made Global Cooling during the 1970’s that they wanted to melt the Arctic by spreading black soot on it:

UN Black Soot Arctic 1970s.jpg

02 Feb 1972 – Scientists fear for Arctic Sea ice – Trove

3. Our featured climate expert ‘John Holdren’ predicted and feared a new “Ice Age” during the 1970’s Global Cooling scare:

John Holdren Global Cooling Scare 1.jpg

John Holdren Global Cooling Scare 2

John Holdren in 1971: “New ice age” likely · zomblog

(Interestingly, the link to Holdren’s global cooling hysteria no longer exists)

•••

Now time to introduce our second climate change “Expert” (UN climate scientist) – Dr Stephen Schneider…

Steve Schneider pleaded with President Nixon for funding in order to halt the feared Global Cooling crisis of the 1970’s:

1971

Schneider Global Cooling Nixon.jpg

1977

Schneider global cooling scare

http://www.nytimes.com/1976/07/18/archives/the-genesis-strategy-a-chilling-prospect.html?_r=0

Four years later (1981) Professor Stephen Schneider became a Global Warming alarmist:

Published: August 22, 1981

A team of Federal scientists says it has detected an overall warming trend in the earth’s atmosphere extending back to the year 1880. They regard this as evidence of the validity of the ”greenhouse” effect, in which increasing amounts of carbon dioxide cause steady temperature increases.

The seven atmospheric scientists predict a global warming of ”almost unprecedented magnitude” in the next century. It might even be sufficient to melt and dislodge the ice cover of West Antarctica, they say, eventually leading to a worldwide rise of 15 to 20 feet in the sea level. In that case, they say, it would ”flood 25 percent of Louisiana and Florida, 10 percent of New Jersey and many other lowlands throughout the world” within a century or less.

A leading participant in past carbon dioxide studies has been Dr. Stephen H. Schneider of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.

STUDY FINDS WARMING TREND THAT COULD RAISE SEA LEVELS – NYTimes.com

And yes, nowadays, expert scientist John Holdren (Obama’s former science Czar), just like his comrade Professor Stephen Schneider, fears not man-made Global Cooling but Global Warming:

1997: John Holdren predicts ten degrees warming:

John Holdren 10 deg warming.jpg

The Free Lance-Star – Google News Archive Search

I don’t blame them for changing the name to “Climate Change” – covers all bases.

The perfect scam: Hot, cold, wet, dry, flood, drought, whatever – it’s all your fault…

Bigger, smaller, whatever. It’s global warming | Climatism

•••

 

 


US Congress launches climate data probe

“NOAA’s decision to withhold the documents was, he wrote, ‘without any justification in law’.

Last week Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring at the UK Met Office, admitted that notwithstanding the Pausebuster, it was clear ‘the slowdown hasn’t gone away’. The ‘pause’ is clearly visible in the Met Office’s ‘HadCRUT 4’ climate dataset, calculated independently of NOAA.”

Climate “science” finally being submitted to the proper scrutiny it deserves under the new administration.

TOM KARL et al – Time to handover the publics data, that you refused to under subpoena, when Obama ran your corrupt climate show!

Time “science” got its once good reputation back so we can make properly informed decisions with the publics money. The many trillions of their money spent so lavishly on “Climate Crisis Inc.”

Tallbloke's Talkshop

Credit: slate.com Credit: slate.com
It should be harder for NOAA to brush this off than it was when the last President was in office.
H/T GWPF

Revelations by the Mail on Sunday about how world leaders were misled over global warming by the main source of climate data have triggered a probe by the US Congress.

Republican Lamar Smith, who chairs the influential House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology, announced the inquiry last week in a letter to Benjamin Friedman, acting chief of the organisation at the heart of the MoS disclosures, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

He renewed demands, first made in 2015, for all internal NOAA documents and communications between staff behind a controversial scientific paper, which made a huge impact on the Paris Agreement on climate change of that year, signed by figures including David Cameron and Barack Obama.

View original post 407 more words


Homogenization of temperature data makes Capetown South Africa have a warmer climate record

Australia’s warmist agency BoM (Bureau of meteorology) removed the very warm temps of the late 1800’s and begins Australia’s temp record at 1910. This correlates with warm Cape Town (Southern Hemisphere) temp data, pre-1909, removed by NASA to maximise upward trend in temps, promoting the “man-made” global warming narrative.

BoM also smoothed out (removed) 1940-1970’s cooling in many regions of AUS, as seen in the Cape Town record, to create an overall warming trend.

“Man-Made” global warming, by pen and *not* CO2, indeed.

Watts Up With That?

Playing around with my hometown data, I was horrified when I found what NASA had done to it.  Even producing GISTEMP Ver 2 was counterfactual.

homogenize-definition

Guest essay by Philip Lloyd

The raw data that is fed to NASA in order to develop the global temperature series is subjected to “homogenization” to ensure that it does not suffer from such things as the changes in the method of measuring the mean temperature, or changes in readings because of changes in location. However, while the process is supposed to be supported by metadata – i.e. the homogenizers are supposed to provide the basis for any modification of the raw data.

For example, the raw data for my home city, Cape Town, goes back to 1880:

clip_image002

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistemp/STATIONS/tmp_141688160000_0_0/station.txt

The warmest years were in the 1930’s, as they were in many other parts of the globe. There was then a fairly steep decline into the…

View original post 191 more words