THE Greatest Threat To The Environment Is Not Affluence, It’s Poverty


Border between Haiti and the Dominican Republic: Guess which country contains eco-criminals that can afford to use fossil fuels, and which country contains nature-lovers who are dependent on natural renewable organic biomass for energy? (99% of Haiti’s forests have been decimated, not for building materials, but for cooking fuel.)

WHEN the New York Times hired climate ‘Lukewarmer’ Bret Stephens as a contributing columnist in late April 2017, a collective cry of treasonous rage was heard throughout the deep-green environmental community. How dare anyone question whether we should accept absolutely every pronouncement of imminent eco-doom at face value?!

A snippet of the enraged reporting at the time from the usual suspects…

Climate Scientists Cancelling Their New York Times Subscription Over Hiring of Climate Denialist Bret Stephens

By Graham Readfearn • Thursday, April 27, 2017 – 16:59

A New York Times defence of its hiring of a climate science denialist as a leading columnist is pushing high-profile climate scientists to cancel their subscriptions.

Professor Stefan Rahmstorf, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impacts Research in Germany, is the latest scientist to write publicly to the New York Times detailing his reasons for cancelling their subscriptions.

The NYT has hired former Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens as a writer and deputy editorial page editor.

Stephens wrote several columns while at the WSJ disparaging climate science and climate scientists, which he has collectively described as a “religion” while claiming rising temeperatures may be natural.

The NYT has been defending its decision publicly, saying that “millions of people” agree with Stephens on climate science and just because their readers don’t like his opinions, that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be heard.

But the NYT defence has angered scientists.

Climate Scientists Canceling Their New York Times Subscription Over Hiring of Climate Denialist Bret Stephens | DeSmogBlog


Huffington Post also joined the fun…

13 Better Things To Read Than Bret Stephens’ First New York Times Column

The Gray Lady’s newest hire used his debut column to defend his record of climate science denial.

29/04/2017 9:09 AM AEST
Alexander C. Kaufman Business & Environment Reporter, HuffPost

The New York Times took a lot of heat for hiring Bret Stephens, a former opinion writer at The Wall Street Journal, as its newest columnist. There was a lot to criticize. In his storied tenure on some of the most radically conservative pages in print journalism, Stephens accused Arabs of suffering a “disease of the mind,” railed against the Black Lives Matter movement and dismissed the rise of campus rape as an “imaginary enemy.”

But Stephens’ views on climate change ― namely that the jury is still out on whether burning fossil fuels is the chief cause ― drew the widest condemnation. ThinkProgress admonished the Gray Lady for hiring an “extreme climate denier,” and famed climatologist Michael Mann backed them up in the critique. DeSmog Blog, a site whose tagline reads “clearing the PR pollution that clouds climate science,” reported on a letter from climate scientists who are canceling their subscriptions to the newspaper over its latest hire. In These Times’ headline pointedly asked: “Why the Hell did the New York Times just hire a climate denier?”

Even the Times’ own reporters publicly questioned the hire.

13 Better Things To Read Than Bret Stephens’ First New York Times Column |HuffPo

(via WUWT)


STEPEHENS has recently written another reasoned column in the Times that has no doubt sent the eco-freaks into another predictable tailspin!

IN the Feb 8 opinion piece, “Apocalypse Not“, Stephens argues that a healthy environment is dependent on a healthy economy first, namely a capitalist one.

“The foolish idea that capitalism is the enemy of the environment misses the point that environmentalism is itself a luxury that few poor countries can adequately afford. If you doubt this, contrast the air and water quality in New York City with that of any similar-sized city in the developing world.”

A view not shared by radical environmental groups who, including the UN, believe that in order to “save the planet” we must fundamentally change the current economic development model. Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN’s Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC) herself admitted that the goal of environmentalists is to destroy capitalism.

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years since the Industrial Revolution.” – Christiana Figueres Brussels February, 2015

FIGUERES even went so far as to affirm that Communism is the best model to fight global warming.

IN other words, the real agenda is concentrated political authority. Global warming is the hook.

GLOBAL Warming theory has long abandoned any connection it has with actual science. It is has become as ideology. A new religion. Australia’s former Prime Minister Tony Abbott likening it to, socialism masquerading as environmentalism“.

IN 2013, UN IPCC co-chair of Working Group 3 Dr. Ottmar Endenhoefer unleashed this stunning revelation…


HIGHLIGHTS from Stephens’ must read column in the times…

Apocalypse Not

Norman Borlaug, the 1970 Nobel Peace Prize laureate.CreditMicheline Pelletier/Sygma, via Getty Images

In 1919, the director of the U.S. Bureau of Mines offered a dire warning for the future. “Within the next two to five years the oil fields of this country will reach their maximum production, and from that time on we will face an ever-increasing decline.”

Nearly a century later, in July 2010, The Guardian ran a story with an ominous headline: “Lloyd’s adds its voice to dire ‘peak oil’ warnings.” Citing a report by the storied London insurer, the newspaper warned that businesses were “underestimating catastrophic consequences of declining oil,” including oil at $200 a barrel by 2013, a global supply crunch, and overall “economic chaos.”

I thought of these predictions on seeing the recent news that the United States is on the eve of breaking a 47-year production record by lifting more than 10 million barrels of crude a day. That’s roughly twice what the U.S. produced just a decade ago, and may even put us on track to overtake Saudi Arabia and even Russia as the world’s leading oil producer. As for global production, it rose by some 11 percent just since the Lloyd’s report, and by almost 200 percent since 1965.

Call it yet another case of Apocalypse Not.


“In best-selling books and powerful speeches, Vogt argued that affluence is not our greatest achievement but our biggest problem,” Mann writes. “Our prosperity is temporary, he said, because it is based on taking more from than earth than it can give. If we continue, the unavoidable result will be devastation on a global scale, perhaps including our extinction.”

In our own day, people like Bill McKibben and Naomi Klein have made careers saying more or less the same thing. This is a world where the clock is permanently set at two minutes to midnight, and where only a radical transformation of modern society (usually combining dramatic changes in personal behavior along with a heavy dose of state intervention) can save us.


The foolish idea that capitalism is the enemy of the environment misses the point that environmentalism is itself a luxury that few poor countries can adequately afford. If you doubt this, contrast the air and water quality in New York City with that of any similar-sized city in the developing world.

I fall in the Borlaugian camp. That’s worth noting because one of the more tedious criticisms by the environmental left is that people like me “don’t care about the environment.” But imputing bad faith, stupidity or greed is always a lousy argument. Even conservatives want their children to breathe.


Borlaugians are environmentalists, too. They simply think the road to salvation lies not through making do with less, but rather through innovation and the conditions in which innovation tends to flourish, greater affluence and individual freedom most of all.


If environmental alarmists ever wonder why more people haven’t come around to their way of thinking, it isn’t because people like me occasionally voice doubts in newspaper op-eds. It’s because too many past predictions of imminent disaster didn’t come to pass.

(Climatism bolds)

Read Stephens’ excellent piece in full here…


PLEASE Tip The Climatism Jar To Help Keep The Good Fight Alive!

(Still waiting for that “big oil” cheque to arrive in the mail!)

Click this link for brief info…TQ

Donate with PayPal


Related :

Climate Science related :



PROFESSIONAL Climate Alarmists Threatening Australia’s Billion Dollar Tourism Industry

“So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems…” Tim Flannery 2007

“There is a fair chance Perth will be the 21st century’s first ghost metropolis.”
– Tim Flannery Climate Council

This planet is on course for a catastrophe.
The existence of Life itself is at stake
– Tim Flannery Climate Council


WHEN the Abbott Government axed the Climate Commission in 2013, in what was its very first act of government, professional alarmist Tim Flannery and his mates immediately created a Climate Council to keep up their propagandising.

IT wasn’t a hard decision for then PM Abbott to make considering the string of outlandish claims made by Flannery and the Commission…

IN what was to be their final report and parting gift to the Australian taxpayer, the Climate Commission’s 2013 “Critical Decade” report, claimed that there is a one-in-two chance that there will be no humans left on the planet by 2100

“There’s a one in two chance that by 2100 there’ll be no human beings left on this planet. The planet will exist, but it’s just that my granddaughter won’t be part of it. And I think that’s a pretty alarming statistic, probability, one in two chance if we don’t correct our behaviours.” – Former Defence Force chief Admiral Chris Barrie releasing the Climate Commission’s 2013 doomist report

SINCE then, the Climate Council has maintained its position as Australia’s premier alarmism generating machine. Every year the level of hysteria increasing faster than global temperatures.

THEIR latest report couched in pseudo-science and alarmism claims that Australia’s $40 billion tourism industry is at risk thanks to your sinful existence…

Roger Franklin in Quadrant:

This morning Tim Flannery & Co [at the Climate Council] must be tickled pink to see how much adverse publicity they have generated [with their report last week], and not merely in the domestic press. From Pakistan to the Caribbean there are stories today about the slow death of the Great Barrier Reef, the intolerable heat allegedly set to afflict the Red Centre and how big chunks of Hobart will be swallowed by the heat-swollen waters of the Great Southern Ocean.

That there are casualties and collateral damage as a consequence of one organisation’s blinkered determination to promote itself and its allies’ climate cause should not need to be stated…

[T]here were no reassuring words from Queensland Tourism Minister Kate Jones… So how did the tourism minister react to the Climate Council’s codswallop and bleak appraisal of tourism’s future? Why, God help us, she endorsed it!….

That impression that North Queensland (and the Centre and Hobart, too) are not worth a visit would be hard to avoid in light of the Reef-is-dying coverage the Climate Council orchestrated. Below, a collection of international headlines and snippets re-broadcasting word of the Reef’s impending demise:

From Pakistan:

Australian Tourism Industry Under Climate Change Threat

From Singapore:

Climate change threatens Aussie tourism

From the far-off Caribbean:

Australia tourism industry under climate change threat – study

From the Middle East and broadcast to the entire world:

Why are coral reefs important and why are they dying?

From Britain’s home-counties edition of the Guardian:

Tourism is the Australian industry least prepared for climate change, report says

From China:

Climate change to cripple Australian tourism industry: report

From Malaysia:

Australia tourism industry under climate change threat, study warns

From the US, for seniors who travel:

Aussie tourism hotspots threatened by climate change

For international investors:

Australia’s popular tourist destinations are in the climate firing line: report

All in all, not a bad day’s damage for the Climate Council to inflict on an innocent industry.

The Climate Council’s Global Damage — Quadrant Online

THIS latest episode of climate alarmism churned out of Flannery’s panic-factory, based solely on the ‘evidence’ of broken and overheated UN IPCC computer models further trashes Australia’s international reputation, directly affecting the crucial tourist industry and the livelihoods of the good people who are employed within it.

MORE evidence that climate alarmism has cost far more than any slight global warming ever could!

ONLY recently, three surveys conducted showed an estimated 175,000 fewer tourists could visit Australia based on the coral bleaching threat. A threat since proven alarmist and overblown.

AT risk, an estimated 10,000 jobs. How many more are at risk now?

WHO will be made accountable or held responsible for the exaggeration of data and wreckless alarmism? No one, of course. Because again, the worst any climate change alarmist can ever be accused of is an excess of “Save the planet” virtue.

Mad times.


PLEASE Donate To Climatism To Help Keep The Good Fight Alive!


See more Flannery :

Related :

Leo Hitches A Ride Again!

“Act On Climate” “Climate Action” “Science Says So” “Climate March” “Moral Issue Of Our Time” blah blah blah 🤦‍♂️


By Paul Homewood

ScreenHunter_1783 Jan. 08 18.01

Top hypocrite Leo’s been at it again, flying back to LA by private jet from his Aspen skiing holiday. That should really help fight global warming!

Air miles: Environmentalist

The usual excuse was given:

But if he was truly serious, he would be giving his buddies an earful about using such carbon spewing transport, and not encouraging their behaviour.

And if he was really serious, there is always the bus!


View original post

Alan Carlin: None of the climate alarmist apocalypses have occurred or are even possible

“The alarmists’ 12 apocalyptic predictions have proved uniformly wrong. That’s zero percent correct.”

WITH so much of the public’s money spent (Trillion upon trillions) on “Climate Change” aka “Global Warming” aka “Climate Disruption” aka “Climate Crisis”, any sane person would naturally conclude that there is an actual “Climate Crisis”.

HOWEVER, outside of overheated U.N. climate models and daily hysteria from the sycophant lamestream media, there is still no tangible “Climate Crisis”.

THE name change from “global warming” to “climate change” is perhaps the biggest giveaway. Owing to the peer-reviewed, scientific fact that the planet stopped warming around 20 years ago.

ENTER “climate change” – hot, cold, wet, dry, flood, drought, blizzard – it’s all your fault and you and your “unsustainable” lifestyles are ‘changing’ the weather – whatever that means.

AND, what is the mythical perfect climate that alarmists want? What if we stop ALL hydrocarbon based energy tomorrow and there’s a hurricane next year? Or what happens if Australia has a heatwave? How many days should it last? How much less or more rain is better if we get serious and live in caves? Will the weather be eternally idyllic for modern cave-dwelling?

WILL the pontificators of the media driven climate hysteria; DiCaprio, Al Gore, Obama, Bill Nye, The Pope et al live in caves too?

CLEARLY they won’t. But why not? After all, there is a genuine “climate crisis” right? Or at least they tell us that there is. Everyday.

EITHER way, cave or no cave, Leonardo DiCaprio’s new island development is a serious death trap according to what he preaches atop the U.N. pulpit. Whoever advised him to build on an island when sea levels are meant to rise by 10-100 feet by 2100 according to experts like Leo.

MAYBE, just maybe he’s lying his ass off to feed the biggest scientific fraud ever perpetrated upon mankind.

Tallbloke's Talkshop

Earth and climate – an ongoing controversy
Lack of predictive success is a strong warning sign that something is amiss in the world of climate science in general and its modelling in particular.

The climate alarmists have long tried to sell their apocalyptic scam by claiming that their policies will avoid catastrophic increases in global temperatures, writes Alan Carlin.

The Daily Caller has recently inventoried some of the widely publicized such climate apocalypses predicted over the last 30 years by examining 12 of them.

The alarmists’ 12 apocalyptic predictions have proved uniformly wrong. That’s zero percent correct.

View original post 67 more words

GLOBAL WARMING Alarmists – The Real “Science” Deniers

Paul Bongiorno.jpg

Image: Paul Bongiorno, RN ABC Breakfast Political Commentator (ABC RN/Elliot Dunn)

“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.” – Bertrand Russell

A STARK lesson in climate facts and data Vs ABC groupthink eco-ideology via “denier” numero uno – Andrew Bolt of The Herald Sun.

MAKE your own mind up. Who really are the real “science deniers”, the sceptics or the “save the planet” virtue-signalling, eco-zealots? …


The real “deniers” are generally not the global warming sceptics but the extremists who denounce them. Take ABC commentator Paul Bongiorno, who today denied the science in attacking Tony Abbott’s speech in London overnight.

Tony Abbott:

In most countries, far more people die in cold snaps than in heat waves, so a gradual lift in global temperatures, especially if it’s accompanied by more prosperity and more capacity to adapt to change, might even be beneficial.

ABC presenter Fran Kelly on ABC Radio Breakfast quoted this at Paul Bongiorno this morning. His response:

This just flies in the face of contemporary science.

Actually, it’s warmist Paul himself who flies in the face of science.

Cold weather is 20 times as deadly as hot weather... The study — published in the British journal The Lancet — analyzed data on more than 74 million deaths in 13 countries between 1985 and 2012. Of those, 5.4 million deaths were related to cold, while 311,000 were related to heat.

Same story in Australia:

A new study published in The Lancet shows 6.5% of deaths in this country are attributed to cold weather, compared with 0.5% from hot weather. Most deaths will be from cardiovascular and respiratory disease, as it’s the heart and lungs that struggle when we are outside our comfort zone.

And global warming policies of the kind Bongiorno supports will make the dying worse by making electricity too expensive for the poor:

The situation has become so dire that 77 per cent of low-income NSW households are going without heating in a bid to reduce their onerous power bills, new research from the NSW Council of Social Service (NCOSS) shows. And one in three low-income earners have been forced to stop using hot water for bathing to pay for energy bills.

Then there’s the increased crops we’re getting as the world (mildly) warms.


Australia’s winter grain harvest is now officially the largest for every single mainland state.

Last week:

The latest indications for the current season point to record cereal production in 2017 at the world level with total inventories hitting a new peak.

World crops.jpeg

World cereal crops

It’s the invincible ignorance of Bongiorno that staggers me. Confronted with facts that challenge his ideology he instinctively denies them, and, indeed, went on to insult Abbott as someone he falsely claimed had said he couldn’t be believed unless he’d written it down (which, incidentally, Abbott had actually done in this case).

And what of Fran Kelly? She fancies herself as someone who is pretty well informed on global warming, which she, too, spruiks.

But to Bongiorno’s false claims she offered not a word of demurral.


Astonishingly, the Fairfax reporter is also astonished by Abbott’s claim, finding it so remarkable that she leads her report with it:

Tony Abbott says voters should beware the science of climate change but argues that higher temperatures “might even be beneficial” because “far more people die in cold snaps”.

Lancet reports that more people die in the cold than the heat and Fairfax doesn’t blink. But when Abbott says it Fairfax faints.



Climatism Related Hot Links :

CLIMATE Ambulance Chaser – Peter Hannam – Blames Houston’s Residents For Harvey!

FAILING Fairfax Media’s resident climate change catastrophist Peter Hannam is officially off his meds, blaming Houston’s residents for the weather!

HANNAM couldn’t even wait for Harvey and the flooding to subside, for residents to find dry land, before slapping them around as the “self-styled “world capital of the oil and gas industry”” – brutishly and falsely linking the fossil fuel industry to extreme weather events.

MEMO to Peter : There is NO evidence that the use of fossil fuels has had any effect on “extreme weather”. In fact, even the alarmist UN IPCC begrudgingly admitted in their last climate report (AR5) a level of “low confidence” that human greenhouse gas emissions have had any effect on extreme weather events.

IN the IPCC’s own words from their SREX report : “We Do Not Know If The Climate Is Becoming More Extreme”.

FURTHERMORE, Hurricane Harvey that made landfall in Texas as a category four, ended America’s record 4,324 day major hurricane drought.

BUT, climate facts like these don’t seem to sit well for the alarmist ‘journalists’ over at Fairfax…the one’s that still remain!

PETER, if you’d even bothered to google ‘Galveston Hurricane‘ before perversely smearing and sliming Texan residents, you might have found this piece of perspective via wikipedia:

Screen Shot 2017-08-29 at , August 29, 12.37.55 PM

On September 8, 1900, a Category 4 hurricane ripped through Galveston, Texas, killing an estimated 6,000 to 8,000 people. It is still North America’s worst natural disaster ever recorded.


HOW developed were the Texan oil fields 117 years ago, Peter?


See also : EXTREME WEATHER Expert: “World Is Presently In An Era Of Unusually Low Weather Disasters” | Climatism


More via Herald Sun’s Andrew Bolt :

Sydney Morning Herald alarmist Peter Hannan stoops to a new low as floods hit Houston.

He treats weather as climate.

He ignores evidence that cyclones have actually got fewer over the past decades.

And he then blames the victims:

Yes, Houston, you do have a problem, and – as insensitive as it seems to bring it up just now – some of it is your own making…

Houston is facing worsening historic flooding in the coming days as Tropical Storm Harvey dumps rain on the city, swelling rivers to record levels.

But, as the self-styled “world capital of the oil and gas industry”, there’s a connection between rising global greenhouse gas levels and the extreme weather now being inflicted that some of your residents have understood for decades and had a hand in.

To see how deceitful this is, note these conclusions from the latest report on global warming by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Note also that the IPCC is alarmist, prone to exaggeration, yet is forced to admit:

In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale…

In summary, this assessment does not revise the SREX conclusion of low confidence that any reported long-term (centennial) increases in tropical cyclone activity are robust… In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low… Over periods of a century or more, evidence suggests slight decreases in the frequency of tropical cyclones making landfall in the North Atlantic and the South Pacific, once uncertainties in observing methods have been considered…

Callaghan and Power (2011) find a statistically significant decrease in Eastern Australia land-falling tropical cyclones since the late 19th century…

Changes in extremes for other climate variables are generally less coherent than those observed for temperature… Analyses of land areas with sufficient data indicate increases in the frequency and intensity of extreme precipitation events in recent decades, but results vary strongly between regions and seasons. For instance, evidence is most compelling for increases in heavy precipitation in North America, Central America and Europe, but in some other regions—such as southern Australia and western Asia—there is evidence of decreases.

So there have actually been fewer cyclones or tropical storms like Harvey and little evidence of more floods. Yet Hannan seizes on one of the floods to regularly batter the US gulf coast and insists it’s caused by global warming.

What a snake oil salesman.

One of the world’s top climate scientists, Dr Roy Spencer, explains what Hannan won’t – that this cyclone was not the worst, the floods are not the highest, the deaths are not the greatest and the cause is not man-made:

The flood disaster unfolding in Houston is certainly very unusual. But so are other natural weather disasters, which have always occurred and always will occur…

Major floods are difficult to compare throughout history because the ways in which we alter the landscape. For example, as cities like Houston expand over the years, soil is covered up by roads, parking lots, and buildings, with water rapidly draining off rather than soaking into the soil. The population of Houston is now ten times what it was in the 1920s. The Houston metroplex area has expanded greatly and the water drainage is basically in the direction of downtown Houston.

There have been many flood disasters in the Houston area, even dating to the mid-1800s when the population was very low. In December of 1935 a massive flood occurred in the downtown area as the water level height measured at Buffalo Bayou in Houston topped out at 54.4 feet… By way of comparison, as of 6:30 a.m. this (Monday) morning, the water level in the same location is at 38 feet, which is still 16 feet lower than in 1935. I’m sure that will continue to rise.

Are the rainfall totals unprecedented?

Even that question is difficult to answer. The exact same tropical system moving at, say, 15 mph might have produced the same total amount of rain, but it would have been spread over a wide area, maybe many states, with no flooding disaster. This is usually what happens with landfalling hurricanes.

Instead, Harvey stalled after it came ashore and so all of the rain has been concentrated in a relatively small portion of Texas around the Houston area. In both cases, the atmosphere produced the same amount of rain, but where the rain lands is very different. People like those in the Houston area don’t want all of the rain to land on them.

There is no aspect of global warming theory that says rain systems are going to be moving slower, as we are seeing in Texas. This is just the luck of the draw. Sometimes weather systems stall, and that sucks if you are caught under one. The same is true of high pressure areas; when they stall, a drought results.

Even with the system stalling, the greatest multi-day rainfall total as of 3 9 a.m. this Monday morning is just over 30 39.7 inches, with many locations recording over 20 inches. We should recall that Tropical Storm Claudette in 1979 (a much smaller and weaker system than Harvey) produced a 43 inch rainfall total in only 24 hours in Houston.

Was Harvey unprecedented in intensity?

In this case, we didn’t have just a tropical storm like Claudette, but a major hurricane, which covered a much larger area with heavy rain. Roger Pielke Jr. has pointed out that the U.S. has had only four Category 4 (or stronger) hurricane strikes since 1970, but in about the same number of years preceding 1970 there were 14 strikes. So we can’t say that we are experiencing more intense hurricanes in recent decades.

Going back even earlier, a Category 4 hurricane struck Galveston in 1900, killing between 6,000 and 12,000 people. That was the greatest natural disaster in U.S. history.

And don’t forget, we just went through an unprecedented length of time – almost 12 years – without a major hurricane (Cat 3 or stronger) making landfall in the U.S.

So what makes this event unprecedented?

The National Weather Service has termed the event unfolding in the Houston area as unprecedented. I’m not sure why. I suspect in terms of damage and number of people affected, that will be the case. But the primary reason won’t be because this was an unprecedented meteorological event.

If we are talking about the 100 years or so that we have rainfall records, then it might be that southeast Texas hasn’t seen this much total rain fall over a fairly wide area. At this point it doesn’t look like any rain gage locations will break the record for total 24 hour rainfall in Texas, or possibly even for storm total rainfall, but to have so large an area having over 20 inches is very unusual…

Bill Read, a former director of the National Hurricane Center was asked by a CNN news anchor whether he thought that Harvey was made worse because of global warming. Read’s response was basically, No.

But Peter Hannan, paid alarmist, says yes, yes, yes.


Harvey Related :

Extreme Weather Related :

Failing Fairfax Media Related :

LIFE In A Fossil-Fuel-Free Utopia


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


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 :