ANOTHER must read Paul Driessen masterpiece.
Worth an intro with a few notable comments from posting at WUWT…
“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.
CLIMATE CHANGE sense and reason via Paul Driessen :
- DRIESSEN : Climate Crisis, Inc. | Climatism
- Climate fear is being used to take away human freedom and empower governments | Climatism
- Driessen : A Climate of Fear, Cash and Correctitude | Climatism
- Global Warming Insanity On Steroids! | Climatism
- Continued Hype and Deceit Drive Climate, Energy Agenda – Clobbering Poor Families | Climatism
MUST read Driessen :
MORE excellent Driessen :
- Risking Lives to Promote Climate Change Hype | Climatism
- DRIESSEN: Climate alarmism’s 10,000 commandments | Climatism
- Greedy Africans are starving our cars | Climatism
- Carbon Dioxide: The Gas of Life – Paul Driessen
- Stop Denying Climate Science and ACT! (Before People Realize it’s a Scam) – Paul Driessen
- Real Climate Science the IPCC Doesn’t Want You to See – Paul Driessen
- Keeping The Poor Impoverished | Climatism
- Confusion, Muddle, Obfuscation And Racism | Climatism
ALEX EPSTEIN, author of the New York Times best-selling book “The Moral Case For Fossil Fuels” brilliantly and succinctly lays out why the much touted “97% of climate scientists agree” meme, amounts to nothing more than clever PR and propaganda used by climate alarmists to promote the Left’s pet environmental/political cause – “man-made
global warming climate change”…
Before you view Alex’s terrific 4:36min presentation, ask yourself how plausible a 97% consensus of any belief or argument really is, without it having been subject to bogus and deceitful manipulation.
- How many elections are won by a 97% majority?
- 100% of doctors believed passive smoking caused cancer until that theory was quashed.
- 100% of doctors believed cholesterol was deadly until recently.
If 97% of Meteorologists can’t predict the weather next week, why do 97% of climate
expertsalarmists think that they can predict the climate 100 years from now?
Is it true that 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real? Where does the 97% figure come from? And if it is true, do they agree on both the severity of and the solution to climate change? New York Times bestselling author Alex Epstein, founder of the Center for Industrial Progress, reveals the origins of the “97%” figure and explains how to think more clearly about climate change.
These 30,000+ “scientists” weren’t sucked in by the “97%” climate consensus hoax…
The “97%” Hoax Related :
- 97% of climate models say that 97% of climate scientists are wrong | Climatism
- IPCC Insider Says That The 97% Consensus Actually Consists Of “A Few Dozen” | Climatism
- 97 Articles Refuting The ‘97% Consensus’ on global warming | Climatism
- 97% Of Climate “Experts” Promised You The Arctic Would Be Ice-Free By 2014 | Climatism
- The Cook ‘97% consensus’ paper, exposed by new book for the fraud that it really is | Watts Up With That?
- Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring ’97-Percent Consensus’ Claims | Forbes
- Climate Change: No, It’s Not a 97 Percent Consensus | National Review
- TOP READ: The 99.99% pure climate consensus – how to ignore thousands of skeptical scientists « JoNova
DURING “Earth Hour”, I was thinking about the 1.3 billion people who have no access to electricity, at all.
How insane they must think we are, actually celebrating the turning off of life-supporting electricity?!
Lomborg is spot-on noting, “Earth Hour is largely celebrated in rich, urban areas. Around the world, there are around 1.3 billion people living in the developing world who will not get a choice whether to participate or not. That’s because they will be living without reliable electricity on Saturday night, just like they do every other night.”
Such symbolic eco-gestures by wealthy, first-world, urban eco-elites represent eco-narcissism and virtuous sanctimony on a truly deplorable, selfish and naive scale.
Since Earth Hour occurred today, environmental skeptic Bjorn Lomborg weighed in on the event with an op-ed published in USA Today. In it he states that not only is Earth Hour a waste of time but the people behind it ignore the needs of poor people who need more light and energy which is mostly powered by fossil fuel use.
Earth Hour is largely celebrated in rich, urban areas. Around the world, there are around 1.3 billion people living in the developing world who will not get a choice whether to participate or not. That’s because they will be living without reliable electricity on Saturday night, just like they do every other night.
Increasingly, the world’s rich nations insist that these people — the world’s poor — should have no new fossil fuel access. Foreign aid is increasingly tied to renewable energy projects such as building solar and wind…
View original post 172 more words
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.
By Paul Homewood
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
Nearly everything about “Climate Change”, “Global Warming”, “Climate Disruption” or whatever suits the narrative of the day is based on propaganda, fear and alarmism, having nothing to do with actual “science”, hard data or observed reality…
The eco-militant EPA’s own figures note that slashing America’s CO2 emissions, will prevent less than 0.03 degrees Fahrenheit of global warming 85 years from now!
All that pain – destroying jobs and impairing human welfare – for such little gain!
Virtue-signalling politicians “riding their eco-friendly flying pigs” – a far more dangerous threat to life on earth than any minuscule and arguably beneficial, ‘global warming’ could ever be!
Eco-insanity on stilts.
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t Breitbart; California has committed to moving forward with its job destroying climate policies, regardless of vocal complaints from business leaders.
California, at Forefront of Climate Fight, Won’t Back Down to Trump
“California can make a significant contribution to advancing the cause of dealing with climate change, irrespective of what goes on in Washington,” Mr. Brown said in an interview. “I wouldn’t underestimate California’s resolve if everything moves in this extreme climate denial direction. Yes, we will take action.”
When California enacted its climate reduction standards last year, it drew fierce criticism from state business leaders.
The bills “impose very severe caps on the emission of greenhouse gases in California, without requiring the regulatory agencies to give any consideration to the impacts on our economy, disruptions in everyone’s daily lives or the fact…
View original post 261 more words
With 13 known fatalities and nearly a thousand buildings and structures destroyed in the tragic Tennessee fires, the usual climate ambulance chasers are out in force blaming, you guessed it, man-made “climate change”!
The hysterical Guardian
Author John Abraham notes “The causes of drought are combinations of lowered precipitation and higher temperatures.”
This is a no-brainer, however it is dishonest to blame so-called, man-made climate change as the root cause of the fires based on “many weeks of weather (warm and dry) that have led to the current conditions.”
Climate change is measured over multi-decadal periods, over a 30 year period or ‘climate point’, not over “many weeks” as the Guardian ferments.
Abraham deliberately focuses on the “many weeks” time-scale because a longer look at Tennessee’s climate history wrecks his CO2-induced, man-made climate change theory…
Tennessee temperature record shows no
global warming climate change trend…
Tennessee has been getting wetter…
Tennessee is currently experiencing a bad drought as the Guardian correctly identifies
But, how severe is this drought historically? And, is it due to human
CO2 ‘carbon’ emissions or simply, natural cycles in climate?
Before WW2, the time period that the IPCC claims CO2-emissions were yet to have an effect on climate, the US experienced more severe drought.
In the low-CO2 (309 ppm) year of July 1934, 80% of the US was in severe to extreme drought…
By November, 50% of the US remained in severe to extreme drought…
The most glaring example of the hysterical Guardian’s dishonesty to its readership, is the simple fact that while CO2 has been increasing, the “Numbers of [Tennessee] wildfires have been trending downward since the late 1970’s.” !
This is why “fake news” organisations like The Guardian, CNN, ABC, The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald, NYTimes, Washington Post, BBC et al., cannot be trusted on anything related to
global warming climate change.
They are not interested in “the science” that they and fellow climate alarmists claim to own, rather, their primary interest lies in misinforming readers and viewers with cherry-picked propaganda to further their political goals and ideological agenda.
And to dear John Abraham, “belief” and “denial” are the words of zealots, not scientists.
Those who continue to slime with the “denier” meme, in a vile reference to “Holocaust denial” (designed to intimidate and isolate) indicate they’ve run out of arguments, and slurs are all they have left. The historical climate data above, that took 10 minutes to source, exposes this.
Climatism extends its condolonces to the victims and their families and all those effected by the Tennessee wildfires. And blessings to the brave first responders.
- Why CSIRO and BoM Cannot Be Trusted On Anything “Climate Change” | Climatism
- Understanding The “Hottest Year Evah” | Climatism
- YES! The Climate Changes | Climatism
- There Is No Climate Change Crisis | Climatism
- Stunning Drop In Global Temperatures As El Niño Warming Ends | Climatism