December | 2024 | Science Matters

What Keeps “Energy Transition” Going? $ $ $

Robert Gauthier answered posting on a Quora topic How could we reverse the damage done by the “green energy” global scam that brought less efficient and highly polluting energy producing projects and high energy prices? Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Wind and solar power has provided politicians with an excuse to dispense favours—including taxpayer-funded subsidies and tax preferences to a supposedly “green” industry—while appearing to do something for the environment. And yet, despite more than two decades of massive subsidies, tax preferences and purchasing mandates from governments, wind and solar power still represent barely more than a rounding error of global energy production. In jurisdictions where renewables enjoyed strong but ill-considered political support, consumers and taxpayers now face much higher electricity bills and less-reliable power. And despite promises to the contrary, countries such as Germany, which have significantly increased wind and solar electricity production, have seen no meaningful reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

Far from being a miracle cure-all for the shortcomings of conventional power generation, wind and solar power exaggerate the symptoms they pretend to address. Added up over the past two decades, the cumulative subsidies across the world for biofuels, wind, and solar approach about $5 trillion, all of that to supply roughly 5% of global energy.

The whole justification for the falling costs of wind generation rested on the assumption that much bigger turbines would produce more output at lower capex cost per megawatt, without the large costs of generational change. Now we have confirmation that such optimism is entirely unjustified – the whole development process has been a case of too far, too fast. Again, this was both predictable and predicted. The idea that wind turbines are immune to the factors that affect other types of power engineering was always absurd. The consequence is that both capital and operating costs for wind farms will not fall as rapidly as claimed and may not fall significantly at all. It follows that current energy policies in the West are based on foundations of sand – naïve optimism reinforced by enthusiastic lobbying divorced from engineering reality.

In the end, however, politicians cannot defy the laws of physics and economics. The promise of wind and solar power will always clash with the need for electricity that is low cost and reliable. That’s why voters routinely punish politicians who pursue flawed renewable energy policies. Rising electricity costs due to increased wind and solar power damage the economy by making businesses that consume significant volumes of electricity less competitive and by leaving less money in the pockets of consumers.

In Ontario, Canada during the run of the Green Energy Act there which attempted to replace coal and nuclear with wind and solar the upshot was a 138% increase in the price of electricity at the meter for the consumers. This led to the government that brought in this legislation to lose the next election so badly that they were no longer recognized as a party in the legislature. Naturally the government that replaced them killed the program and started refurbishing the nuclear reactor fleet there.

Unfortunately, solar and wind technologies require huge amounts of land to deliver relatively small amounts of energy, disrupting natural habitats. The real estate that wind and solar energy demand led the Nature Conservancy to issue a report last year critical of “energy sprawl,” including tens of thousands of miles of high-voltage transmission lines needed to carry electricity from wind and solar installations to distant cities.

Land required for wind farms to power London UK

Building a single 100-MW wind farm—never mind thousands of them—requires some 30,000 tons of iron ore and 50,000 tons of concrete, as well as 900 tons of nonrecyclable plastics for the huge blades. With solar hardware, the tonnage in cement, steel, and glass is 150% greater than for wind, for the same energy output

Take batteries. It is estimated that current battery manufacturing capabilities will need to be in the order of 500-700 times bigger than now to support an all-electric global transport system. The materials needed just to allow the UK to transition to all electric transport involve amounts of materials equal to 200% the annual global production of cobalt, 75% of lithium carbonate, 100% of neodymium and 50% of copper. Scaling by a factor of 50 for world transport, and you see what is now a showstopper. The materials demands just for batteries are beyond known reserves.

And that’s just one of the issues. Others include vast costs constituting a multiple of current energy costs; the environmental impact of mining and transporting huge amounts of materials; need for vast amounts of rare elements, far beyond known world reserves; incredibly huge amounts of material to recycle when facilities wear out; and on and on.

Spend enough time researching this stuff and you gradually realize that almost everything you read about green energy shows that at best it’s really a dark shade of brown.

DEI Days are Numbered in Ivory Towers

Posted on December 29 by Ron Clutz

Leigh Revers writes at National Post Canada Universities better get prepared for Poilievre’s anti-woke agenda. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

‘Even the dullest minds in the upper administrations of Canada’s top universities
— and trust me, they are spectacularly dull — must see the writing on the wall’

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre leaves after a meeting with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and fellow opposition leaders on Parliament Hill in early December. Photo by Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press

The recent spectacular and decisive presidential election victory by Donald Trump — a self-styled benevolent “dictator” swept to power with an unequivocal mandate from U.S. voters — has become what can only be described as a political tsunami for left-leaning observers.

Vast change is in the offing. The political tectonic plates have shifted, prompting shattering eruptions along a number of predictable fault lines.

One such fiery volcano is gender ideology, a demonstrable fantasy that, mercifully, will soon be banished from American institutions, its many purveyors quickly to be bankrupted by Trump’s proposed state-assisted lawsuits brought by the swelling ranks of detransitioners.

A second is education, a metaphorical marshmallow that is no longer merely the artificially-sweetened confection promised to so many young people, but has instead become more like a skewered and charred husk grilled remorselessly on the three-pronged toasting fork of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI).

Americans need worry no longer, however. In a recent post on X, Elon Musk shared Donald Trump’s radical vision of a reformed college education system — one that demands the eradication of all DEI and its apparatchiks, and even threatens uncompliant institutions with severe taxation or complete forfeiture of their sprawling endowments. Inevitably, we will witness brazen back-peddling by the cadre of top-tier administrators desperate to remain gainfully employed. Harvard’s board, sitting on a treasure horde of US$53.2B (C$74.8B), will doubtless respond accordingly.

How will Canadian universities survive? While plunging needles into voodoo dolls of Pierre Poilievre, the left will eschew the ‘scary’ stateside politics, make accusations of neo-fascism, and point to Canada as a progressive retreat, a haven for the many orphans of woke ideology who, even now, are threatening on their social feeds to lay siege to our border, waving their American passports.

But what is far more likely, judging from predictions by even the state-sponsored CBC which suggest with 99 per cent certainty a Conservative win in 2025, is that the Canadian government in a year’s time will follow suit. Even the dullest minds in the upper administrations of Canada’s top universities — and trust me, they are spectacularly dull — must see the writing on the wall.

Here is the unvarnished reality in Canada in higher education in 2024. Students are being ripped off. Their degrees have been continuously devalued by the twin cudgels of enrolment inflation, as ballooning cohorts are funnelled through our universities, and the softening of standards in the face of academic appeasement and growing accommodations.

You might raise an eyebrow at that last remark. Academic accommodations are a form of concessionism where, according to a recent report at Queen’s University, nearly one in four students (22 per cent) gain some kind of benefit, usually in the shape of extended time allotments for examinations, to correct for what is often a largely imagined state of mental impairment.

In short, if you get anxious, the university concedes that you deserve more time than everyone else. This hardly constitutes quality education, and it inevitably dilutes academic standards. Obsequious compassion is showered on the deserving minorities; but if you are a hard-working student with no stakes in the victimhood game, well, you just have to suck it up.

Universities have consequently become expensive pre-adulthood training grounds that now choose to deride diligence, talent, and commitment in favour of equitable practices that attempt to champion anyone choosing to identify into minorities defined by inherent characteristics — gender, race, and sexuality. Indeed, their compulsive obsession with “belonging” — cited a mere 27 times, for example, in UofT’s most recent 17-page DEI report — has all the allure of a brain hemorrhage.

It will be interesting to see how they adapt to this new, inclement climate. For instance, in my own department, there are 40 staffers who support a suite of professional graduate programs. Based on published United Steel Workers’ pay scales and benefit rates, this costs the university — a taxpayer-funded enterprise — well in excess of $3.5M per year. For a typical program, a quarter of the allotted budget is sucked up by administrative overhead. All of the appointees would doubtless declare graduate-school exceptionalism and, in the same breath, grouse about the ever-present patriarchy. But inspection shows only 24 per cent are men, and 40 per cent are, unsurprisingly, white women.

Now, sandwiched between provincial funding cuts and a collapse in international student admissions, campuses like mine will have to muster major savings as budget holes dilate in an ever-gloomier climate. Punitive financial incentives imposed by an incoming Conservative government will doubtless see a rapid turnaround as academics and administrators alike rush to gaslight everyone claiming that woke waste — characterized so effectively by journalist Charlotte Gill in Britain — was all “unintentional.”

Pull the other one. Recent propaganda sheets such as The Bulletin of the Canadian Association of University Teachers and Academic Matters, the journal of the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations, which purport to represent professors like myself, are awash with racist DEI and tout a slavish fealty to obsessive and damaging social justice ideology. If you belong to the editorial team of either of these absurd political pamphlets, please drop me from your mailing list.

There is hope for students. Jordan Peterson has lately launched his academy, which, though limited to the social sciences so far, has breached the universities’ monopoly and comes at a bargain price. And the content is excellent, featuring such stellar authorities as Andrew Roberts, James Orr, John Vervaeke, Eric Kaufmann and a host of others. I’ve signed up.

Time is running out for legacy universities across Canada. I have a fancy next year we will see the same wave of comedy meltdowns that followed Trump’s re-election, just this time by an army of capitulating academics. “We didn’t mean to indoctrinate you with our untested ideology — Please give us more money.” Clink-clink. Too bad. It’s not in the cards.

Leigh Revers is associate professor with the Institute for Management and Innovation at the University of Toronto.

Best 2024 Review Is By Satirist Dave Barry

Posted on December 28 by Ron Clutz

Raygun of Team Australia right before she wowed the crowd with her signature move, “The Sprinkler.” Anthony Behar/Sipa USA

This was published in the Miami Herald (link in red title below) and needs no additional highlights from anyone, so is reprinted below for its many amusing observations. Barry is a true court jester, siding with no one, and unsparingly on target describing current foibles stranger than fiction.

Dave Barry Year in Review: 2024 was an exciting year,
and by ‘exciting,’ we mean ‘stupid’

How stupid was 2024? Let’s start with the art world, which over the centuries has given humanity so many beautiful, timeless masterpieces. This year, the biggest story involving art, by far, was that a cryptocurrency businessman paid $6.2 million at a Sotheby’s auction for . . .
A banana. Which he ate. ”It’s much better than other bananas,” he told the press.

And that was not the stupidest thing that happened in 2024. It might not even crack the top ten. Because this was also a year when:
—The Olympics awarded medals for breakdancing.
—Fully grown adults got into fights in Target stores over Stanley brand drinking cups, which are part of the national obsession with hydration that causes many Americans to carry large-capacity beverage containers at all times, as if they’re setting off on a trek across the Sahara instead of going to Trader Joe’s.
—Despite multiple instances of property damage, injury and even death, expectant couples continued to insist on revealing the genders of their unborn children by blowing things up, instead of simply telling people.
—The number of people who identify as “influencers” continued to grow exponentially, which means that unless we find a cure, within ten years everybody on the planet will be trying to make a living by influencing everybody else.
—Hundreds of millions of Americans set all their clocks ahead in March, then set them all back in November, without having the faintest idea why. (Granted, Americans do this every year; we’re just pointing out that it’s stupid.)

But what made 2024 truly special, in terms of sustained idiocy, was that it was an election year. This meant that day after day, month after month, the average American voter was subjected to a relentless gushing spew of campaign messaging created by political professionals who—no matter what side they’re on—all share one unshakeable core belief, which is that the average American voter has the intellectual capacity of a potted fern.

It was a brutal, depressing slog, and it felt as though it would never end. In fact it may still be going on in California, a state that apparently tabulates its ballots on a defective Etch-a-Sketch. For most of us, though, the elections, and this insane year, are finally over. But before we move on to whatever (God help us) lies ahead, let’s ingest our anti-nausea medication and take one last cringing look back at the events of 2024, starting with

… JANUARY …

when the nation finds itself trapped in a 1970s slasher movie, the kind in which some teenagers — played by the major political parties—are in a creepy house, being pursued by a terrifying entity, played by a rerun of the 2020 presidential election.

The only sane thing for the teenagers to do is get the hell out of there, but instead they pause by the dark, scary-looking doorway leading down to the basement, and despite the fact that the theater audience—played by the American public—is shouting “DON’T GO DOWN THERE! JUST LEAVE THE HOUSE YOU IDIOTS!”, the teenagers decide to go down into the basement, only to find “OH GOD NOOOOOO…”

And so, thanks to our political system—under which the nominees for the most powerful office in the world are chosen by approximately 73 people in approximately four rural states while the vast majority of Americans are still taking down their Christmas decorations—we once again find ourselves facing a choice between Joe Biden and Donald Trump.

Both candidates carry baggage. Trump is wanted on criminal charges in something like 23 states and, if elected, could become the first president to govern from a secret hideout. His speeches are sounding increasingly unhinged, which is no small feat since he did not sound particularly hinged in the first place.
For his part, President Biden keeps saying words that do not appear in any known human language and gives the impression that any day now he’s going to shuffle into a state dinner wearing only a bathrobe. But not necessarily his bathrobe.

In other words, we have one candidate who lost the last election but claims he won it, and another candidate who won the last election but might not remember what year that was. America, the choice is yours!

Meanwhile the nation is facing a number of serious problems. Foremost among them is the situation on the border with Mexico, which at one time was a legally separate nation from the United States but is now basically functioning as a vestibule. This has resulted in a tense confrontation between the federal government and Texas, which is alarming because, in the words of one military analyst, “Texas has way more guns.”

In government news, the Pentagon is harshly criticized for taking more than three days to notify the White House that Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III had been hospitalized. This prompts the administration to check up on the rest of the cabinet, only to discover that at least four other secretaries are missing, and the Secretary of Commerce apparently died three years ago.

Abroad, fighting continues to rage in both Ukraine and Gaza, although these conflicts are no longer getting a ton of attention in the U.S. media because of all the news being generated by Taylor Swift.

In a troubling aviation incident, an Alaska Airlines Boeing 737 Max 9 flying at 16,000 feet suddenly develops a refrigerator-sized hole in the fuselage when an improperly attached panel blows off, terrifying passengers who have reason to wonder whether the airline crew, instead of making a big deal about the position of everybody’s tray table, should maybe be checking to see if the plane has been correctly bolted together. As a safety precaution, the Federal Aviation Administration grounds all Max 9s and advises passengers on other Boeing aircraft to “avoid sitting near windows.” For its part, Boeing states that “at least the plane didn’t lose a really important part, like one of the whaddycallits, wings.”

Here’s a rare shot of a Boeing 737 in flight with all the parts still attached. Jeremy Dwyer-Lindgren/Special to USA TODAY

Speaking of big corporations making questionable products, in

… FEBRUARY …

Apple launches the much-anticipated “Vision Pro,” a virtual-reality headset costing more than your grandfather paid (Just ask him!) for his first car. But it’s worth it, because when you put it on, thanks to a revolutionary “spatial computing” system coupled with 12 cameras and a 23-million pixel display, you look like an idiot.

Special counsel Robert Hur concludes his year-long investigation into Joe Biden’s handling of classified documents by releasing a 388-page report concluding that Biden “does not appear to have all his oars in the water.” An angry Biden immediately holds a press conference, during which he heatedly denies Hur’s assertion and (this really happened) refers to Egyptian leader Abdel Fattah el-Sisi as the “president of Mexico.”

In other White House news, CNN, after reviewing documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, reports that the Biden family’s German shepherd, Commander, bit Secret Service personnel in at least 24 incidents, eclipsing the record previously held by Dick Cheney.

Moments after this picture was taken, the photographer was eaten by Commander, the Official White House Pet. Sipa USA

Meanwhile Donald Trump, who is appearing in court more often than Perry Mason, is found guilty by a New York civil judge on charges of financial fraud, aiding and abetting, aggravated contempt, disorderly obstruction, second-degree vagrancy and loitering with intent to conspire. The judge fines Trump nearly half a billion dollars and bans him for the next three years from riding in any motorcade more than six cars long. Two days later a defiant Trump attends an event called “Sneaker Con,” where (this also really happened) he unveils a line of footwear, including the gold-colored Never Surrender High Top Sneaker (Actual Marketing Slogan: “your rally cry in shoe form”).

In a highly controversial decision, the Alabama Supreme Court rules that frozen embryos are, for legal purposes, children, and therefore must immediately be thawed out and provided with iPhones.

Tucker Carlson conducts a two-hour interview with Vladimir Putin, offering westerners a rare opportunity to find out what the Russian leader really thinks. It turns out he thinks Tucker Carlson is a useful idiot.

In a Super Bowl for the ages, two teams compete against each other under the watchful gaze of Taylor Swift. Speaking of spectacles, in

… MARCH …

President Biden, seeking to dispel persistent rumors that he is an elderly man, delivers a State of the Union Address consisting almost entirely of shouting. This performance does not significantly improve his poll numbers, but it’s a big hit with members of the Washington press corps, several hundred of whom decide, independently, to describe the speech as “fiery.”

In their response, the Republicans, always looking for new ways to demonstrate their incompetence, elect to have Alabama Sen. Katie Britt deliver a disturbingly melodramatic talk from (Why not?) her kitchen, where she gives the impression that she has just ingested a wide range of pharmaceuticals, and nobody, least of all Sen. Britt, knows which one is going to kick in next.

Yet another federal budget crisis is averted at the last minute when Congress passes a $1.2 trillion spending bill, which will enable the government to keep spending insanely more money than it takes in. The U.S. debt is now growing at the rate of a trillion dollars every 100 days, but fortunately this is not a problem because it will be taken care of by future generations. “No problem! Just put it on our tab!” is the view of future generations, and that is why we love them.

In other high-finance news, Donald Trump’s lawyers tell a New York court that he cannot raise the nearly half-billion dollars he needs for an appeal bond, having been turned down by more than 30 bond companies and an individual known as Anthony “Tony Three Nostrils” Avocado. Trump gets a break when an appeals court lowers the amount to $175 million, which Trump says he definitely has, although he left it in his other pants.

In a possibly related development, Trump announces that he is selling—we are not making this up—“God Bless the USA” Bibles for $59.95 a pop. “It’s my favorite book,” he states, moments before being struck by lightning. No, that did not happen and you are a bad person for even fantasizing about it.

Donald Trump says this is his favorite book, despite the fact that he didn’t write it. GREG LOVETT/THE PALM BEACH POST / USA TODAY NETWORK

In aviation news, a Boeing plane flying from Australia to New Zealand suddenly goes into a nosedive, injuring 50 people. Another Boeing plane, taking off from the San Francisco airport, loses a piece of landing gear. A Boeing spokesperson says that the company, after conducting an in-depth review, has tentatively identified the root cause of the recent problems.

“We think it’s gravity,” said the spokesperson. “It seems to be getting worse.” As a safety precaution, Boeing is advising pilots to avoid taking off, and simply taxi the planes from city to city, which the spokesperson says “may result in delays, especially to overseas destinations.” Speaking of exciting things happening in the sky, in

… APRIL …

the nation is enthralled by a total eclipse, a rare celestial occurrence in which the earth, sun and moon align in such a way as to cause a large number of people to deliberately travel to Indianapolis. Huge crowds in the path of the totality watch excitedly as the sky gradually turns completely dark—a spectacular sight that most people will never witness again in their lifetimes, unless they’re still around at sunset.

In other natural phenomena, a magnitude 4.8 earthquake with an epicenter in central New Jersey rattles the northeast. New York City is completely paralyzed, although not because of the earthquake; it’s always completely paralyzed. But for a few seconds there is slightly less honking.

New York remains in the news with the onset of the single most exciting thing ever to happen to CNN: yet another trial of Donald Trump. In this one he’s charged with falsifying business records as part of a scheme to guarantee that every single human being on the planet, including members of primitive tribes in the Amazon jungle, would be aware that Trump had a one-night stand with porn star Stormy Daniels. At least that’s how it worked out.

True Fact: The first witness called by the prosecution is a man named “David Pecker.”

Trump was in court more often than Perry Mason. Jeenah Moon/Pool via USA TODAY NETWORK

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, a contender to be Trump’s running mate, bolsters her case with a new book in which she reveals— apparently on the advice of the same public-relations firm used by Boeing—that she once shot and killed her family dog, Cricket. Many people are appalled by this revelation, although Noem’s supporters note that she would be a handy person to have around the White House if Commander ever comes back.

Speaking of commanders: President Biden, campaigning in Pennsylvania, suggests—twice—that his uncle was eaten by cannibals after his plane went down off the New Guinea coast during World War II. The prime minister of Papua New Guinea objects to the president’s cannibal story on the nitpicky grounds that it is not true. Nevertheless the president seems to sincerely believe that it happened, and it was HIS uncle, dammit.

As the tragic situation in Gaza worsens, American college students on a growing number of campuses engage in protests and other dramatic actions intended to draw attention to the single most important issue facing the world: the feelings of American college students. Speaking of drama, in

… MAY …

Stormy Daniels tells a New York jury in explicit detail about her encounter with Donald Trump during a 2006 celebrity golf tournament, testifying that when she came out of the bathroom in Trump’s hotel suite, he was waiting for her wearing only a T-shirt and boxer shorts, and before she could stop him he proceeded—without wearing a condom—to falsify business records.

True Trivia Fact: Trump finished 62nd in that celebrity tournament. The golfer who finished 43rd was Dan Quayle.

On weekends, when he’s not in court, Trump continues to campaign for president. While discussing immigration policy at a rally in New Jersey, he makes the following statement, printed here verbatim: ”Silence of the Lambs. Has anyone ever seen ‘The Silence of the Lambs’? The late, great Hannibal Lecter is a wonderful man. He often times would have a friend for dinner. Remember the last scene? ‘Excuse me. I’m about to have a friend for dinner,’ as this poor doctor walked by. ‘I’m about to have a friend for dinner.’ But Hannibal Lecter. Congratulations. The late, great Hannibal Lecter.”

This statement raises a number of questions, including:
1.What?
2. Seriously, what?
3. Is it possible that it was actually Hannibal Lecter who ate Joe Biden’s uncle?

Speaking of Joe Biden, his poll numbers continue to be bad as voters express their unhappiness about the economy, especially inflation. This is very frustrating for White House spokespersons, who are constantly pointing out that inflation is no longer a problem on whatever planet it is that White House spokespersons live on. Unfortunately it’s still a problem here on Earth, where prices are significantly higher for basic needs such as food, gas, housing and tickets to the Met Gala, which cost only $50,000 last year but jumped to $75,000 this year, leaving many attendees so broke that they are forced to attend wearing what appear to be Halloween costumes.

In other presidential news, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., seeking to set himself apart from the two flawed major-party candidates and offer voters a rational alternative, tells the New York Times that doctors found a dead worm in his brain.

RFK Jr. could become the first cabinet member with a dead worm in his brain. Al Diaz adiaz@miamiherald.com

Meanwhile in a spectacular, much-anticipated natural phenomenon, trillions of cicadas emerge from the ground, watch 15 minutes of cable TV news, and elect to die.

As the month draws to a close, Trump is found guilty on all 34 felony counts of whatever it is that he was charged with. The convictions deal a fatal blow to his candidacy.

Ha ha! We are of course joking. The convictions, like all the other legal actions against Trump, are a massive boost for his candidacy, energizing his supporters and generating tens of millions of dollars in donations, an outcome that could have been predicted by anybody with a rudimentary understanding of Trump’s appeal, although it apparently did not occur to the geniuses behind this particular legal strategy. Speaking of strategies that do not work out as planned, in

… JUNE …

the Biden re-election campaign struggles to change the public perception—largely created by videos showing the president looking lost and confused—that the president is sometimes lost and confused. Democrats insist that these videos are “cheap fakes,” and that in fact Biden is sharp as a tack, but unfortunately the public never sees this because he only exhibits this sharpness when there are no cameras around to capture it, kind of like Bigfoot.

So there’s a lot on the line when Biden and Trump square off in a much-anticipated prime-time debate, which was proposed by the Biden campaign, apparently on the advice of the Boeing Corp.

The debate went smoothly for Joe Biden until it started. Jack Gruber / USA TODAY NETWORK

It’s obvious from the start of the debate that the president is struggling. He has trouble finishing, or even starting, his sentences; he spends much of the debate staring vacantly into the distance like a man who’s trying to remember where he put the remote control, unaware of the fact that he is holding it. In short, it’s a very bad night for Biden.

Q.How bad is it? A. It’s so bad that, by comparison, Donald Trump seems, at times, to be almost lucid.

Actually, it’s worse than that. It’s so bad that even professional journalists can see how bad it is. In fact suddenly everybody in Washington is acutely aware of the president’s decline, which previously had been apparent to only the entire rest of the world population. And so as we move into

… JULY …

the Democrats are in a state of panic. Behind the scenes, party leaders desperately want to get Biden off the ticket, but he repeatedly insists that he’s going to be the candidate. This leads to an awkward national conversation:
BIDEN: I’m staying in the race.
PARTY LEADERS: You have our full support, Mr. President! Whatever you decide!
BIDEN: OK, as I said, I’m staying in the race.
PARTY LEADERS: It’s your call, sir! Run, or don’t run! It’s totally up to you!
BIDEN: Again, I’m definitely running.
PARTY LEADERS: Whether you stay in or drop out, we fully support either choice! Including dropping out!
BIDEN: I SAID I’M RUNNING DAMMIT.
PARTY LEADERS: We await your decision, sir!
And so on.

Just when it appears that the presidential race cannot get any more insane, Trump goes to Butler, Pa., to hold a campaign rally, for which the security has apparently been outsourced to the Boeing Corp. Trump is shot in the ear by a man who is somehow able to climb, unimpeded, with a rifle, onto the roof of a building that not only is within range of the speaker’s platform, but also has three police snipers stationed inside it. Really.

Other than that, it was an uneventful rally. Evan Vucci AP

The attempted assassination shocks the nation but also bolsters Trump’s popularity. He has a commanding lead in the polls as, a few days later, he accepts the presidential nomination at the Republican convention (Theme: “TRUMP!”) with a triumphant speech lasting slightly longer than veterinary school.

The Democrats are now in utter despair. Biden continues to insist that he’s running; the party has no choice but to renominate him and face almost-certain defeat in November.

Then, in a sudden reversal, Biden announces that he’s quitting the race after reassessing the situation and waking up next to the severed head of a thoroughbred racehorse. Party leaders lavishly praise Biden for saving democracy, then decide, via what is undoubtedly a democratic process, to replace him with Kamala Harris.

Other than that, it’s a quiet month in politics.

In other news, a massive worldwide Internet disruption paralyzes global air travel, along with banks, hotels, hospitals and other industries, when Arnold A. Frinkledorp, an 87-year-old retiree who is attempting to send an email to his sister from his AOL account, accidentally presses the ALT, backslash, left arrow, F3, ampersand and right parenthesis keys simultaneously—which apparently nobody has ever done before—thereby triggering a Windows glitch that causes more than 8.5 million computers to crash. The disruption winds up costing businesses an estimated $5 billion, although on the plus side, Mr. Frinkledorp’s email—a meme of a cat wearing sunglasses—is successfully delivered to his sister, who accidentally deletes it.

As the Olympic Games get under way in Paris, tens of millions of viewers tune in to NBC to watch three action-packed weeks of Snoop Dogg reacting to French things. The Games take full advantage of the city’s scenic venues, including the Seine River, which is used for the swimming leg of the triathlon race after health authorities assure competitors that intensive cleanup efforts have removed “the vast majority” of the turds. Speaking of competition, in

… AUGUST …

the race for the presidency kicks into high gear as fired-up Democrats hold their convention in Chicago. The first-day highlight is a grateful and heartfelt farewell to President Biden, who speaks in the prestigious 2:30 a.m. timeslot and is never heard from again. The focus then shifts to the nomination of Kamala Harris, who is running on a platform of joy, and being joyful, and a general vibe of joyfulness, as well as a set of policies to be specified later that will take America in a new, completely different direction, in stark contrast to the policies of whoever is running the country now.

The convention gives Harris an immediate boost in the polls, and suddenly Trump faces a serious challenge, to which he responds, during a two-hour speech to a rally in Wilkes-Barre, Pa.: “I say that I’m much better looking than her. Much better. Much better. I’m a better-looking person than Kamala.” Fox News confirms this.

The Democratic convention was a joyful time of joyous joyfulness. Josh Morgan, Josh Morgan / USA TODAY NETWORK

Meanwhile the two vice-presidential candidates, Tim Walz and J.D. Vance, engage in a spirited exchange on the issues, reminiscent of the Lincoln-Douglas debates:

WALZ: You’re weird.
VANCE: I’M not weird. YOU’RE weird.
WALZ: No, YOU’RE weird.
VANCE: No YOU’RE weird.
WALZ: No YOU’RE…

Speaking of weird: Independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., following up on the revelation that he has a dead worm in his brain, reveals that he once picked up a roadkill bear, which he later—we’ve all done it—left under a bicycle in Central Park as a prank. Three weeks later Kennedy suspends his campaign and urges his followers to vote for Trump, assuming they are able to chew through their restraints.

Two astronauts are stuck aboard the International Space Station when the Starliner spacecraft that was supposed to return them to Earth develops mechanical problems. You will never in a million years guess the name of the company that built this spacecraft. Meanwhile down here on Earth things are also not going so great as we move into

… SEPTEMBER …

when suddenly, with no advance warning, the biggest issue in the presidential election is the question of whether Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, are eating people’s pets. They are not, but this fact does not prevent Trump from raising the issue in a televised debate with Harris, during which Trump gives the impression that his debate prep consisted entirely of getting his hair dyed a slightly more believable color. ”In Springfield, they’re eating the dogs,” he states, “The people that came in, they’re eating the cats. They’re eating, they’re eating the pets of the people that live there.”

For her part, Harris repeatedly stresses the message that she is a regular middle-class person from the middle class who totally relates to the problems faced by middle-class people like herself, and she definitely intends to fix these problems once she is elected to high government office.

Harris is widely considered to be the winner of the debate, on top of which she is endorsed by Taylor Swift, which is a big deal because Swift has more than 280 million Instagram followers and 53 votes in the Electoral College.

Both Taylor Swift and her cat endorsed Kamala Harris. Screenshot from Instagram

A week after the debate, police capture a would-be assassin who was spotted with a rifle on a golf course where Trump was playing. There was a time in America when this event—the second serious assassination attempt on a major presidential candidate in two months—would be considered a big story, but in the hellscape that is 2024 politics it dominates the headlines for considerably less time than the mythical pet-eating Haitians.

As the election draws closer emotions are running high. It’s also an increasingly tense time in the Middle East, where Israel and Iran appear to be on the verge of all-out war.

But the good news is that at least the hurricane season has been relatively peacef… OK, scratch that. In late September, Hurricane Helene causes horrendous devastation in six southeastern states, and then in

… OCTOBER …

Hurricane Milton ravages Florida. It’s a brutally difficult time for millions of Americans, but the good news is that at least nobody tries to politicize the disasters or use them to spread idiotic conspiracy theories about sinister forces controlling the weath… OK, scratch that also.

In presidential election news, Trump makes a campaign appearance at a Pennsylvania McDonald’s, during which he wears an apron and serves some people at the drive-thru window. This is the kind of hokey photo-op stunt that politicians have been doing forever, so you’d think this would be no big deal, right?

Wrong. It is a huge deal. Thanks to Trump’s uncanny ability—it is his superpower—to drastically reduce the functional IQ of professional journalists, this event dominates the national political coverage for days. Newsweek runs a story headlined “Was Donald Trump’s McDonald’s Shift ‘Staged’?” The New York Times runs six—that’s right, six—stories about it, including one asserting that, among other infractions, Trump “shoveled a scoopful of fries the wrong way” and “committed what appeared to be a number of health code violations.”

Professional journalists were able to prove, using journalism, that this was a photo op. Pool TNS

Somehow Trump survives all this journalism. He continues to crisscross the nation promising tax breaks for pretty much every category of U.S. resident including domestic animals, and giving increasingly improvisational speeches during which every thought fragment that seeps into his brain spurts instantly from his mouth without any kind of review. For example: Speaking to a rally in Latrobe, Pa., Trump informs the crowd that their beloved hometown hero, the late Arnold Palmer, had an unusually large putter. (We don’t know whether the New York Times assigned a team of reporters to investigate this claim, but we would not rule it out.)

In another suave outreach move, the Trump campaign, ever sensitive to accusations of racism, holds a rally in Madison Square Garden featuring a comedian who jokes that—prepare for hilarity—Puerto Rico is garbage.

On the Democratic side, the Kamala Harris campaign, which has spent more than a billion dollars but is still struggling to clearly define the candidate’s vision for the presidency, settles on an upbeat closing message: “Whoever She Is, She’s Not Donald Trump.” At exactly the same time Harris is making her big final pitch to voters, Joe Biden, who is still technically the president, somehow gains access to Zoom and lends the Harris campaign a helping hand by declaring, in response to the Trump-rally Puerto Rico joke, that roughly half of the U.S. electorate is garbage. Thanks, Joe!

Meanwhile, in an issue that neither party talks about because fixing it would require political courage, the national debt goes over $35 trillion, moving the nation still closer to the inevitable financial catastrophe that will leave future generations completely screwed. Fortunately, as we have noted, future generations are fine with this. “Don’t worry about it!” they would say, if they could speak to our current political leadership. “We know you’re busy leading!”

On a happier note, for the 14th consecutive year the World Series is won by a team other than the Yankees.

In space, a large communications satellite unexpectedly explodes, creating debris that threatens other satellites. In the spirit of mercy we will not name the company that made the defective satellite, other than to say it rhymes with “blowing.” Speaking of unexpected, in

… NOVEMBER …

the voters finally go to the polls for the most important American election since at least the dawn of time. All the expert political analysts and professional pollsters using scientific methodology agree that the race is extremely tight, a tossup, a dead heat, especially in the crucial battleground states. It’s too close to call! The experts are certain of this.

On election night, the TV networks are teeming with political commentators prepared to analyze and dissect and crunch the numbers far into the night as the nation settles in for the long, grueling process of determining the winner, a process that everyone agrees could go on for days, possibly even weeks, because of the extreme razor-thin closeness of the…

Never mind. In roughly the same amount of time it takes to air a Geico commercial, the networks determine that Donald Trump has decisively won the election, including all of the so-called battleground states and four Canadian provinces. It’s a stunning result and a massive failure by the expert political analysts, who humbly admit that they had no idea what was happening, and promise that from now on they will be more aware of their limitations.

We are of course joking. In a matter of seconds these experts pivot from being spectacularly clueless about what was going to happen in the election to confidently explaining what happened in the election.

One theory is that it was not a great idea for the Democrats to insist that President Biden was fine until it was embarrassingly obvious that he was not, then replace him, via a secret process, with a candidate who was not great at talking and did not run in a single primary and who previously advocated positions that many Americans were not crazy about, which is why they voted, sometimes reluctantly, for Donald Trump.

One branch of the Democratic party accepts this theory and begins the painful but necessary process of self-examination. Another branch prefers to believe that the party is fine and the real problem is that most Americans are sexist racist pro-fascist morons, which may not be a winning message for the Democrats going forward, but it does enable this branch to feel better about itself.

For his part, Donald Trump has no doubt whatsoever that the American people have given him a mandate to deport anywhere up to 60 percent of the U.S. population and—in his words—“turn this great nation around by appointing wildly unqualified individuals to the cabinet.”

OK, he didn’t actually say that, but he did nominate Matt Gaetz to be attorney general, which is like nominating Jeffrey Dahmer to be surgeon general. Gaetz is soon forced to withdraw his name from consideration after Trump is informed that the U.S. Senate, for all its shortcomings, is not completely insane.

Another controversial Trump nomination, this one for secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, is Robert F. “Roadkill” Kennedy Jr., who used to think Trump was basically Hitler but now thinks he’s great. Kennedy is deeply suspicious of vaccines, Big Pharma, the CIA, fluoride, seed oils, WiFi, Froot Loops and chemicals in general. He also wants to make America healthy again by reducing the consumption of the overprocessed junk foods that have turned many Americans into big fat waddling tubs of lard, like… OK, like many Americans.

In environmental news, 70,000 world leaders, politicians, bureaucrats, aides, activists, consultants, celebrities, media people, caterers, chauffeurs, bodyguards, grifters, masseurs, masseuses, and private-jet pilots gather for COP29, the massive conference held every year by the United Nations to solve the pesky problem of global climate change. This year’s host nation is Azerbaijan, which, as a corrupt authoritarian state whose main source of income is selling billions of dollars worth of oil and gas, naturally wants everybody to stop using so darned much oil and gas. The conference is once again a huge success as measured in metric tons of hors d’oeuvres consumed, and everybody agrees to gather again for COP30 next year, on the off chance that global climate change is still going on.

Speaking of comically futile gestures: The Australian senate passes a law banning children under 16 from social media. This law will be enforced by adults who have to ask their children for technical support when they accidentally lock themselves out of their iPhones. Speaking of protecting children, in

… DECEMBER …

Joe Biden, who repeatedly promised that he would not pardon his son Hunter, cements his legacy as the most Joe Biden president ever by pardoning his son Hunter, thus forcing the Democratic party to change its mantra from “Nobody Is Above the Law!” to “Hey, It’s Complicated.” The wording of the pardon document is quite broad, covering “all offenses committed between 2014 and 2024, including any currently unsolved bank robberies, not that we are suggesting anything.”

The pardon outrages many Republicans who would be fine with it if Trump did it, while it’s fine with many Democrats who would be outraged if Trump did it. For that is how our system of checks and balances works.

Meanwhile Trump is acting as though he’s already the president—meeting with foreign leaders, signing treaties, vetoing legislation, authorizing drone strikes and ordering the beheading of “Peach” and “Blossom,” the two turkeys Biden pardoned for Thanksgiving.

Helping Trump with the transition is his new best billionaire friend Elon Musk, the genius tech visionary who’s going to make the federal government efficient by implementing “outside the box” measures such as:
—Having veterinarians install locator chips in all federal employees.
—Replacing both the Air Force and the Internal Revenue Service with laser-equipped orbital space robots.
—Combining the departments of Energy, Transportation, Labor, Agriculture, Interior and Justice into a single agency called “The Guv,” which will be physically located in Taiwan but accessible via an app.
—Renting Hawaii out for proms.

Trump and his new best billionaire bud envision the future. Brad Penner-Imagn Images

It’s an exciting time to be alive, as post-election America begins to discover, with varying degrees of excitement, what it voted for.

After numerous sightings of mysterious lights in the sky over New Jersey, government officials seek to calm an increasingly alarmed public. ”We’ve investigated these lights, and there’s absolutely nothing to worry about,” states Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, who adds, “on an unrelated note, people should keep their children indoors.”

In other news, a horrific crime on a New York City sidewalk leads to a national conversation about the U.S. healthcare system, which reveals that a truly disturbing number of people believe the following three things:
1.The healthcare system is bad.
2.Therefore, murder is OK.
3.Especially if the murderer is cute.

Clearly, this year needs to end. Which is why we’re looking forward to New Year’s Eve—when, in a beloved tradition, thousands of revelers will gather in Times Square to say goodbye to 2024, and welcome 2025. We like to think that on that night, as the seconds tick down to zero and that giant ball starts to descend, the people gazing up at it will all be united, if only for a moment, by a common hope —a hope shared by the millions of us watching on television—specifically, the hope that the giant ball was not manufactured by the Boeing Corp.

Also, while we’re hoping, let’s hope that 2025 will be a better year. How could it be worse?
Try not to think about it.

German Death Wish On Display

Posted on December 27 by Ron Clutz

Tilak Doshi describes the self-inflicted German downfall in his Daily Sceptic article Germany’s Economic and Political Suicide. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

It’s that festive time of the year when interesting tales get told around a fireplace. So here goes (minus the fireplace).

Once upon a time there lived a country that was the envy of the world. It was among the world’s pre-eminent producers of manufactured goods. From chemicals and pharmaceuticals to precision engineering and the brewing of beer, it was second to none. Its people’s work skills, industriousness and discipline became the national hallmark of civilisational success. The country gained fame and fortune in bringing the luxuries of fine automobiles to the world’s rich and aspiring middle classes.

Alas, a blight visited that once great country not more than a score of years ago, though its destructive seed had been planted earlier. It was not some external force or act of God. Rather it was a sickness of the mind, a debilitating disease of the soul, that vexed that country’s ruling class. In restless search for virtue, the country’s rulers paid obeisance to the Goddess Gaia and promised the nation’s blood and treasure to satiate her inviolable sovereignty over her earthly domains.

This, then, is a tale of woe and misery. This Christmas shall not have been one of unalloyed merry times and good cheer. And while beer will have been drunk and dinners eaten in many a hearth and eating place, the lifeblood of that nation shall be constricted and its breathing blocked by a cursed phlegm as normal life resumes in the New Year.

Within the fateful score of years of becoming afflicted by the primordial cult of Gaia, the world’s envy has now become a sad basket case. Its economy has been tarnished as “the sick man of Europe”.

The beginning of the end of the German miracle

While the travails of Germany along with the economic stagnation of Europe as a whole have been apparent for some years now, the spate of dire headlines have gathered pace in recent weeks as the coalition government collapsed.

“Behind Germany’s Political Turmoil, a Stagnating Economy” — New York Times (December 17th)

“Germany Is Unraveling Just When Europe Needs It Most” – Bloomberg (December 15th)

“Europe’s Economic Apocalypse Is Now” – Politico (December 19th):

If Europe – and its economic powerhouse Germany – remains on its current trajectory, its future, Politico says, “will also be Italian: that of a decaying, if beautiful, debt-ridden, open-air museum for American and Chinese tourists”.

The economic rot induced by the adoption of Energiewende policies for the “energy transition” in 2010 resulted ultimately in the recession of the German economy in the last two years. Among the manifestations of this rot are the growth of corporate bankruptcies in double digits, soaring layoffs as the Federal Employment Agency said that the unemployment figure could exceed the three million mark for the first time in 10 years at the beginning of 2025, and the crown jewel of German industry, its automative sector, announcing massive job cuts.

According to a recent poll, 40% of industrial companies are currently considering reducing their production in Germany or relocating it abroad due to the energy situation; among industrial companies with more than 500 employees, more than half are now considering this. High labour costs, caused by the myriad regulations of a hyperactive administrative state, and among the world’s highest energy prices brought about by its Energiewende folly, have led to the nation’s de-industrialisation.

Germany’s governing coalition collapsed after Chancellor Olaf Scholz fired Finance Minister Christian Lindner, plunging Europe’s largest economy into political chaos. This occurred barely hours after Donald Trump’s U.S. election victory triggered existential questions about the future of the Continent’s economy and its energy security. Mr. Trump – a climate sceptic who has promised to bring the U.S. out of the UN’s Paris Agreement and its financial commitments for large scale transfers of funds to developing countries – will pull the rug out from under the EU’s famed if quixotic climate leadership.

Europe’s economic implosion is self-induced. Its ruling elites over-tax and over-regulate the private sector and obsess with promoting unreliable renewable energy to replace fossil and nuclear fuels in its crusade to ‘save the planet’ from an alleged impending climate apocalypse. Its attempt to blame Russia’s President Putin for high energy prices is hollow and self-serving.

Perhaps most revealing of Europe’s regulatory hubris is the Qatari Energy Minister’s recent statement that “I am not bluffing”. He warned that Qatar, one of the world’s largest natural gas suppliers, would cease gas exports to the EU if the bloc’s countries imposed penalties under recently adopted legislation on “sustainability due diligence”. For Europe to tell the world that it would punish foreign countries that did not buy into their “sustainability” beliefs might seem to most non-European observers as the height of arrogance. But such is the delusionary might of the Gaia cult.

The EU’s “Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive”, which entered into force in July, allows for fines of up to 5% of a company’s annual global revenue “if the management fails to address adverse human rights or environmental impacts”. Bumptious Brussels bureaucrats seem to believe that their ideas of “sustainability” command universal acceptance. This, in a world where China, India, Indonesia, Vietnam and other populous developing countries, accounting for most of the world’s population, are busy expanding their capacity to mine coal and other fossil fuels so as to afford their citizens access to affordable and reliable energy.

Back to barbarism

“Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice: all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things.”

So said Adam Smith, the great sage of political economy, over 250 years ago. Germany has shown that the converse may also be true. To go from opulence to poverty and potential barbarism is but a short road, assured by the burden of high taxes in service of an alleged climate crisis, and an intolerable administration of “climate justice” that demands suffocating regulations on the private sector.

UK Labour Caught in Own Net-Zero Trap

Posted on December 24 by Ron Clutz

Rupert Darwall explains how UK Labour ensnared itself in his Spectator article Labour has walked into a net-zero trap of its own making. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

The government’s net-zero noose draws tighter. At energy questions in the House of Commons on Tuesday, the Conservative MP Charlie Dewhirst asked the Energy Security and Net Zero Secretary Ed Miliband if the recent report by the National Energy System Operator (Neso) projected higher or lower bills under his policies. Miliband replied that Neso forecast lower overall costs. ‘It is completely logical to say that that will lead to a reduction in bills,’ he said.

Logic and historic data point in the opposite direction. Between 2009 and 2020, the average price of electricity sold by the Big Six energy companies rose by 67 per cent from 10.71p per kilowatt hour (kWh) to 17.92p per kWh. This wasn’t caused by any increase in the cost of natural gas. In fact, the average price paid by major power generators fell by 15 per cent over the period. There was, however, a spectacular explosion in the amount of wind and solar on the grid which rose from 4.5 gigawatts (GW) in 2009 to 37.95 GW in 2020.

Source: efficientbuildingsolutions.co.uk

The upward pressure on prices will only increase as Miliband pushes for more offshore wind. Earlier this week, the Financial Times reported a senior energy investment banker commenting on the hubris of the offshore wind industry, which has been hit by higher interest rates and supply chain inflation. Renewable energy projects require enormous upfront investment costs. The pay-off, its advocates argue, is that renewables have no fuel input costs. But it would be a mistake to assume they have minimal ongoing costs.

Source: Gordon Hughes See: https://rclutz.com/2024/08/21/the-short-lives-of-wind-turbines/

The North Sea is a harsh environment for wind turbines; fixing a defective wind turbine in the middle of the ocean is no easy matter. A 2020 forensic analysis of wind company accounts by Edinburgh University’s Professor Gordon Hughes found that Year 1 operating costs for deepwater wind projects averaged £44 per megawatt hour (MWh), rising to £82 per MWh in Year 12. Moreover, the output efficiency of wind turbines degrades at a rate of around 4.5 per cent a year. When plotted against the market price obtained for wind output, Hughes concluded:

‘a significant portion of wind output is expensive to produce and of no value in terms of its contribution to national wellbeing’.

Renewable subsidies are awarded in allocation rounds. The fifth allocation round (AR5), conducted under the previous government, was a dud because of rising project costs caused by higher interest rates and supply chain inflation. Coming into office, Miliband was determined to make a big splash with AR6. He threw bill payers’ money at it with a record-breaking £1.555 billion subsidy pot. The government accepted bids totalling 9.6 GW, which includes 5.34 GW of offshore wind and 3.29 GW of solar, capacity which is useless when it’s likely to be most needed to meet peak electricity demand on winter evenings.

The government gives successful bidders guaranteed prices, irrespective of how much – or, more often, how little – the market values their output. Consumers are then forced to make up the difference between the market price and the set strike price they bid for. The average strike price for AR6 was very nearly £80 per MWh. Based on Professor Hughes’s analysis of load factor decay and rising maintenance costs, there is a high risk that offshore wind becomes lossmaking well before Year 12. Floating offshore wind, which Miliband says ‘is at the heart of the government’s mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower’, was awarded an eye-watering strike price of £176 per MWh.

Larger subsidies and floating offshore wind are hardly conducive to cutting bills.

Until mid-October, the wholesale price of electricity in 2024 averaged £78.70 per MWh. The more wind and solar added at strike prices above wholesale prices mathematically drives up the amount of subsidy consumers must pay. But the cost of renewables doesn’t stop there. Because wind farms are mostly located hundreds of miles from where electricity is used, when grid connections get congested, wind farms are paid constraint payments not to generate electricity.

Decongesting all the wind power on the grid doesn’t come cheap either. Miliband’s Clean Power 2030 Action Plan, published earlier this month, envisages building twice as much new transmission infrastructure in the next five years as was built in the past decade. The faster the planned build-out, the higher the cost. It means that renewable strike prices are a floor on which constraint payments and higher network costs are added.

That’s not all. There’s a second net-zero factor driving up energy costs. Net-zero policies have been forcing conventional power stations off the grid. Britain’s dispatchable generating capacity (principally coal, gas and nuclear) peaked in 2010, by 2020 declining by 25.1 GW and shrinking dispatchable capacity by 28.5 per cent. This was mostly because 18.3 GW of coal-fired capacity was retired as Britain demonstrated its green virtue to the world by powering past coal. The problem comes when there’s insufficient wind to power the grid. That’s what happened this autumn. Unseasonably windless conditions saw wholesale electricity prices rise through October and November with a huge spike at the beginning of December.

The latest renewable lobbyist talking point is that gas sets the wholesale electricity price. The implication is that gas prices are driving up the cost of electricity. However, gas prices this year have been lower than they were in 2023. The culprit behind the surging electricity prices is not the price of gas, but politicians kicking coal off the grid and Britain not having sufficient gas-powered generating capacity to meet demand when there’s not enough wind. Vladimir Putin and Qatari gas sheikhs are not to blame for home-grown net zero policies that have left Britain with dangerously inadequate non-weather dependent generating capacity.

In this, Britain is not alone. As other countries are finding out, having more renewables on the grid destabilises the electricity market. Sweden has also had soaring electricity prices, says Ebba Busch, Sweden’s deputy prime minister and energy minister. Like Britain, Sweden has an extremely weather-dependant energy system which makes prices highly volatile, worsened by its German neighbour on the other side of Baltic. The need, Busch argues, is for ‘more dispatchable power production’.

This is politically impossible for the Starmer government. Labour is trapped by net zero and decarbonising the grid constitutes its overriding mission. So far, neither the Conservatives or Reform have stepped up. Tory leader Kemi Badenoch calls herself a net-zero sceptic and Reform’s Nigel Farage wants more nuclear. Whatever the merits of nuclear, there is no way in which new nuclear power stations can be built and commissioned fast enough to offset the retirement of Britain’s old ones, let alone substantially increasing the amount of nuclear power. They should be thinking and talking like Ebba Busch: Britain needs an emergency programme to build 20 GW of new gas-fired power stations. If that means suspending net zero, they should make the case that keeping the lights on and electricity bills down is a price worth paying.

2024 Natural Climate Factors: Snow

Posted on December 21 by Ron Clutz

Previously I posted an explanation by Dr. Judah Cohen regarding a correlation between autumn Siberian snow cover and the following winter conditions, not only in the Arctic but extending across the Northern Hemisphere. More recently, in looking into Climate Model Upgraded: INMCM5, I noticed some of the scientists were also involved in confirming the importance of snow cover for climate forecasting. Since the poles function as the primary vents for global cooling, what happens in the Arctic in no way stays in the Arctic. This post explores data suggesting changes in snow cover drive some climate changes.

The Snow Cover Climate Factor

The diagram represents how Dr. Judah Cohen pictures the Northern Hemisphere wintertime climate system. He leads research regarding Arctic and NH weather patterns for AER.

cohen-schematic2

Dr. Cohen explains the mechanism in this diagram.

Conceptual model for how fall snow cover modifies winter circulation in both the stratosphere and the troposphere–The case for low snow cover on left; the case for extensive snow cover on right.

1. Snow cover increases rapidly in the fall across Siberia, when snow cover is above normal diabatic cooling helps to;
2. Strengthen the Siberian high and leads to below normal temperatures.
3. Snow forced diabatic cooling in proximity to high topography of Asia increases upward flux of energy in the troposphere, which is absorbed in the stratosphere.
4. Strong convergence of WAF (Wave Activity Flux) indicates higher geopotential heights.
5. A weakened polar vortex and warmer down from the stratosphere into the troposphere all the way to the surface.
6. Dynamic pathway culminates with strong negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation at the surface.

From Eurasian Snow Cover Variability and Links with Stratosphere-Troposphere
Coupling and Their Potential Use in Seasonal to Decadal Climate Predictions by Judah Cohen.

Observations of the Snow Climate Factor

The animation at the top shows from remote sensing that Eurasian snow cover fluctuates significantly from year to year, taking the end of October as a key indicator.

For more than five decades the IMS snow cover images have been digitized to produce a numerical database for NH snow cover, including area extents for Eurasia. The NOAA climate data record of Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent, Version 1, is archived and distributed by NCDC’s satellite Climate Data Record Program. The CDR is forward processed operationally every month, along with figures and tables made available at Rutgers University Global Snow Lab.

This first graph shows the snow extents of interest in Dr. Cohen’s paradigm. The Autumn snow area in Siberia is represented by the annual Eurasian averages of the months of October and November (ON). The following NH Winter is shown as the average snow area for December, January and February (DJF). Thus the year designates the December of that year plus the first two months of the next year.

Notes: NH snow cover minimum was 1981, trending upward since. Siberian autumn snow cover was lowest in 1989, increasing since then. Autumn Eurasian snow cover is about 1/3 of Winter NH snow area. Note also that fluctuations are sizable and correlated.

The second graph presents annual anomalies for the two series, each calculated as the deviation from the mean of its entire time series. Strikingly, the Eurasian Autumn flux is on the same scale as total NH flux, and closely aligned. While NH snow cover declined a few years prior to 2016, Eurasian snow has trended upward afterward. If Dr. Cohen is correct, NH snowfall will follow. The linear trend is slightly positive, suggesting that fears of children never seeing snowfall have been exaggerated. The Eurasian trend line (not shown) is almost the same.

Illustration by Eleanor Lutz shows Earth’s seasonal climate changes. If played in full screen, the four corners present views from top, bottom and sides. It is a visual representation of scientific datasets measuring ice and snow extents.

Danish Fart Tax No Laughing Matter

Posted on December 18, 2024 by Ron Clutz

Paul Schwennesen explains the nefarious intent behind this latest government hostile takeover in his Daily Economy article. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Cow farts are a distraction, and the joke’s on us. The Danish tax is a
significant step toward state ownership of the means of production.

Denmark, according to The New York Times, is going ahead with its livestock “Burp Tax.” Though hotly contested, the Danish government has nevertheless finally settled on levying farmers 300 kroners (~$43) per ton for carbon dioxide emissions, ramping to $106 per ton by 2035. As is the case with many of these farm-targeted green interventions, the action is ludicrously ineffectual at addressing the trumped-up problem, while remarkably effective at further cementing state controls over economic production.

Part of the reason farms (and especially cows) are such fat targets for this kind of statist intervention is that, politically speaking, they are the perfect scapegoat. It all seems so harmless, after all — so silly even — that serious-minded folk risk looking ridiculous if they object. Is it really so very draconian, goes the argument, to ask farmers to reduce their cow flatulence? The ever-so-reasonable request (enforceable by law, to be sure) glides under the radar in a scree of giggle-inducing copy that distracts readers to what is really afoot.

The Times plays its part in this façade, relishing the chance to print “poop, farts, and burps” in the business section so that the regulation seems plucked from an impish children’s story rather than what it is: a deadly serious infringement on economic liberty.

Defenders of the scheme insist it is necessary to address the pressing issue of climate change. But even if we were to accept the lobby’s poorly understood climate science at face value, the claims would be dubious. Cows stand accused of emitting 5.6 metric tons in annual “CO2 equivalent” emissions. All this politically motivated tabulating and assessing completely ignores the other side of the ledger, the growing recognition that grazing livestock have a complex, largely offsetting (and quite probably net-positive) impact on overall carbon emissions. Nature, after all, doesn’t work in simple equations and we are woefully under-informed about the rich and inherently unmodelable world of stochastic ecology.

Give Daisy a Break.

The New York Times, by way of perspective, accounts for 16,979 metric tons of its own, meaning that it, as a single company, has the footprint of ten Danish dairies. What would readers of “All the News That’s Fit to Print” have to say about an annual tax of $730,000 a year, ramping to $1.8 million, being added to the newspaper stand price? Advocates of a free press might well ask why the government was using state power to make the newspaper of record less competitive.

But in any case, climate science and cow farts aren’t really the issue here.
The issue is essentially about control, and who gets to occupy the
commanding heights of a centrally managed economy.

“A tax on pollution has the aim to change behavior,” says Jeppe Bruss, the Danish “green transition” minister in an unguardedly candid moment. Government programs to change behavior are much easier to introduce slowly, and against somewhat laughable minority sectors like farming than against, say, the population at large. They do not seem eager, for instance, to levy additional burdens on average people’s heating and transport emissions, which combined dwarf the agricultural sector’s. The Times says that livestock emissions are “becoming” the largest share of Denmark’s share of climate pollution which is another way of saying that it isn’t the largest share.

If beef and milk production indeed posed such an existential climate risk, then why not simply tax the consumers of beef and milk who, after all, are the real source of the production signal? The answer, of course, is obvious: no politician wants to be pegged as the one who raised the price of butter for average Danish grandmothers. Politically, it is far easier to go after the farmers, knowing full well that any cost burdens on farm production will be passed along to consumers anyway — only then it will be the farmers’ fault, not the government’s.

It’s an old trick, a kind of regulatory-impact laundering scheme.

The success of the Danish strategy remains to be seen. If examples from the Netherlands and New Zealand are any indication, the plan may well backfire, with frustrated farmers taking to the street and even grabbing back the reins of power. It is a useful warning:

allowing government the power to surgically tax and thereby “change behavior”
of producers is the same as granting them economic planning privileges.

The Danish “Burp Tax” is a significant step toward the state ownership of the means of production, and as the history of centrally managed economies shows, it’s not likely to end well.

•

Trump to Bury Already Dead ESG

Posted on December 18, 2024 by Ron Clutz

John Authers explains the demise of ESG in his Bloomberg article Trump Will Bury ESG, But It Was Already Dead. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

The green investing revolution never stood a chance in the US once
ensnared by the culture wars, but that wasn’t the only cause of death.

Ever So Gone

As was obvious even before voters went to the polls, ESG was already a decisive loser in the US. The concept of Environmental, Social and Governance investing became hopelessly entangled with the culture war agenda, failed to deliver on its promises, and went into retreat. Rather than attempt a technocratic, clean, green way of changing capitalism, America has opted for something more nationalist, even mercantilist.

ESG as a term has been demonized by politicians on the right, to the point that BlackRock’s Larry Fink said that it had been “weaponized” and should no longer be used. Because of Fink’s stand on ESG issues, BlackRock has become a lightning rod for conservative attacks lumped in with identity politics. Startlingly, the company shows up in a list of “decadent and rootless” institutions that should be burned to the ground in a new book by Kevin Roberts, the head of the Heritage Foundation, a distinction it bizarrely shares with the Boy Scouts of America and the Chinese Communist Party.

Supporters of the concept were already disillusioned that ESG had become little more than a marketing wheeze, and several big fund managers, including WisdomTree and Invesco, have faced fines in the US for “greenwashing” (claiming their products were greener than they really were). In France, BlackRock is under fire over allegations that 18 of its funds sold as sustainable are in fact investing in fossil fuels.

Regulator attitudes differ starkly across the Atlantic. In Europe, regulators have raised the ante by telling fund managers that they must reach minimum thresholds for environmental impact before they can use the ESG label — a move that makes it hard for them to keep investing in the US, where the best returns are, and requires them to become more active than is currently the case for many.

In the US, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has watered down its requirements on companies to disclose ESG statistics — and the whole concept is close to unworkable unless everyone has to disclose standardized statistics. In September, it quietly disbanded its task force on ESG enforcement. Now, the Trump administration is likely to make dismantling such rules one of its first acts in office.

That will complete a retreat that has largely already taken place. A look at the total market cap of BlackRock’s flagship ETFs covering the global energy and clean energy sectors shows that after a boom in 2021, the clean energy fund has steadily dwindled, and is now worth slightly less than the main energy fund:

Investors Wash Their Hands of Clean Energy
There has been an exodus from clean energy stocks in the last two years

Much of this is driven by the declining share prices of clean energy stocks. However, if we look at the number of shares in the ETF, it’s clear that there were huge inflows during the pandemic, and much of that money has now been withdrawn.

Investors are losing interest in the concept, and claims that ESG would reduce
global warming, or starve fossil fuel groups of capital, look overblown.

Interest among the public has waned in the US — although not elsewhere. Google Trends shows that US searches for ESG and its synonyms tanked over the last two years, while continuing at much the same level elsewhere. The rest of the world still seems happy to give it a try, but America is no longer going along for the ride.

The pattern recurs in the news media. Counting stories published on the Bloomberg terminal from all sources shows interest peaking in 2016, when Donald Trump was first elected, and long before the flow of money went into reverse. By the time that Fink said ESG had been “weaponized,” interest was barely a third its 2016 level and has continued to dwindle.

Critically from the point of view of how capitalism is operating, the same pattern shows up in earnings call transcripts. Bloomberg’s Document Search function shows that executives — not just Larry Fink — no longer want to talk about it. This is our quarter-by-quarter measure of mentions of ESG and its various synonyms since 2010. Mentions exploded after the pandemic, and have tumbled since 2022. With this earning season roughly 90% over, interest from executives in ESG looks to be right back to pre-pandemic levels’.

This is at least in part because fund managers are no longer forcing the issue. BlackRock is admirably transparent about the way it votes its shares, and produces regular reports; here is the latest. As this chart from the report (which is worth a read) demonstrates, the amount of support from shareholders for environmental and social proposals has declined markedly over the last three years:

BlackRock itself upped its support for corporate governance proposals, but only backed 4% of social and environmental proposals (down from 20% two years earlier). It also declined to support any of the various anti-ESG proposals that were put forward, and complained that many of them were duplicative or poorly drafted. But the notion that ESG was going to change the way companies operate seems to be in retreat.

Once Trump is back in the White House in January, we’ll learn much more about how his economic nationalism will work. Fine-tuning capitalism to make it more long-termist and take into account more than the narrowly defined interests of shareholders — the big ESG idea — has been comprehensively defeated. Now we wait to see what version of mercantilism comes in its stead.

Footnote: Fundamental Reasons People Reject ESG Were Not Addressed by Author

Holes in IPCC Science Revealed

Posted on December 16, 2024 by Ron Clutz

Graeme Weber reports from Australia on the history revealing multiple holes in IPCC claimed “settled science.” His paper is IPCC – Miss/Diss information? shared with me by email. Graeme is an earth scientist, retired consulting geologist and advocate for nuclear energy. His text is in italics with my bolds and added images.

Several years ago, the cry from the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) was ‘the science is settled’. This should have been a ‘red flag’ to any scientists who know that science is never settled. This is especially so in such a complex system, as Mother Earth’s climate. It is now 32 years since the first IPCC Report was issued. Many claims in this and later IPCC reports have since been debunked especially the ‘Hockey Stick’ graph of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1999) where Mann was finally taken to court to reveal his calculations that subsequently led to him losing a court case and the IPCC getting embarrassed, as monumental errors and manipulation of data was exposed.

Professor Tim Ball, who was sued by Michael Mann for defamation regarding comments he made about the integrity of the Hockey Stick Graph, succeeded in having the case thrown out and Mann ordered to pay costs. Mann had failed to comply with a court order that he produce his Hockey Stick Data! Supreme Court of British Columbia 2019

Another erroneous claim by the IPCC was that 97% of Scientists believed in Global Warming. How did they make this claim? It was based on a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (2010) who reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers, 908 of whom had authored 20 or more publications on climate, and found that 97–98% of the climate researchers (the 908) most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the IPCC, and the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers. Well, how strange people who research in this field and rely on financial support believe in Global Warming!

A Consensus You Can Trust!

Another study by Dr Soon and Dr Michael Connolly and His son Dr. Ronan Connolly released in 2023 was on Rural and Urban temperature records in the Northern Hemisphere. This study is similar to articles reported by JoNova and Jennifer Marohasy in Australia on temperature measurement equipment and stations in Australia with encroaching buildings, air conditioners, changes to recording gear and BOM changing temperature records by outright manipulation and homogenisation. The most obvious one is changing from reading manually by a person at a set time each day to continuous recording machines every minute or so, so increasing the likelihood of higher daily temperatures. In many cases BOM (Australian Bureau of Meteorology) claimed significant warming trends by starting at a cool point rather than a warm point.

The BOM never mentions the extreme temperatures recorded throughout Australia in January 1896 nor the elevated temperature during the 1930’s decade culminating in 1939 Black Friday. In the days preceding these fires, the Victorian state capital, Melbourne, experienced some of its hottest temperatures on record at the time: 43.8 °C (110.8 °F) on 8 January and 44.7 °C (112.5 °F) on 10 January. On 13 January, the day of the fires, temperatures reached 45.6 °C (114.1 °F), which stood as the hottest day officially recorded in Melbourne for the next 70 years. Now BOM issue weather alerts when the temperature reaches 30 degrees!

The study by Soon et al clearly shows that temperature measuring stations are increasingly being influenced by solar radiation being absorbed by bitumen and concrete and released through the night. One of the most remarkable illustrations of this effect was an aerial thematic view of the City of Rome at 8.30am in the morning. Vapour trails of early aircraft take-offs are clearly visible. The airport is hot (usually site of temperature gauges) surrounding country is relatively cold

Another reveal over the last 30 years is the number of Land Temperature stations (LTS). Total LTS in the Northern Hemisphere has declined from 5,000 to 2,000 stations but rural stations have declined from 500 to 200. This has been particularly relevant in the Northern Hemisphere where the most remote Artic stations (northern and coldest) have been closed. The product of this is the average temperature of these remote areas has risen. Mathematics 101. Soon et al have examined 4,500 temperature stations in China, USA the Artic and Ireland that show a warming trend of 0.89º C per Century in Urban areas whereas Rural Stations only show 0.55ºC per Century. This is a significant difference.

Another factor producing higher biased temperatures is the IPCC technique of ‘homogenisation’ where a particular area has all the temperature readings added together then divided by the number of stations. As is expected the number of urban stations read higher than rural ones thus increasing the overall temperature average. Taking the overall rural average the warming trend results in an increase of 0.9ºC since 1850.

So, Antonio Guterres the UN Secretary General prognosis that the ‘World is boiling’ is wrong, stupid and farcical. Soon et al believe the warming is more likely due to Total Solar Radiance whereas the IPCC believe it is due to a trace gas CO2 a plant food. It is interesting to note that commercial greenhouses use about 1,000–1,300 ppm under ideal circumstances. A lower level (800–1,000 ppm) is recommended for raising seedlings (tomatoes, cucumbers and peppers) as well as for lettuce production. Currently the world CO2 sits at 423ppm.

Al Gore (former USA Vice Presidential candidate) has made numerous predictions in his film ‘Inconvenient Truth’ most if not all have proved false. His biggest claim was the Arctic Ocean will be ice free by 2013 or was that 2014 or even 2015! When this did not happen, the argument was that overall, the ice was drastically thinning. Last month October 2024 icebreakers were madly trying to extract ships in the northern passages some two weeks before expected, from Arctic ice closing in.

At the other end of our world in Antarctica numerous IPCC papers claimed that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet was about to, or already collapsing because of warmer waters were circulating caused by Climate change. However, a new study in 2017 found 91 new volcanic vents to add to the 47 volcanoes already known to exist under this ice sheet. As volcanic activity waxes and wanes ice melt will continue in this hot volcanic zone. Whether this ice sheet melts or not it is certainly more probable the effects are more controlled by volcanic activity rather than circulating waters. The IPPC reports also failed to acknowledge that ice buildup was occurring at other points in Antarctica.

Source: volcano foundation with glacier locations added

Is CO2 bad? One remarkable and observable thing is that trees and plants take in carbon dioxide through stomata in their leaves. Since plants first invaded continents (perhaps chasing higher concentrations of carbon dioxide) science has a very good record of the CO2 gas concentrations in the atmosphere. The larger the Stomata the lower the CO2 concentration.

Approximately 580 Ma years ago the concentration was just under 3000ppm. This was soon after a major ice age around 750Ma years ago. The concentration has been steadily falling, since apart from two very low CO2 events occurred around 430Ma and 280Ma and if at any stage the CO2 concentration had dropped below 150ppm then we would not be here as all plants would have died. Other scientific studies show there is a lag between periods when the Earth’s temperature increases and CO2 concentrations rise. Maybe just maybe, the Industrial Revolution saved the planet!

Other scientific papers are showing that the world climate has a natural buffering system. As temperatures rise evaporation increases over the oceans that cover 71% of the earth’s surface. Increased precipitation has a marked cooling effect and together with increased CO2 will lead to greater vegetation growth to feed the worlds increasing population. Desertification will likely decrease. Maybe Central Australia will bloom and make the central Australian Aboriginal communities wealthy.

A paper provided to the Court of Appeals, The Hague November 2023 by Richard Lindzen Professor of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Emeritus Massachusetts Institute of Technology, William Harper Professor of Physics, Emeritus Princeton University and Steven Koonin University Professor, New York University, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institute wrote:

‘We are career physicists who have specialized in radiation physics, dynamic heat transfer and computer modelling for decades, subjects directly relevant to the global warming debate. Each of us has published over 200 peer-reviewed papers, many on the science of climate or closely related subjects. In our opinion, the District Court of The Hague findings that “dangerous” climate change and extreme weather are caused by CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are contradicted by the scientific method and only supported by the unscientific methods of government opinions, consensus, peer review, and cherry-picked or falsified data. Science demonstrates fossil fuels, and CO2 will not cause dangerous climate change. Rather, there will be disastrous consequences for people worldwide if fossil fuels and CO2 emissions are reduced to “net zero,” including mass starvation’.

What if the Net Zero fossil fuels and CO2 policy was in effect in 1750 and CO2 did not rise from 280 ppm to 420 ppm? There would be 21% less food worldwide. Therefore it can be concluded that the Earth’s surface temperature is rising but not at the rate the IPCC would have you believe. As Bjorg Lomborg is saying it is much better to prepare for this eventuality something we cannot change than try to reduce a trace gas that is essential for life.

I fear for those who have trusted governments like they did the Covid science. The false claims of Government about an approaching Armageddon causing an induced psychosis resulting in stunts paralysing normal economic industry. These stunts such as hanging from pylons or gluing to windows, throwing paint, disrupting parliament. Where will it all end? The destruction of our civilisation?

Straight Talk on Climate Science and Net Zero

Posted on December 15, 2024 by Ron Clutz

Michael Simpson of Sheffield University did the literature review and tells it like it is in his recent paper The Scientific Case Against Net Zero: Falsifying the Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis published at Journal of Sustainable Development (2024). Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Abstract

The UK Net Zero by 2050 Policy was undemocratically adopted by the UK government in 2019. Yet the science of so-called ‘greenhouse gases’ is well known and there is no reason to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), or nitrous oxide (N2O) because absorption of radiation is logarithmic. Adding to or removing these naturally occurring gases from the atmosphere will make little difference to the temperature or the climate. Water vapor (H2O) is claimed to be a much stronger ‘greenhouse gas’ than CO2, CH4 or N2O but cannot be regulated because it occurs naturally in vast quantities.

This work explores the established science and recent developments in scientific knowledge around Net Zero with a view to making a rational recommendation for policy makers. There is little scientific evidence to support the case for Net Zero and that greenhouse gases are unlikely to contribute to a ‘climate emergency’ at current or any likely future higher concentrations. There is a case against the adoption of Net Zero given the enormous costs associated with implementing the policy, and the fact it is unlikely to achieve reductions in average near surface global air temperature, regardless of whether Net Zero is fully implemented and adopted worldwide. Therefore, Net Zero does not pass the cost-benefit test. The recommended policy is to abandon Net Zero and do nothing about so-called ‘greenhouse gases’. [Topics are shown below with excerpted contents.]

1. Introduction

The argument for Net Zero is that the concentration of CO2 in air is increasing, some small portion of which may be due to human activities and that Net Zero will address this supposed ‘problem’. The underpinning consensus hypothesis is that the human emission of so-called ‘greenhouse gases’ will increase concentrations of these gases in the atmosphere and thereby increase the global near surface atmospheric temperature by absorbance of infrared radiation leading to catastrophic changes in the weather. This leads to the idea that global temperatures should be limited to 2°C and preferably 1.5°C to avoid catastrophic climate change (Paris Climate Agreement, 2015).

A further hypothesis is that there are tipping points in the climate system which will result in positive feedback and a runaway heating of the planet’s atmosphere may occur (Schellnhuber & Turner, 2009; Washington et al., 2009; Levermann et al., 2009; Notz & Schellnhuber, 2009; Lenton et al., 2008; Dakos et al., 2009; Archer et al., 2009). Some of these tipping point assumptions are built into faulty climate models, the outputs of which are interpreted as facts or evidence by activists and politicians. However, output from computer models is not data, evidence or fact and is controversial (Jaworowski, 2007; Bastardi, 2018; Innis, 2008: p.30; Smith, 2021; Nieboer, 2021; Craig, 2021). Only empirical scientifically established facts should be considered so that cause and effect are clear.

From the point of view of physics, the atmosphere is an almost perfect example of a stable system (Coe, et al., 2021). The climate operates with negative feedback (Le Chatelier’s Principle) as do most natural systems with many degrees of freedom (Kärner, 2007; Lindzen et al., 2001 & 2022). The ocean acts as a heat sink, effectively controlling the air temperature. Recent global average surface temperatures remain relatively stable (Easterbrook, 2016; Moran, 2015; Morano, 2021; Marohasy, 2017; Ridley, 2010) or warming very slightly from other causes (Sangster, 2018) and the increase in temperature from 1880 through 2000 is statistically indistinguishable from 0°K (Frank, 2010; Statistics Norway, 2023) and is less than predicted by climate models (Fyfe, 2013). This shows the difference between the consensus view and established facts.

The results imply that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be sufficiently strong to cause systematic changes in the pattern of the temperature fluctuations. In other words, our analysis indicates that with the current level of knowledge, it seems impossible to determine how much of the temperature increase is due to emissions of CO2. Dagsvik et al. 2024

The IPCC has produced six major assessment reports (AR1 to 6) and several special reports which report on a great deal of good science (Noting that the IPCC does not do any science itself but merely compiles literature reviews). The Summaries for Policy Makers (SPM) are followed by most politicians. Yet the SPM do not agree in large part with the scientific assessment by the IPCC reports and appear to exaggerate the role of CO2 and other ‘greenhouse gases’ in climate change. It appears that the SPM is written by governments and activists before the scientific assessment is reached which is a questionable practice (Ball 2011, 2014 and 2016; Smith 2021).

Other organizations have produced reports of a similar nature and using a similar literature (e.g. Science and Public Policy Institute; The Heartland Institute; The Centre for the Study of CO2; CO2 Science; Global Warming Policy Foundation; Net Zero Watch; The Fraser Institute; CO2 Coalition) and arrived at completely different conclusions to the IPCC and the SPM (Idso et al., 2013a; Idso et al., 2013b; Idso et al., 2014; Idso et al., 2015a, 2015b; Happer, et al., 2022). There are also some web pages (e.g. Popular Technology) which list over a thousand mainstream journal papers casting doubt on the role of CO2 and other greenhouse gases as a source of climate change. For example, a recent report by the CO2 Coalition (2023) states clearly Net Zero regulations and actions are scientifically invalid because they:

“Fabricate data or omit data that contradict their conclusions.
Rely on computer models that do not work.
Rely on findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that are government opinions, not science.
Omit the extraordinary social benefits of CO2 and fossil fuels.
Omit the disastrous consequences of reducing fossil fuels and CO2 emissions to Net Zero.
Reject the science that demonstrates there is no risk of catastrophic global warming caused by fossil fuels and CO2.

Net Zero, then, violates the tenets of the scientific method that for more than 300 years has underpinned the advancement of western civilization.” (CO2 Coalition, 2023; p. 1)

With such a strong scientific conviction the entire Net Zero agenda needs investigating. This paper reviews some of the important science which supports and undermines the Net Zero agenda.

2. Material Studied

A literature review was carried out on various topics related to greenhouse gases, climate change and the relevant scientific literature from the last 20 years in the areas of physics, chemistry, biology, paleoclimatology, geology etc. The method used was an evidence-based approach where several issues were critically evaluated based on fundamental knowledge of the science, emerging areas of scientific investigation and developments in scientific methods. The evidence-based approach is widely used (Green & Britten, 1998; Odom et al., 2005; Easterbrook, 2016; Pielke, 2014; IPCC, 2007a; IPCC 2007b; Field, 2012; IPCC 2014; McMillan & Shumacher, 2013).

Evidence-based research uses data to establish cause and effect relationships which are known to work and allows interventions which are therefore expected to be effective.

3. Greenhouse Gas Theory

The historical development of the greenhouse effect, early discussions and controversies are presented by Mudge (2012) and Strangeways (2011). The explanation of the greenhouse effect or greenhouse gas theory of climate change is given in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Working Group 1, The Physical Science Basis (IPCC, 2007, p. 946):

“Greenhouse gases effectively absorb thermal infrared radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface, by the atmosphere itself due to some gases, and by clouds. Atmospheric radiation is emitted to all sides, including downward to the Earth’s surface. Thus, greenhouse gases trap heat within the surface-troposphere system. This is called the greenhouse effect.”

This is plausible but does not necessarily lead to global warming as radiation will be emitted at longer wavelengths in other areas of the electromagnetic spectrum where greenhouse gases do not absorb radiation potentially leading to an energy balance without increase in temperature. To further complicate matters the definition continues with the explanation:

“Thermal infrared radiation in the troposphere is strongly coupled to the temperature of the atmosphere at the altitude at which it is emitted. In the troposphere, the temperature generally decreases with height. Effectively, infrared radiation emitted to space originates from an altitude with a temperature of, on average, -19°C in balance with the net incoming solar radiation, whereas the Earth’s surface is kept at a much higher temperature of, on average, +14°C. An increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases leads to an increased infrared opacity of the atmosphere, and therefore to an effective radiation into space from a higher altitude at a lower temperature. This causes a radiative forcing that leads to an enhancement of the greenhouse effect, the so-called enhanced greenhouse effect.”

This sort of statement is not comprehensible to the average person, makes no sense scientifically and is immediately falsified by recent research (Seim and Olsen, 2020; Coe etal., 2021; Lange et al., 2022, Wijngaarden & Happer, 2019, 2020, 2021(a), 2021(b), 2022, Sheahen, 2021; Gerlich & Tscheuschner, 2009; Zhong & Haigh, 2013). It also contradicts the work of Gray (2015 and 2019) and others and has been heavily criticized (Plimer, 2009; Plimer, 2017; Carter, 2010).

3.1 The Falsifications of the Greenhouse Effect

There are numerous falsifications of the greenhouse gas theory (sometimes called ‘trace gas heating theory’, see Siddons in Ball, 2011, p.19), of global warming and/or climate change (Ball, 2011; Ball, 2014; Ball, 2016; Gerlich & Tscheuschner, 2009; Hertzberg et al, 2017; Allmendinger, 2017; Blaauw, 2017; Nikolov and Zeller, 2017).

Fundamental empirically derived physical laws place limits on any changes in the atmospheric temperature unless there is some strong external force (e.g. increased or decreased solar radiation). For example, the Ideal Gas Law, the Beer-Lambert Law, heat capacities, heat conduction etc., (Atkins & de Paula, 2014; Barrow, 1973; Daniels & Alberty, 1966) all place physical limits on the amount of warming or cooling one might see in the climate system given any changes to heat from the sun or other sources.

3.1.1 The Ideal Gas Law

PV = nRT (1)

The average near-surface temperature for planetary bodies with an atmosphere calculated from the Ideal Gas Law is in excellent agreement with measured values suggesting that the greenhouse effect is very small or non-existent (Table 1). It is thought that the residual temperature difference of 33K between the Stephan-Boltzmann black body effective temperature (255K) on Earth and the measured near-surface temperature (288K) is caused by adiabatic auto-compression (Allmendinger, 2017; Robert, 2018; Holmes 2017, 2018 and 2019). An alternative view of this is given by Lindzen (2022). There is no need for the ‘greenhouse effect’ to explain the near surface atmospheric temperature of planetary bodies with atmospheric pressures above 10kPa (Holmes, 2017). The ideal gas law is robust and works for all gases.

3.1.2 Measurement of Infrared Absorption of the Earth’s Atmosphere

It is now possible to calculate the effect of ‘greenhouse gases’ on the surface atmospheric temperature by (a) using laboratory experimental methods; (b) using the Hitran database (https://hitran.org/); (c) using satellite observations of outgoing radiation compared to Stephan-Boltzmann effective black body radiation and calculated values of temperature.

The near surface temperature and change in surface temperature can be calculated. The result is that climate sensitivity to doubling concentration of CO2 is (0.5°C) including 0.06°C from CH4 and 0.08°C from N2O which is so small as to be undetectable. Most of the temperature change has already occurred and increasing CO2, CH4, N2O concentrations will not lead to significant changes in air temperatures because absorption is logarithmic (Beer-Lambert Law of attenuation) – a law of diminishing returns.

Figure 1. Delta T vs CO2 concentration

The important point here is that the Ideal Gas Law, the logarithmic absorption of radiation and the theoretical calculations by Wijngaarden & Happer (2020 and 2021), Coe et al., (2021) based on the Beer-Lambert Law and the Stephan-Boltzmann Law show that there is an upper limit to the temperature change which can occur by adding ‘greenhouse gases’ to the atmosphere if the main source of incoming radiation (the Sun) does not change over time. The upper limit is ~0.81°C.

3.1.3 Other Falsifications

Many climatologists ignore the well-established ideas of the Ideal Gas Law, Kinetic Theory of Gases and Collision Theory which explain the interaction of gases in the atmosphere (Atkins & de Paula, 2014; Salby, 2012; Tec science). For example, it is difficult for CO2 to retain heat energy (by vibration, rotation, and translation) as there are 10³⁴ collisions between air molecules per second per cubic meter of gas at a pressure of 1 atmosphere (~101.3kPa) and on each collision, energy is exchanged leading to a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution (similar to a normal distribution) of molecular energies across all molecules in air (Tec science). The Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution has been experimentally determined (Atkins & de Paula, 2014). Thus, the major components of air (nitrogen and oxygen) retain most of the energy, cause evaporation of water vapor by heat transfer (mainly by conduction and convection) and emit radiation at longer wavelengths. The small concentration of CO2 in air (circa 420ppmv) cannot account for large changes in the climate system which have occurred in the past (Wrightstone, 2017 and 2023; Ball, 2014). Plimer (2009 and 2017) presents a great deal of geological scientific evidence which covers paleoclimatology concluding that:

“There is no such thing as the greenhouse effect. The atmosphere behaves neither as a greenhouse nor as an insulating blanket preventing heat escaping from the Earth. Competing forces of evaporation, convection, precipitation, and radiation create an energy balance in the atmosphere.” (Plimer 2009: p.364).

Ball (2014) summarizes a great deal of the geological science:

“The most fundamental assumption in the theory that human CO2 is causing global warming and climate change is that an increase in CO2 will cause an increase in temperature. The problem is that every record of any duration for any period in the history of the Earth exactly the opposite relationship occurs temperature increase precedes CO2 increase. Despite that a massive deception has developed and continues.” Ball (2014: p. 1).

This statement agrees with many other scientists working in geology, earth sciences, physics and physical chemistry as can be seen in cited references in books (Easterbrook, 2016; Wrightstone 2017 and 2023; Plimer, 2009; Plimer 2017; Ball, 2014; Ball,2011; Ball, 2016; Carter, 2010; Koutsoyiannis et al, 2023 & 2024; Hodzic, and Kennedy, 2019). Easterbrook (2016) uses the evidence-based approach to climate science and concludes that:

“Because of the absence of any physical evidence that CO2 causes global warming, the main argument for CO2 as the cause of warming rests largely on computer modelling.” Easterbrook (2016: p.5).

The results of the models are projected far into the future (circa 80 to 100years) where uncertainties are large, but projections can be used to demonstrate unrealistic but scary scenarios (Idso et al., 2015b). The literature that is used for the IPCC reports appears to be ‘cherry picked’ to agree with their paradigms that increasing CO2 concentrations leads to warming. They ignore the vast literature in climatology, atmospheric physics, solar physics, physics, physical chemistry, geology, biology and palaeoclimatology much of which contradicts the IPCC’s assessment in the summary for policymakers (SPM).

The objective of the IPCC was to find the human causes of climate change – not to look at all the causes of climate change which would be the sensible thing to do if the science were to be used to inform policy decisions. However, there is no experimental evidence for a significant anthropogenic component to climate change (Kaupinnen and Malmi, 2019) which leaves genuine scientists and citizens concerned about the role of the IPCC.

3.1.4 Anthropogenic CO2 and the Residence time of Carbon Dioxide in Air

There is a suggestion (IPCC) that the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is different for anthropogenic CO2 and naturally occurring CO2. This breaks a fundamental scientific principle, the Principle of Equivalence. That is: if there is equivalence between two things, they have the same use, function, size, or value (Collins English Dictionary, online). Thus, CO2 is CO2 no matter where it comes from, and each molecule will behave physically and react chemically in the same way.

The figures above illustrate how exaggerated claims are made for CO2 based on the false assumption that CO2 resides in the atmosphere for long periods and can affect the climate. These results are enough to falsify the ideas of anthropogenic global warming caused by CO2 and shows how little human activity contributes to CO2 emissions and concentrations in air. The argument is clear, that if the fictitious greenhouse effect were real for CO2 the human contribution would have no measurable effect upon the climate in terms of global average surface temperature.

The residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is between 3.0 and 4.1 years using the IPCC’s own data and not the supposed 100 years or 1000 years for anthropogenic CO2 suggested by the IPCC summaries for policy makers (Harde, 2017) which contravenes the Equivalence Principle (Berry, 2019).

“These results indicate that almost all of the observed change of CO2 during the industrial era followed, not from anthropogenic emission, but from changes of natural emission. The results are consistent with the observed lag of CO2 changes behind temperature changes (Humlum et al., 2013; Salby, 2013), a signature of cause and effect.” (Harde, 2017a: 25).

It is well-known that the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately 5 years (Boehmer-Christiansen, 2007: 1124; 1137; Kikuchi, 2010). Skrable et al., (2022), show that accumulated human CO2 is 11% of CO2 in air or ~46.84ppmv based on modelling studies. Berry (2020, 2021) uses the Principle of Equivalence (which the IPCC violates by assuming different timescales for the uptake of natural and human CO2) and agrees with Harde (2017a) that human CO2 adds about 18ppmv to the concentration in air. These are physically extremely small concentrations of CO2 which suggest most CO2 arises from natural sources. It can be concluded that the IPCC models are wrong and human CO2 will have little effect on the temperature.

4. Conclusions

Like many other researchers it was assumed there was robust science behind the greenhouse gas theory and that Net Zero was essential to achieve, but after investigation it now appears that the greenhouse gas theory is questionable and has been successfully challenged for at least 100 years (Gerlich and Tscheuschner, 2009). Much better explanations for planetary near surface atmospheric temperatures are available based on robust, empirically derived scientific laws such as the Ideal Gas law.

Better assessments of the potential increase in temperature with doubling CO2 concentrations are available and the calculated increase is small ~0.5°C (Coe et al., 2021; van Wijngaarden & Happer, 2019, 2020 and 2021; Sheahen, 2021; Schildknecht, 2020) and will remain very small with increased CO2 concentration because the infrared CO2 absorption bands are almost saturated and absorption follows the logarithmic Beer-Lambert law (Figure 1). Much of the work using the Hitran database has been tested against satellite measurements of the outgoing radiation from the Earth’s atmosphere and the calculations are in almost perfect agreement (Sheahen, 2021).

This suggests that the physicists are correct in their assessment of the likely very small increase in atmospheric temperature and therefore there is a strong case against Net Zero as it will have no discernible effect on temperature and the cost of Net Zero is huge. Therefore, the Net Zero project does not pass the cost-benefit test (Montford, 2024b; NESO, 2024). That is the costs are disproportionately high for little or no benefit. Thus, the correct response to a non-problem is to do nothing. The monies being wasted on Net Zero should be spent for the benefit of citizens (e.g. education, health care, public health, water infrastructure, waste processing, economic prosperity etc.). There are many other pressing public health problems from burning fossil fuels which should be addressed (e.g. air pollution especially particulates and carbon monoxide).

Better calculations of the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 concentrations are available and it is small ~18ppmv (Skrable et al., 2022; Berry, 2020; Harde 2017a & 2017b; Harde, 2019; Harde 2014). The phase relation between temperature and CO2 concentration changes are now clearly understood; temperature increases are followed by increases in CO2 likely from outgassing from the ocean and increased biological activity (Davis , 2017; Hodzic and Kennedy, 2019; Humlum, 2013; Salby, 2012; Koutsoyiannis et al, 2023 & 2024).

“In conclusion on the basis of observational data, the climate crisis that, according to many sources, we are experiencing today, is not evident yet.” Alimonti etal. 2022: 111.

Many researchers are addressing the ‘CO2 and climate change problem’ by suggesting decarbonization and other approaches such as Net Zero. CO2 is more than likely not the temperature control and has a very minor to negligible role in global warming (The Bruges Group, 2021; De Lange and Berkhout, 2024; Manheimer, 2022; Statistics Norway 2023; Lindzen and Happer, 2024; Lindzen, et al., 2024).

The scientific literature was examined and found to provide several alternative views concerning CO2 and the need for Net Zero. The objectives of this paper have been achieved and the conclusions can be briefly summarized:

CO2 is a harmless highly beneficial rare trace gas essential for all life on Earth due to photosynthesis which produces simple sugars and carbohydrates in plants and a bi-product Oxygen (O2). CO2is therefore the basis of the entire food supply chain (see Biology or Botany textbooks or House, 2013). CO2 is close to an all-time low geologically (Wrightstone, 2017 and 2023) and controls on CO2 emissions and concentrations in air should be considered as very dangerous and expensive policy indeed. Net Zero is not necessary and should be abandoned.
The greenhouse gas theory has been falsified (i.e. proven wrong) from several disciplines including paleoclimatology, geology, physics, and physical chemistry. CO2 cannot affect the climate in such small concentrations (~420ppmv or ~0.04%) and basing government policy on output from faulty climate models will prove to be very expensive and achieve nothing for the environment, public health, or the climate.

“There is no atmospheric greenhouse effect, in particular CO2 greenhouse effect, in theoretical physics and engineering thermodynamics. Thus, it is illegitimate to deduce predictions which provide a consulting solution for economics and intergovernmental policy.” (Gerlich & Tscheuschner, 2009: 354).

The oceans contain approximately 50 times as much CO2 as is currently present in the air (Easterbrook, 2016; Wrightstone, 2017 and 2023) and as such Henry’s Law will work to maintain the dynamic equilibrium concentration in air over the longer term as the ocean will absorb and outgas CO2(Atkins & de Paula, 2014). Net Zero will, therefore, achieve nothing for the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. If the volcanic sources of CO2 are as Kamis (2021), the IPCC and others suggest many times the human contribution, then Net Zero will have no measurable effect on atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Net Zero should, therefore, be abandoned.
The contribution to greenhouse gases, especially CO2, attributable to humans is extremely small, almost negligible (~4.3% or ~18ppmv total accumulation) and half is absorbed by the ocean and biomass. Other naturally occurring so-called greenhouse gases are present in very small/negligible quantities (e.g. CH4, N2O). The systematic attempts to eliminate these trace gases from the atmosphere by reducing industrial output, reducing farming, eliminating fossil fuel use, and changing the way human civilization lives is totally unnecessary – again the ‘do-nothing strategy’ is strongly recommended.
The sciences have been largely ignored by politicians and activists. There have been numerous failings of governments to take notice of scientific findings and they have succumbed to unnecessary pressure from activist groups (including the United Nations and the IPCC). Net Zero is just one example where costly efforts by governments will achieve nothing and not address the real problems of air pollution, public health, or economic well-being of citizens.

“There is not a single fact, figure or observation that leads us to conclude that the world’s climate is in any way disturbed.” (Société de Calcul Mathématique SA, 2015:3).

Circular reasoning is used by the climate modelers. That is, the fictitious greenhouse effect is built into the models such that when the parameter of CO2concentration is increased then the temperature output of the models increases, producing models which run relatively hot compared to natural variability. This reduces the so-called greenhouse effect to little more than a ‘fudge factor’ or ‘parameter’ within models which essentially gives you the answer that you set out to prove. This circular reasoning is hardly scientific enquiry and with data ‘homogenization’ and infilling of missing data begins to look rather peculiar. Climatologists need to recognize these issues, address the real reasons for climate change and offer genuine solutions to any real problems.
The claim of consensus is completely unscientific in its approach (Idso et al, 2015a). Noting that 31,000 US scientists and engineers signed the petition protest (Robinson et al., 2007), recently 90 Italian scientists wrote an open letter to the Italian government (Crescenti et al., 2019), and 500 climatologists and scientists signed an open letter to the UN Secretary General (Berkhout, 2019). All explaining that CO2 is not the cause of climate change. There are thousands of academic papers and books questioning anthropogenic climate change with good data.

Many other concerned individuals have looked at the evidence for anthropogenic climate change based on CO2 and found it wanting (e.g. Davison, 2018; Rofe, 2018).

“If in fact ‘the science is settled’, it seems to be much more settled in the fact that there is no particular correlation between CO2 level and the earth’s temperature.” (Manheimer, 2022).

and

“If you assume the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are right about everything and use only their numbers in the calculation, you will arrive at the conclusion that we should do nothing about climate change!” (Field, 2013).

The academic literature in science offers numerous and far better explanations for climate change than the fictitious greenhouse effect. Researchers should recognize this fact and start to look at dealing with the real causes of climate change. Net Zero is an enormously expensive solution to a non-problem and has no obvious redeeming features. The Net Zero policy is not financially sustainable and should be abandoned.

	oldbrew on EU Climatists Backpedaling
	Ron Clutz on Be Grateful for the Warming We…
	beththeserf on Be Grateful for the Warming We…
	Carney Directs Canad… on On Energy, Carney the Wrong Ma…
	Carney Directs Canad… on Canada PM Carney Floats Imagin…

Science Matters

Reading between the lines, and underneath the hype.

Month: December 2024