From Science Matters

By Ron Clutz

Getty Images

Mark Imisides advises climate skeptics to reconsider how to dispute claims from climate believers in his Spectator Australia article Changing climate change: debunking the global colossus.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

How is it that despite the scientific case for a climate apocalypse comprehensively collapsing some 20 years ago, we have seen a 16-year-old girl (at the time) being invited to address the United Nations, weeping children marching in our streets, and a federal election outcome in which this issue dominated the political landscape?

Put simply, we must learn the art of the polemic. The art of rhetoric. We must recognise that there’s no point in having evidence on our side if we don’t know how to use it.

We begin with this proposition. There is no case for reducing our carbon footprint unless all four of these statements are true:

1. The world is warming.
2. We are causing it.
3. It’s a bad thing.
4. We can do something about it.

No rational person can have any problem with this, and if they do, we need to find out why.

Here’s where we have to decide which of these points we want to contest. Remember, you only have to falsify one of them for the whole thing to collapse like a house of cards.

Most sceptics, in my view, pick the wrong fight. 

They do this by attempting to prosecute the case based on one of the first two points. This is a mistake.

Here’s why.

Arguments about whether the world is warming revolve around competing graphs: ‘My graph shows it’s warming.

If your graph shows it isn’t, then it’s wrong – no it isn’t – yes it is – no it isn’t…’  This argument also looks at Urban Heat Island Effects, and examines manipulation of data by government agencies.  This is a poor approach to take because:

• You’re never going to prove your graph is right.
• You can be very easily and quickly discredited as a conspiracy theorist (Brian Cox did this to Malcolm Roberts on Q&A a few years ago). People just do not believe that government agencies would manipulate data.
• We should not fear a warming world. Records began at the end of the last ice age, so it’s only natural that the world is warming. And the current temperatures are well within historical averages.

Source: Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Two Natural Components of the Recent Climate Change: (1) The Recovery from the Little Ice Age (A Possible Cause of Global Warming) and (2) The Multi-decadal Oscillation (The Recent Halting of the Warming):

As for arguments about whether we are causing the warming, this is even more problematic. The various contributions to global temperatures are extremely complex, involving a deep understanding of atmospheric physics and thermodynamics. 

With a PhD in Chemistry, this is much closer to my area of expertise than Joe Public, but I am very quickly out of my depth. I recognise most of the terms and concepts involved, but know just enough to know how little I know.

Sadly, many people on both sides of the debate don’t understand how little they know, nor how complex the subject of atmospheric physics is, and it is nothing short of comical seeing two people debating about a subject of which both of them are blissfully ignorant.

The bottom line is this – they simply don’t change anyone’s minds – ever.

Having seen these arguments used for years, and having used them myself, I cannot point to a single person that has said, ‘Oh yes! I see it now…’ The whole point of arguing, or debating, is to change someone’s mind (including, at times, your own). If that isn’t happening, then it’s futile to continue with the same approach.

I think the reason both these approaches fail that most people do not believe that all these experts, and the government, can be wrong. You say the world isn’t warming? Oh, I’m sure you have the wrong graph. You say that CO2 is not responsible? Oh, I’m sure the government scientists know more than you do.

This then brings us to the third point. Why is a warmer world a bad thing?

This is even more tempting than the first two points, as it’s so easy to prove that a warming world, so far from being a crisis, is actually a good thing. The reason for this is that, unlike with the first two points, they don’t have to look at a complex scientific argument. They just have to look at the weather. Are cyclones and hurricanes increasing? Are droughts increasing? Are flooding events increasing?

Regretfully, it is impossible to get people to even look at this.

Even worse, they seem oblivious to the simple concept of cause and effect. We see this in that they simply can’t see that droughts and floods are opposites, and the same cause cannot produce exactly opposite effects. Astonishingly, they somehow think that charts that plot these extreme events are somehow manipulated, even when they come from a primary source such as the BOM, and that there really is a ‘climate crisis’.

Where does that leave us? Well, before we adopt Catweazle’s mantra of ‘nothing works’, there is one more point – point 4 (can we do anything about it?).

Most people will have seen the address of Konstantin Kisin at an Oxford Union debate, where he prosecuted this case to great effect. He pointed out, in simple terms, that as the UK only contributes 2 per cent to the global CO2 budget, anything they did will have negligible effect, and that global CO2 levels will be determined by people in Africa and Asia. He then pointed out that people in these countries ‘didn’t give a sh*t’ about climate change, as all they want to do is feed and clothe their children, and they don’t care how much CO2 that produces.

Finally, he pointed out that Xi Jinping knows that the way to ensure that he isn’t rolled in a revolution, as happened to so many other leaders in former communist regimes, is to ensure prosperity for the Chinese people. And indispensable to that goal is cheap, reliable, power, which is the reason that China is now building lots more coal-fired power plants – in 2021 alone they built 25 GW of capacity – equivalent to 25 x 1000MW plants.

By all accounts, his speech was well-received, with many people turning to his side. The beauty of prosecuting this case, as opposed to the other three, is that people don’t have to look at any evidence. They don’t even have to look at the weather.

The argument is at the same time simple, compelling, and irresistible. The question is this: will we see a major political party with the courage to take it on?

That part remains to be seen. But what is certain is this – the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different outcomes. If, for twenty years we’ve been telling people either that the world isn’t warming, or if it is we aren’t causing it, or if it is warmer but there’s no climate crisis, and not a single person has been persuaded by our arguments, then we have the brains of a tomato if we think anything is going to change.

Konstantin Kisin’s talk, and in particular the way it was received, fill me with hope that I haven’t had in years. It fills me with hope that if the case is prosecuted wisely, the climate change colossus can be brought to a grinding halt, politicians will unashamedly take on energy security as a political mantra, and the notion of climate change will at last be exposed as the unscientific, anti-human, regressive, apocalyptic cult that it is.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

An eminent researcher has warned that any attempt to decarbonise the US economy by 2050 is doomed to failure.

Professor Michael Kelly, from the University of Cambridge in the UK, has previously studied the impact of Net Zero projects in the UK and his native New Zealand, and has now turned his expertise to the United States

.
His headline findings are a stark warning for politicians across the country.

“The cost to 2050 will comfortably exceed $12 trillion for electrification projects, and $35 trillion for improving the energy efficiency of buildings. A work-force comparable in size to the health sector will be required for 30 years, including a doubling of the present number of electrical engineers. The bill of specialist materials is of a size that, for the USA alone, is several times the global annual production.”

Professor Kelly warns that politicians are not thinking through the scale of the project they are pursuing.

“It’s clear that no country has the manpower, the materials, or the money to deliver Net Zero. It cannot be attempted without establishing a command economy, and even then it would fail. This is a fool’s errand.”

Michael Kelly: The Feasibility of a Net-Zero Economy for the USA by 2050 (pdf)

I usually work on a ratio of 10 to 1 when comparing US and UK GDP, so this would equate to about £4 trillion in UK terms, which is broadly in line with other estimations.

From NoTricksZone

By Kenneth Richard on 16. March 2023

“Chironomid‐based temperature reconstructions in the central eastern Alps showed…between ca. 10 000 and 8600 cal a BP…a thermal maximum of up to 4.5°C higher temperatures than present” – Caf et al., 2023

With the exception of a century or two during the Little Ice Age (~1500-1900 CE), the European Alps have had a much higher concentration of beech (Fagus) and spruce (Picea) forest presence than today for nearly all of the last 10,000 years (Caf et al., 2023).

The much more heavily vegetated and forested area – which coincides with a warmer climate – can be clearly observed in the reconstructions of Holocene tree and shrub presence.

In the images below, notice how much greater the Alpine forest coverage was during the Medieval Warm Period (~600 to 1000 CE) and the 8 to 10 millennia preceding it.

Even during the last 400-500 years, encompassing the Little Ice Age, there were as-warm or warmer periods than today.

So, once again, we have another study affirming the modern climate is not only not unusually warm, but actually we are currently living in one the coldest climatic periods since the end of the last glacial.

Image Source: Caf et al., 2023

From Science Matters

by Ron Clutz

Published at CO2 Coalition A Plea To Pierre Poilievre, A Climate Realist for Prime Minister of Canada by Ron Barmby.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Dear Pierre,

There will probably be a federal election in Canada in the coming months as Justin Trudeau’s government is in a minority position with waning support.

His past three successful elections have all included fighting climate change as a key and winning platform. His current legislative agenda indicates his next campaign will have the same focus.

As Leader of the Official Opposition [pictured above], and in the best position to form a new government, you are currently advocating eliminating Trudeau’s national carbon tax and “letting technology handle CO2 emissions.”

That is probably a strategy to avoid playing to Trudeau’s strength, which is instilling fear of climate change in the voting public. But you could take it further by highlighting Trudeau’s main climate weakness: he misrepresents or is willingly ignorant of, the science of climate change.

Election campaigns require talking points, but I can offer you the following thinking points on the science of climate change that I hope you will find useful.

1500+ Scientists Agreed and Declared No Climate Emergency

The Climate Changes but There Is No Climate Emergency.

Trudeau’s declaration of a national climate emergency is based on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) forecasts of between 2.5°C and 3.5°C warming between now and the year 2100 (intermediate and high emissions scenarios).

If those forecasts—which are not compliant with the scientific method—were reasonable, surely the planet would be on that warming trend now. It’s not.

The most accurate and complete temperature survey of the planet comes from satellites, beginning in 1979. Over the past 44 years, satellite data reveals that the trend of global warming has been 0.13°C per decade, which if continued would add only 1°C by 2100.

Interestingly, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increased by 25% over those four decades. CO2 doesn’t seem to have caused much warming during that time.

The warmest year on the satellite record is 1998 (caused by an El Nino event) indicating no current warming trend for the last 24 years. And CO2 concentrations have since increased by 14%.

This satellite data is backed up by the world’s most sophisticated land-based temperature survey designed for scientific research. The United States Climate Reference Network (USCRN) was set up to provide continental U.S. temperature data using state-of-the-art triple redundant instruments in pristine locations unaffected by human activity.

There has been no warming trend in the continental United States since USCRN data collection began 18 years ago. Interestingly again, CO2 concentrations were up 10% during that period.

Mr. Poilievre, this lack of warming is well-known and documented in the public domain. The limitations of CO2 causing global warming are also well-known and documented in the scientific domain and even accepted by the IPCC.

That is why Trudeau, with only tepid backing from the IPCC, is now claiming increased extreme weather events as the new basis for fear of climate change.

Except it’s not true that we’re experiencing increased extreme weather events. A recent study using established and accepted international databases saw no statistically significant increasing trends in the intensity of heatwaves, hurricanes and/or tropical storms, tornadoes, global and extreme precipitation, droughts, or floods.

On a Canadian note, the 2021/22 extreme weather events in central British Columbia consisting of a succession of a polar vortex, heat dome, wildfires, and flooding were not a result of CO2-induced climate change. They are all linked to instability in the jet stream, solidly backed up by meteorological science.

The Natural Causes of Climate Change Are Very Large.

The sun provides the Earth with almost all of its surface heat. On the time scale of recent human history, changes in the output of the sun are the smoking gun for climate change.

A less active sun has a weakened magnetic field, which allows more galactic cosmic rays to hit our atmosphere and ionize molecules. These ionized molecules become cloud-building sites. Low, dense clouds block the sun’s heat from reaching the surface of the Earth, causing temperatures to drop.

The opposite is true; a more active sun has a stronger magnetic field that shields the Earth from cosmic rays. This means less ionization and cloud-building, so more of the sun’s warming energy reaches the surface.

When the sun’s activity is low for many decades it is called a Grand Solar Minimum. During the Little Ice Age of 1300 to 1850, we experienced four consecutive Grand Solar Minimums; at that time the average global temperature was about 1°C lower than today.

Conversely, sustained high solar activity is called a Grand Solar Maximum and the most recent occurrence was during much of the 20th century when we experienced about 1°C of global warming.

The IPCC, with Trudeau‘s adherence, dismiss solar changes even though a 1% reduction in cloud cover could explain the global warming of the past century.

Eliminating The Carbon Tax is a Great Idea.

As Dr. Lars Schernikau, Ph.D. in Energy Economics and who grew up in the centrally planned economy of East Germany points out “…because pricing one externality but not others leads to economic and environmental distortions… causing human suffering.”

His example is particularly applicable to Canada where CO2 pricing is only on combustion, but green technology is exempt:

“How else could a ‘Net-Zero’ label be assigned to a solar panel produced from coal and minerals extracted in Africa with diesel-run equipment, transported to China on a vessel powered by fuel oil, and processed with energy from coal- or gas-fired power using partially with forced labor?”

Technology Cannot Handle CO2 Emissions.

In fact, technology is rather bad at handling CO2 emissions. Let’s look at wind power first. A 15% drop in wind speed equates to a 40% drop in electrical generation. Europe is a prime example of the failure of wind power.

That failure transferred European energy security to Russia which enabled it to invade Ukraine. American solar power failures became the highlight of Michael Moore’s documentary Planet of the Humans.

Hydrogen fuel cells were aptly described by Elon Musk as “mind-bogglingly stupid.” Burning hydrogen directly is not only an extreme safety risk (leaks from plastic local distribution pipelines), but it produces six times the smog-causing nitrous oxides that natural gas does.

Many hydroelectric dams produce more greenhouse gases than the burning of coal due to the cement-related CO2 and methane emissions from the artificial lakes.

Fully electric vehicles are a bad idea for Canada because (a) in very cold weather their driving range is halved while the charging time is doubled and (b) we don’t have the grid capacity to charge them anyway.

Adding ethanol to gasoline does not reduce CO2 emissions. That’s just an accounting trick, but not much of a trick because ethanol emissions are simply not counted. However, it does drive up food prices significantly, as food is converted to fuel. This is devastating to the world’s poor.

Carbon capture and storage in Canada’s oil sector would divert large sums of money away from being available for health care and reducing taxes while providing no impact on the steadily increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration (which incidentally is also driving up global crop yields).

Capping CO2 emissions from Canada’s oil industry just means a dictator’s oil will fill the market gap we could have ethically and responsibly filled.

Canada’s Next Election.

A global fear of climate change has led to panic, panic has led to bad decisions, and bad decisions have led to failure. The result is energy poverty, hunger, massive distortions of the free market, and a shooting war in Europe. That’s a far cry from the United Nations’ mandate of promoting peace.

Trudeau’s game plan for climate change is more fear, more panic, and more failure. Meanwhile, not a single signatory to the 2015 Paris Agreement is on track to meet their 1.5°C emissions reductions target. Additionally, Canada now holds the title of the world’s most useful climate idiot and we have become a house divided.

A rational game plan would include only facts established by the scientific method, and dispassionate deliberation from the larger scientific and engineering community (wherein Canadians still enjoy a respected reputation).

Canadians should not fear climate change; they should understand it and prepare as necessary. We need a new plan based on evident realities, not science “experienced differently” by Trudeau.

What we should truly fear is Trudeau’s fight against climate change.

Best regards,

CO2 Coalition Member Ron Barmby (www.ronaldbarmby.ca) is a Professional Engineer with a Bachelor’s and Master’s degree, whose 40+ year career in the energy sector has taken him to over 40 countries on five continents. His book, Sunlight on Climate Change: A Heretic’s Guide to Global Climate Hysteria (Amazon, Barnes & Noble), explains in layman’s terms the science of how natural and human-caused global warming work.

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

h/t Jim Lakely (Heartland):

The British government has caved in to the reality that renewables don’t work, and will now include nuclear energy in its plan to transition to “sustainable” power.

UK ‘to class nuclear as environmentally sustainable’

15 March 2023

The UK’s Chancellor Jeremy Hunt has announced that nuclear will “subject to consultation, be classed as environmentally sustainable in our green taxonomy” – he also launched a competition, to be completed by the end of the year, which could lead to co-funding for small modular reactors (SMRs).

In his set-piece address to the House of Commons outlining the government’s tax and spending plans, Hunt said “increasing nuclear capacity is vital to meet our net-zero obligations … so to encourage the private sector investment into our nuclear programme, I today confirm that, subject to consultation, nuclear power will be classed as environmentally sustainable in our green taxonomy, giving it access to the same investment incentives as renewable energy”.

He added: “Today I can announce two further commitments to deliver our nuclear ambitions. Firstly … I am announcing the launch of Great British Nuclear which will bring down costs and provide opportunities across the nuclear supply chain to help provide up to one quarter of our electricity by 2050. And secondly, I am launching the first competition for small modular reactors. It will be completed by the end of this year and if demonstrated as viable we will co-fund this exciting new technology.”

There was no further detail about the consultation provided among the Budget documents posted online.

…Read more: https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/UK-to-class-nuclear-as-environmentally-sustainable

My suggestion, make sure the bank which holds your savings does not have significant exposure to renewable energy businesses.

Intermittent energy cannot compete with reliable energy, on anything like a level playing field.

If Britain’s decision to embrace nuclear power in its portfolio of sustainable energy options catches on, and if nuclear is treated as an equal partner to other “green” energy options, it will be like swinging a giant wrecking ball at the value of all the world’s existing wind and solar investments.

From  CFACT

By Craig Rucker 

ESG, or “Environmental, Social and Governance” investing, is a pernicious left-wing tactic designed to achieve policy goals that cannot pass legislatures by distorting investment decisions.

ESG represents not only a sneaky false flag means of forcing policy decisions, but a real threat to investors large and small.

ESG may have already contributed to the insolvency of Silicon Valley Bank, which carried a portfolio high in investments made, not for the likelihood of achieving solid returns, but to curry favor with the “woke” mob.

Here are three points I made during my testimony at a North Dakota Senate hearing this week (full submission at CFACT.org) that apply equally to every state:

• ESG is not concerned with advancing the economic interests of North Dakotans. Instead, it is a top-down, elitist inspired effort reflecting the interests and priorities of multibillionaires and internationalists.
• ESG is random with its ratings, it’s not applied fairly, and it empowers America’s adversaries – notably China.
• It simply doesn’t work. ESG investing is not getting the returns it promised investors, nor is it changing the world for the better. In fact, it’s doing the opposite!

Governor Ron DeSantis announced legislation to protect Floridians from ESG which he stated “builds on my commitment to protect consumers’ investments and their ability to access financial services in the Free State of Florida,” said Governor Ron DeSantis. “By applying arbitrary ESG financial metrics that serve no one except the companies that created them, elites are circumventing the ballot box to implement a radical ideological agenda. Through this legislation, we will protect the investments of Floridians and the ability of Floridians to participate in the economy.”

“We will not stand idly by as the stability of our country’s economy is threatened by woke executives who put their political agenda ahead of their clients’ finances,” DeSantis said.

The Washington Examiner reports that DeSantis will form an anti-ESG alliance “with Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.”

These states are expected, in addition to other measures, to forbid their pension funds from abandoning sound business practice in pursuit of ESG.

The life savings of pensioners, and every one of us engaged in “the pursuit of happiness” in America, are not fair game for left-wing social engineering.

Senate Industry and Business Public Hearing

Submission of Craig Rucker

Read the facts at CFACT.org

Governor Ron DeSantis Announces
Legislation to Protect Floridians from
the Woke ESG Financial Scam

Read the full press release at CFACT.org

DeSantis to unveil alliance
with 18 states to combat
Biden’s ‘woke’ ESG agenda

Read the facts at the
Washington Examiner

Author

• Craig Rucker
• Craig Rucker is a co-founder of CFACT and currently serves as its president.

From Science Matters

By Ron Clutz

Doublethink: The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.

Michael Lynch provides the latest doublethink example regarding global energy in his Forbes article International Energy Week Is A Lesson In Cognitive Dissonance. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

A climate activists from the Extinction Rebellion group.. (Photo by JUSTIN TALLIS / AFP) (Photo by … [+]AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES

The slogan for London’s prestigious International Energy Week now going on is “Transitioning out of Crisis,” reflecting the focus of the conference on the post-Ukrainian-War energy industry and the transition to renewables. As their website says, it is “the global conference focused on transitioning out of the geopolitical and environmental crises facing energy….Climate change impacts and projections are worsening; international prices post-COVID are volatile and hitting consumers hard; and the effects of Russia’s devastating invasion of Ukraine are rippling out across the global economy. The energy transition offers enduring solutions, some immediate, others longer-term.”

Most of dozen primary speakers are from the renewable energy industry, or renewable/low carbon executives in the fossil fuel industry, with only two ‘pure’ oil executives, the CEOs of BP and Petronas. Presumably, the organizers would argue, the future is a transition to renewable and low-carbon energy, thus the emphasis.

But at the same time, though, we had industry executives commenting: “Demand is expected to hit record levels in the second half of the year,” Vitol Chief Executive Officer Russell Hardy said in a Bloomberg Television interview. “The prospect of higher prices in the second half of the year, in the sort of $90-$100 range, is a real possibility.” International Energy Week Returns to London With Talk of $100 Oil – Bloomberg

Cognitive dissonance is the holding of contradictory views:
expecting higher fossil fuel demand while arguing that the crisis is heralding
an accelerated energy transition seems a perfect example.

The lesson of the current energy crisis is not that acceleration of the transition is needed, but that renewables are not capable of stepping up in a crisis and that consumers cherish cheap energy much more than ‘clean’ energy. Imagining a conference that provides much more realistic assessments of our energy future is easy; imagining those arguments given serious consideration by most media and pundits, not so much.

As I have written recently, oil prices could be higher later this year, but they could also be lower, depending on what happens to supply from Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Angola, Libya and Nigeria, not necessarily in that order. But record levels of demand are much more certain for the simple fact that the heavy investments in renewables and electric vehicles have had marginal impact to date on oil demand, or fossil fuel demand overall, as the figure below shows.

Global Energy Consumption in Exajoules THE AUTHOR FROM BP DATA.

Careful scrutiny does show a couple instances when demand fell, namely the 2008 financial crisis and the 2020 pandemic, however, it seems unlikely that policy-makers will promote those as solutions to climate change.

To paraphrase the famous quote from the Vietnam War,
“We have to destroy the economy in order to save it.”

To date, it appears that renewables have largely supplemented not replaced fossil fuel consumption, despite large-scale investments and much enthusiasm about the glowing success and prospects for the renewable industry (including electric vehicles). This resembles past transitions where consumption of the dominant fuel such as coal does not disappear but new demand is met from its successor, such as oil and gas.

One problem with the conference’s approach is the long-standing tendency
for pundits to embrace consensus, sometimes without regard for reality.

One famous energy pundit in 1983 remarked “But then, in late 1981 and early 1982, U.S. consumers, encouraged by some unknowing writers and economists, began to believe that OPEC members were no longer able to hold up oil prices and that all of America’s energy problems were over. This misperception, which was encouraged by the desire for a simple view and a simple solution, obscured the nature of the energy situation.”[emphasis added; citation from “A Cautionary Tale for Oil Companies Navigating the Energy Transition,” on realclearenegy.com Cautionary Tale for Oil Companies in the Energy Transition | RealClearEnergy] Two years later, the price collapsed and remained low for fifteen years, as if a host of experts had not predicted otherwise.

Additionally, at most conferences the ‘sexy’ is favored over the boring. This is reminiscent of the way Enron was the darling of the media for its insistence that “Vertically integrated behemoths like ExxonMobilXOM -1.9% Corp. (XOM ), whose balance sheet was rich with oil reserves, gas stations, and other assets, were dinosaurs to a contemptuous Skilling.” (emphasis added; source ibid) Speeches hailing the coming of the ‘virtual corporation’ proliferated—until Enron collapsed in scandal and bankruptcy.

Larry Goldstein and I have written about the possible failure of the energy transition, but it is hardly a popular view. Like Midas’ barber, we could be whispering into a hole in the ground: the potential failure is not so much secret as unwanted.

Perhaps there should be a sequel to “An Inconvenient Truth,”
focusing on the difficulties of the transition and the potential that it would not
live up to even the more modest expectations of some advocates.

This probably sounds like the many eccentrics who point out that the scientific community has often been wrong, for example, refusing to accept the theory of continental drift. But that doesn’t mean that the scientific consensus should be ignored, rather that skeptical views should be considered rather than rejected out of hand. And by considered, I do not mean cherry-picking opposite views as evidence. (Something my peak oil critics often did.)

See Also 2022 Update: Fossil Fuels ≠ Global Warming

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t Dennis Ambler

A farmers’ party has stunned Dutch politics, and is set to be the biggest party in the upper house of parliament after provincial elections.

The Farmer-citizen movement (BBB) was only set up in 2019 in the wake of widespread farmers’ protests.

But with most votes counted they are due to win 15 of the Senate’s seats with almost 20% of the vote.

“This isn’t normal, but actually it is! It’s all normal citizens who voted,” said leader Caroline van der Plas.

The BBB aims to fight government plans to slash nitrogen emissions harmful to biodiversity by dramatically reducing livestock numbers and buying out thousands of farms.

But its appeal has spread rapidly beyond its rural heartland, on a populist platform that represents traditional, conservative Dutch social and moral values.

Shocked by the scale of their success, Ms van der Plas told supporters that voters normally stayed at home if they lost faith in politics: “But today people have shown they can’t stay at home any longer. We won’t be ignored any more.”

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64967513.amp

This shows what can happen when governments push their electorate too far.

The Dutch Senate is effectively elected on a PR basis, so sadly the British public will not get the same opportunity to fight back.

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

h/t ethical voter, David Pentland; “… What if we imagined “wealth” consisting not of the money we stuff into banks or the fossil fuel-derived goods we pile up, but of joy, beauty, friendship, community, closeness … “

Opinion  What if climate change meant not doom — but abundance?

By Rebecca Solnit
March 15, 2023 at 6:00 a.m. EDT

Rebecca Solnit, a writer and historian, is the author of more than 20 books and co-editor of the anthology “Not Too Late: Changing the Climate Story From Despair to Possibility,” publishing in April.

A monastic once told me renunciation can be great if it means giving up things that make you miserable.

This vision, I think, is what has been missing when we talk about the climate crisis — and how we should respond to it.

Much of the reluctance to do what climate change requires comes from the assumption that it means trading abundance for austerity, and trading all our stuff and conveniences for less stuff, less convenience. But what if it meant giving up things we’re well rid of, from deadly emissions to nagging feelings of doom and complicity in destruction? What if the austerity is how we live now — and the abundance could be what is to come?

…

What if we imagined “wealth” consisting not of the money we stuff into banks or the fossil fuel-derived goods we pile up, but of joy, beauty, friendship, community, closeness to flourishing nature, to good food produced without abuse of labor? What if we were to think of wealth as security in our environments and societies, and as confidence in a viable future?

…

For so many of us, being busy with work has leached away our capacity to pursue true riches. What if we were to prioritize reclaiming our time— to fret less about getting and spending — and instead “spend” this precious resource on creative pursuits, on adventure and learning, on building stronger societies and being better citizens, on caring for the people (and other species and places) we love, on taking care of ourselves?

…Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/03/15/rebecca-solnit-climate-change-wealth-abundance/

Anyone who bothers to open a history book already knows what time wealth without money wealth looks like.

There is nothing romantic about trying to grow your own food with hand tools, without the assistance of modern fossil fuel powered technology, sprays and fertilisers.

Dust Bowl 1930s. Source Bởi Sloan (?) – United States Department of Agriculture; Image Number: 00di0971

The horror of 9/11 shocked the entire world. It also has a very personal impact on me, my business went into deep freeze for an entire year.

In 2002 I planted a large vegetable garden, to try to stretch my savings.

I had lots of “time wealth”, but very little money wealth.

My efforts with the vegetable garden made a difference. Those veggies I grew in 2002 saved my family from financial ruin, they helped us stretch our savings just enough, to bridge the year long post 9/11 gap in our income.

But after the economy started thawing, I was very glad to get back to making money, instead of enjoying that endless “time wealth” of growing vegetables by hand.

I’m not dissing people who enjoy growing their own food. I enjoy growing food, every year I make bottles of delicious lime cordial from my own garden. But if my fruit trees fail to produce, as they do some years, money wealth means I can buy limes and mandarins and whatever else I need from the supermarket. Money wealth is food security and peace of mind.

So my answer to anyone who tries to romanticise being close to nature is try it out – not for a day or two, or a weekend camping trip with nylon tents and airbeds and tinned food and bug spray and propane cookers and heaters. Try living that way for a year.

Anyone who makes the attempt to live the lifestyle green romantics like Rebecca Solnit advocate, will learn very quickly that nature is a harsh place full of biting, stinging insects, and snails and slugs and caterpillars and grubs which try to eat all your crops. They will also come to appreciate why thousands of generations of our ancestors devoted their lives to leaving future generations a better world than the primitive subsistence world they inherited.

From Science Matters

By Ron Clutz

American Spectator reports Canadian Taxpayers Forced to Fund Federal Employees’ Transgender Surgeries.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

The government of Canada announced in February that it will now pay up to $75,000 “per lifetime” for each federal public service employee, and his or her dependents, who wishes to gender transition.

Justin Trudeau’s administration made that change, which will go into effect on July 1.

These changes are part of several changes the government is making to the Public Service Health Care Plan, a program meant to supplement the health care each employee receives from the province in which he or she lives.

As most Canadian provinces already cover “gender reassignment surgeries,” the $75,000 would be in addition to any funding the employee receives for transitioning.

The plan also is specifically meant to cover surgeries that are not included in most other provincial health care plans because they are considered cosmetic, like “facial feminization,” “breast augmentation,” or “voice surgery.”

The changes are supposed to “help people with their gender affirmation journey,” the statement read.

This is just one of many recent moves to support LGBTQ+ ideology made by the Canadian government, under the leadership of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

For “Public Service Pride Week” last August, Trudeau put out a statement celebrating “LGBTQ2 public servants.”  “As the largest single employer in Canada, the public service sets an example of what inclusivity means in the workplace,” he said. “We all have a role to play this week, and throughout the year, to support each other.”

Last summer, Trudeau also announced Canada’s first “2SLGBTQI+ Action Plan… Building our future, with pride.”  The plan was designed to be “a whole-of-government approach.”

One of its goals was to “[e]mbed 2SLGBTQI+ issues in the work of the Government of Canada,” which it successfully does with this latest health care expansion.

Footnote:  Backlash Mounts Against Sex Change Operations for Minors

As more evidence emerges about just how dangerous these procedures are, doctors who raise the alarm are increasingly being silenced by organizations like the American College of Pediatrics. In the aforementioned Vanderbilt case, doctors were warned that there would be “consequences” if they refused to perform the surgeries.

Already, we are starting to see the disastrous effects of the left’s gender-affirming care model. A woman in Sydney, Australia, for example, is suing her psychiatrist for medical malpractice after recommending she begin hormone treatment after one meeting and a recommending double mastectomy after only her second meeting. Within three years of the first meeting with her psychiatrist, she had hormone treatment, testosterone injections, a double mastectomy, and a complete hysterectomy. In the lawsuit, the woman claims the psychiatrist “failed to take precautions…in the nature of loss of her breasts, uterus, fallopian tubes and ovaries.”

More than five percent of Americans aged 18-29 say they identify as a sex other than the one they were “assigned” at birth – a nearly five-fold increase from the number of 30-49-year-old Americans who say the same. Given trends among Gen Z, it’s likely that number will grow exponentially in the years ahead. With evidence already mounting that many of the young people who undergo sex change treatment as minors come to regret it as adults, the country could soon have a crisis of tens of thousands of disaffected young people who are filled with remorse for the rest of their lives – all because they were allowed to make decisions that they were nowhere near mature or informed enough to make.

A society that fails to protect its children is one that is doomed to fail. In the coming years, Republicans and any Democrats willing to stand up to the trans lobby would do well to ensure that puberty and physical development is allowed to occur naturally for every child and that life-altering decisions are reserved for when individuals mature into adulthood, no sooner.