Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
Welcome to episode #7 of Davos Watch.
This episode reveals a foundational belief of the Davos elites espoused by historian, author, and World Economic Forum Advisor Yuval Harari – the idea that “free will” is nothing more than a myth.
As host Donald Kendal explains, this belief unpins much of the policy positions and worldviews of the Davos crowd.
Davos Watch takes place live during our weekly In The Tank podcast, broadcast every Thursday at 12pm CT on our sister channel, Stopping Socialism TV.
From The MANHATTAN CONTRARIAN
Let me welcome to the small and elite club of critical thinkers on the supposed energy transition a guy named Balázs Fekete. Fekete, with several co-authors, has recently (September 18) succeeded in getting an article published in a journal called Frontiers of Environmental Science, with the title “Storage requirements to mitigate intermittent renewable energy sources: analysis for the US Northeast.” Fekete then followed up by publishing on November 14 at Judith Curry’s Climate, Etc. blog a lengthy post summarizing the article, titled “Net-Zero Targets: Sustainable Future or CO2 Obsession Driven Dead-end?”
As with the previous competent analyses of energy storage requirements needed to back up intermittent renewable generation that have been featured on this blog and in my energy storage Report, there is nothing complicated about the Fekete, et al., analysis. The authors call it “a modified surplus/deficit calculation [as] taught to water engineers to size reservoirs for meeting water demand when the water resources vary.” When there is surplus production you add it to storage, and when there is a deficit you subtract; and then you sum over a year (or two, or ten) to calculate how much storage you need. It’s all basic arithmetic. What could be simpler?
You will not be surprised that the conclusion is “CO2 obsession driven dead-end.”
This subject would seem almost too obvious and trivial to cover on this blog. There is nothing complicated here. Everybody who is involved in any way in the energy transition game, and who has even the lowest level of professional competence, simply must be aware of this subject and of these calculations. And yet I just attended the big New York “Climate Summit,” (aka the Krazy Klimate Konference), featuring all of the powerful politicians and bureaucrats and industry leaders who are in charge of our state’s energy transition, and to a person they have no idea about any of this. And by no idea, I mean none, zero, zilch. One guy even came up to me and accused me of being “rude” for laughing out loud at his astounding ignorance. (The only other possibility was that it was intentional comedy.)
Unsurprisingly, the authors of Fekete, et al., make no claim to being “climate scientists.” Climate scientists as a class are way too smart to stoop to doing basic arithmetic. In the intro to the paper, Fekete identifies himself as a professor at the City University of New York — of Civil Engineering. Second author Mihály Bacskó is a former executive of the Hungarian Power Company. The other two co-authors are meteorologists working at the University of Oklahoma. In other words, the focus here is not on scaring the public with frightening scenarios from the occult voodoo of climate “science,” but rather only on whether the proposed solutions will or will not work.
The particular calculations in Fekete, et al., look at data from twelve states of the northeastern U.S. — New England, plus New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland and West Virginia. Rather than using production data from existing wind and solar facilities, the authors obtained daily wind speed and solar irradiation data for the region. For consumption data, the blog post states that the authors applied an assumption of “constant energy consumption,” after determining that “seasonal variations of energy consumption are relatively small (deviate by only 10-15% of the annual average).” (Perhaps this decision could be criticized, but I doubt that it makes any material difference to the conclusion.)
And the bottom line is:
The storage capacity needed to align power generation from solar or wind is around 25% of the annual energy consumption.
In other words, you need three months worth of storage to try to make this work. Previous studies that I highlighted in my energy storage Report — for example, those of Roger Andrews and Ken Gregory — had calculated storage needs in the range of one to two months. However, those studies only used one year’s worth of data for each calculation, and allowed running the storage balance right down to zero. If you think that it’s too risky to run the storage right down to zero before the balance starts to refill, then three months of storage is a much more reasonable figure. Indeed, it’s still rather conservative.
Fekete, et al., don’t get into the specifics of cost of any possible storage solution. But then, they don’t need to. The potential costs are so enormous as to completely rule out any attempt even to start down this road. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, total U.S. electricity consumption in 2022 was just over 4 trillion kWh. So one-quarter of that would be just over 1 trillion kWh. Just to get an idea of the cost of that much energy storage, this site (Tesla fans) gives a (highly optimistic) cost for Tesla batteries of just over $100 per kWh. So a trillion of those will run you about $100 trillion. That’s four times the entire U.S. economy. Meanwhile, a Tesla-style battery is not remotely up to the job of the energy storage needed to back up wind/solar electricity generation, which would necessarily include the ability to save up power over a year or more and discharge over a year. But then, the economics are so wildly out of line that it’s hardly worth worrying about such technicalities.
Fekete, et al., in a very understated manner, put it this way:
In the absence of energy storage technology that can store several months worth of energy, one has to conclude that all studies suggesting that solar or wind are price competitive with other forms of energy should be retracted.
The Fekete blog post at Climate, Etc. contains two other subjects of interest. One relates to the peer review process. It appears that one of the peer reviewers made a run at getting the paper blocked, without stating the nature of any substantive criticisms:
One of the reviewers stated that “The manuscript contains fundamental errors that cannot be rectified through author revisions” without venturing into any details.
Fekete calls this effort “unscientific, unjust, and unethical,” which is again quite an understatement. Sadly, such conduct is the norm in what goes by the name “climate science” today. Fortunately, in this case, another reviewer was supportive, as was the staff of the journal.
The second subject of further interest in the blog post is that another reviewer criticized the draft paper for alleged “lack of references to the “plethora of work” related to integrating renewables to the current energy systems and transitioning to a sustainable energy future.” The criticism caused the authors to “roll up their sleeves” and go out and review some 360 papers recommended by the critic. Here is a list of what they found:
And in summary:
Most of the reviewed papers assumed that solar and wind will be always supplemented by some form of “firm generation capacity”, which is the obfuscated name of using fossil fuels complemented with “carbon capture and sequestration”.
In other words, the orthodox “peer reviewed” scientific literature is almost completely lacking in consideration of the most important, fundamental problem of transitioning to an energy system based on electricity generated by the wind and sun. Well, now there is one competent paper in the mix. They will do their best to ignore it, at least until the whole wind/solar thing has conclusively shown that it can’t work.
We project that global energy-related CO2 emissions from consumption of coal, liquid fuels, and natural gas will increase over the next 30 years across most of the cases we analyzed in our International Energy Outlook 2023 (IEO2023).
From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
By 2050, energy-related CO2 emissions vary between a 2% decrease and a 34% increase compared with 2022 in all cases we modeled. Growing populations and incomes increase fossil fuel consumption and emissions, particularly in the industrial and electric power sectors. These trends offset emissions reductions from improved energy efficiency, lower carbon intensity of fuel mix, and growth in non-fossil fuel energy.
IEO2023 analyzes long-term world energy markets in 16 regions through 2050. We studied seven cases that explore differing assumptions of economic growth, crude oil prices, and technology costs. These cases consider only the international laws and regulations adopted through March 2023 and rely on the U.S. projections published in the Annual Energy Outlook 2023 (AEO2023), which assumed U.S. laws and regulations as of November 2022.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61024&mc_cid=5f58d8297a&mc_eid=4961da7cb1
The Sun is approaching its solar maximum, the apex of its 11-year solar cycle. As it approaches that, as we’ve already seen over the last couple of years, we can expect more and greater activity from our solar system’s center. But that’s the thing, this solar-cycle might be far more intense than anyone expected.
From The Science Alert
A new study has found that the impending peak in the Sun’s activity cycle will likely arrive significantly sooner than previously predicted.
According to an analysis by astrophysicists Priyansh Jaswal, Chitradeep Saha, and Dibyendu Nandy at the Center of Excellence in Space Sciences India, solar maximum is likely to hit in January 2024.
This is much, much sooner than the initial official prediction, which found solar maximum would take place in July 2025.
The finding suggests that there may be better ways of predicting the Sun’s behavior than the methods used for the official predictions for the current solar cycle, solar cycle 25.
Solar cycles are somewhat mysterious – it’s not entirely clear what drives them – but they are very normal.
Simply put, every 11 years or so, the Sun’s magnetic field reverses polarity. This is accompanied by a rise and fall of solar activity – sunspots, solar flares, and coronal mass ejections.
The point at which the poles switch places is known as solar maximum, characterized by a peak in activity. Solar minimum follows several years later; the Sun deescalates its activity before ramping up to the next maximum.
We track and predict when this will occur based on the number of sunspots that speckle the face of the Sun. However, this method has never been an exact science; we know roughly when solar maximum will occur, but official predictions are more of an estimate than a precision pinpoint.
The last solar minimum, marking the end of solar cycle 24, took place in 2019. Solar cycle 24 was relatively quiet, as solar cycles go; the NOAA prediction was that solar cycle 25 would follow suit, with subdued activity, and a peak in July 2025.
Nothing has gone according to that prediction.
Since solar activity started climbing, it has vastly exceeded official predictions; solar cycle 25 is proving to be one of the strongest since we started recording solar cycles back in 1755, and solar activity in the last few years has been tremendously exciting to follow.
Some scientists called it. Robert Leamon of NASA and Scott McIntosh of the US National Centre for Atmospheric Research predicted that solar maximum would be stronger than others believed, and take place in mid to late 2024. Last month, the NOAA revised its prediction, announcing that the maximum is now expected between January and October of 2024.
We’ve been getting by pretty well so far, but solar activity is tied to space weather – eruptions from the Sun can have an impact on Earth, and while our recourse is limited, there might still be ways to try and protect ourselves. So more accurate predictions of the solar cycles would be a nice thing to have.
Leamon and McIntosh based their analysis of the Sun on its internal magnetic activity, tracing larger patterns of behavior back over a long period of time. Jaswal and his colleagues have done something similar, studying decades-old data and linking magnetic activity to something known as the Waldmeier effect.
Formulated in 1935, the Waldmeier effect relates to sunspots and the length of the solar cycle. Basically, the faster sunspot activity ramps up, the faster solar maximum arrives. So, the stronger the cycle, the shorter it is.
Jaswal and his team looked at the rate at which the Sun’s poles weaken, studying data that dates back to 1976. They found that the rate of decay of the solar dipole correlates very neatly with the Waldmeier effect.
This means that they could use the Waldmeier effect to predict when the polar magnetic fields would weaken to zero and switch places – solar maximum.
Their findings predicted a timeframe around January 2024. There’s still some uncertainty and wiggle room, but if solar maximum takes place at this time, we’ll know that they’re onto something.
In all, however, the evidence so far suggests that we need to be looking more closely at the Sun’s magnetic activity, rather than just what’s happening on the surface.
The team’s research has been published in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society Letters.
From NoTricksZone
By P Gosselin on 1. December 2023
The preliminary data from the approx. 2000 DWD German national weather service have been tabulated for autumn (September-October-November) 2023. It is the second warmest in Germany since measurements began in 1881.
The period from January to November 2023 is also in second place with an average of 11.2 °C. Uwe Kirsche, spokesperson for the German Weather Service (DWD): “We still have to wait for December, but 2023 is also likely to be another one of the warmest years in Germany.”
Though the autumn was warm and wet, it ended on a wintry note as the country has been hit by a cold snows Arctic blast over the past week.
For example, Germany’s northern neighbor, Denmark, the city of Copenhagen yesterday saw the “coldest November night” in 100 years, reports Scott Duncan at Twitter:
At 11.5 °C, the average temperature for the autumn of 2023 was +2.2 degrees above the 1991-2020 mean. “Severe frosts of -10 °C in the eastern low mountain ranges formed the wintry autumn finale,” reports the DWD.
Rainiest in over 2 decades
The DWD also reports that it was the rainiest autumn since 2002, as 257 liters of precipitation per square meter (l/m²) fell. That’s around 35 percent more than in the reference period from 1991 to 2020 (190 l/m²). November was extremely wet with around 126 liters per square meter (l/m²) – double of what is normal.
It’s safe to say that Germany’s drought is over. Much of the November precipitation will seep deep into the soil.
Autumn 2023 in Germany also was also about 25% sunnier than normal, with a mean of 392 hours of sunshine. November, on the other hand, was cloudier than normal. The sun shined just 42 hours, i.e. 25% less than normal.
By David Wojick
As regular readers know, I have been tracking the U.N. development of the so-called “loss and damage” issue for several years. This has been a very dangerous concept.
As promoted by the extreme alarmists, it contemplates America and other developed countries paying trillions of dollars in reparations to developing countries for the supposed damages due to climate change we have caused. There have been future damage estimates as high as $400 trillion.
At COP 27 last year, an official loss and damage fund was launched but with no specific nature. That chore was left to today’s COP 28, and it has now been done, at least a very important little bit.
Happily, the official COP decision on the loss and damage fund has now been made, and it appears harmless. I sigh with relief.
Contributions to the fund are completely voluntary. There is no claim of reparation, obligation, compensation, nothing like that. It is simply a mechanism for rendering foreign aid for natural disasters. The agreement says this: “…funding arrangements, including a fund, for responding to loss and damage are based on cooperation and facilitation and do not involve liability or compensation.”
Of course, the alarmists are going to continue to describe it as a reparation fund, but that is just the usual hype. There is no there there.
Given that the US foreign aid budget runs around $30 billion a year, there should be no problem running a bit of that through the loss and damage fund, if and when it finally gears up. Initial contributions from various countries are running between $100 million and $10 million, which is almost nothing. My understanding is the US is kicking in a trivial $17.5 million. I suspect the US Government spends that much a year on unused airplane tickets.
Nor is this $100 million a year just a single donation. The UN’s flagship Green Fund only gets about $9 billion every five years, which is just $2 billion a year. If loss and damage do that well it is still insignificant compared to the $400 trillion hype. So, for now the loss and damage threat has simply ceased to exist. It consists of voluntary peanuts.
Mind you, one big fight lies ahead, but America and the other developed countries may have little to do with it. The monster question is, who gets these peanuts?
Pretty much every country gets bad weather, which is what loss and damage funds are supposed to cover. Taken together, the developing countries’s losses and damages are huge compared to the likely funding. So, who is going to get what little there is?
The COP decision is perfectly silent on the substance of this fundamental question. But we do have a procedure of sorts.
First, there will be created a Board to oversee the fund, which should be a contentious process in itself. Then, the Board is supposed to develop the rules, which at some point have to include who qualifies to get funded for their losses and/or damages.
However, what the Board decides is then subject to the approval of the next COP, which is likely to be where the real fight happens. Given that every country that is not going to get funded can veto giving some other country funding, this could be a protracted process. It might even be unresolvable.
In fact, we have a bit of a model for an impasse. The next COP is supposed to be in Eastern Europe, but no agreement on where can be reached because every possibility has been vetoed to date.
I am not making this up. Getting every Eastern European country to agree on who, instead of them, should get the enormous cash flow of 70,000 two-week visitors may not be possible. This one-shot COP income may well exceed all the loss and damage funding. It would be hilarious if COP 29 did not occur for this reason.
In any case, the news is great. The extremely dangerous loss and damage issue has been rendered harmless. It might even be paralyzed. One can hope, and time will tell.
The post UN COP 28: Have we dodged the loss and damage threat again? appeared first on CFACT.
The mainstream media are gearing up to bombard people with terms like “climate emergency,” “climate justice” and “climate equity” in anticipation of this week’s start of the 28th United Nations Conference of the Parties in Dubai.
They might even introduce catchphrases and announce historic breakthroughs in emission-reduction diplomacy. The public relations messaging of climate politics, however, has little connection with the economic realities of countries such as India that require heavy use of fossil fuels.
As politicians in fuel-guzzling jets prepare to descend on Dubai and lecture poor countries on energy morality, India is sending a subtle yet clear message that it is not giving up coal, oil and natural gas.
In India, elephants reign supreme, capturing the hearts of those who encounter them. With a staggering 32,000 elephants, the sprawling tropical forests of India are home to the sixth-largest population of these majestic creatures. In my formative years, I had the privilege of visiting these gentle giants in their native domain.
In recent years, I’ve witnessed my native country rise as a metaphorical elephant that refuses to go away.
India — along with China and African and Southeast Asian nations — has become the “elephant in the room” at the yearly U.N, climate gatherings. Leaders of the subcontinent have steadfastly asserted the country’s right to use fossil fuels, unwilling to comply with restrictive U.N. recommendations for energy policy.
The U.N. climate conference in 2015 was hailed as a pivotal moment as it sparked the creation of the Paris Agreement to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels. But even at that time, India’s resistance was unmistakable.
During the formulation of the agreement, India vehemently opposed the imposition of stringent emission-reduction mandates on its economy. It played an integral role in devising of the term “climate justice” while arguing that economic progress should not be sacrificed by restrictions on the use of fossil fuels.
In its Intended Nationally Determined Contribution — a document where individual countries outlined their level of commitment to the Paris accord — India made clear that it would not compromise domestic energy security at the altar of climate religion.
At the 2022 gathering in Egypt, climate luminaries put forth a pioneering proposition to phase out all fossil fuels. Again, India persistently opposed such a course of action, opting instead to pursue a “phase down” rather than a “phaseout” of fossil fuels. With no intention to decrease its consumption of fossil fuels, the country has boldly put off net zero, the holy grail of the climate-obsessed, until 2070.
Unbeknownst to many, Indian Power Minister R.K. Singh conceded in August that meeting the burgeoning energy needs of a developing country like India would be unattainable without a noticeable escalation in the utilization of fossil fuels.
“If you have an economy that is growing at 7%, electricity from coal will also grow,” he said. “We will meet the energy requirement for our growth because we have a right to grow.”
CNBC reports unanimous agreement among analysts that India’s solar, wind and hydro energy capabilities are deemed unreliable to support growing power needs. Sooraj Narayan, Wood Mackenzie’s senior research analyst, says that India’s “heightened power demand necessitates a reliable, cost-effective, and consistent power generation source, which coal currently fulfills.”
India is the world’s second-highest user of coal and third-largest consumer of oil. India has had a dramatic surge in coal imports from Indonesia and is seeking new markets from which to buy coal. Many new mines are being opened annually.
At the G20 summit earlier this year, India proposed a new strategy called “multiple pathways” that seeks unabated, continued use of fossil fuels — a direct contradiction of the West’s decarbonization schemes. This conflict may reemerge at the upcoming U.N. climate gathering.
Major developing economies seem unfazed by the yearly U.N. climate conference as they continue to meet energy needs with hydrocarbons. With the world relying on fossil fuels for 80% of its primary energy, this dependence is expected to grow with an increasing number of people trading poverty for prosperity in the coming decades.
Announcements about emission-reduction breakthroughs at these events are little more than flimsy shields trying to hide an elephant the climate elite refuses to acknowledge. The reality of economic imperatives, however, will eventually expose the folly of decarbonization plans.
This commentary was first published at Washington Times on November 28, 2023.
Vijay Jayaraj is a Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Virginia. He holds a master’s degree in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia, UK.
The climate alarmists state that there was no Little Ice Age, No Medieval Warm Period or even Roman Warm Period.
Not just these 1000 year cycles do not exists but we are now in the hottest time in the last 120,000 years and its all our fault!
That is their incredible stance because ,if any of those periods are true and warmed, then warming like we have experienced since the industrial revolution is normal…. that cannot be allowed to happen.
This video explores the just how history has to be changed to fit their narrative. These videos below are worth watching as they all link together to give the big picture.
From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
This paper was published in 2009, but it is still highly relevant:
I have highlighted the key conclusion, that global sea levels fell by between 31 cm and 47 cm between the MWP and LIA.
Although the LIA minimum occurred around 1730 AD, most of the sea level rise since really only began in the late 19thC, or even later as indicated in the tidal gauge records for Brest, one of the longest datasets:
We know that since the late 19thC , sea levels have risen by maybe 25 cm. So Grinsted’s conclusions imply that MWP sea levels were higher than present. HH Lamb came to similar conclusions in the 1970s.
It is worth pointing out that Grinsted’s model is based around two temperature reconstructions:
The Grinsted paper concludes:
We further find that the Moberg et al. (2005) temperature reconstruction is more consistent with observed sea level rise than the Jones and Mann (2004) reconstruction which we conclude does not have a cold enough Little Ice Age.
The model results are also calibrated against reconstructed sea levels using tidal gauges, (see above graph), giving what the authors describe as “good predictive power”.
Whether the world is 2 to 4 degrees warmer than today by 2100, as the authors suggest, is highly debatable!
But what is apparent is that current sea levels are not unprecedented in recent history. Indeed they point that present sea level is within ~20 cm of the highest level for 110 000 years. This is not in any way alarming, given that most of those 110,000 years spanned the last ice age, and that since then global sea levels have been steadily rising.
In 100 years time, we may get back to MWP sea levels.
The jet-setters gathered in Dubai have been hit with blow after blow of bad election news.
It is clear that “global warming” (now “climate change”) has, from the beginning, been a smokescreen for replacing free market capitalism and, with it, human freedom and prosperity — even the freedom of nations and individuals to choose their own destinies.
Nobel laureate Milton Friedman summed it up in chapter 1 of his seminal book Capitalism and Freedom:
Economic arrangements play a dual role in the promotion of a free society. On the one hand, freedom in economic arrangements is itself a component of freedom broadly understood, so economic freedom is an end in itself. In the second place, economic freedom is also an indispensable means toward the achievement of political freedom.
At the 1992 Rio Summit, Sen. Tim Wirth echoed the need to “offer up scary scenarios” (as climate propagandist Stephen Schneider infamously said) in admitting, “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
Al Gore, in his 1992 book Earth in the Balance, crowed that, “We must make the rescue of the environment [updated in 2021 to “decarbonization”] the ‘central organizing principle’ for civilization.” And the much-celebrated Mikhail Gorbachev in 1996 spilled the beans, stating, “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”
This vision of a “new world order” is definitely not what President George H. W. Bush envisioned, one in which “the principles of justice and fair play … protect the weak against the strong … a world in which freedom and respect for human rights find a home among all nations.”
Nor is it what IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer warbled in 2010: “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”
Well, technically, Edenhofer was right. The institution of global governance will surely “redistribute” the world’s wealth – from the poor and middle class to the rich.
Want evidence? The great majority, using subsidies or rebates to buy electric vehicles, earn over $100,000 a year. The reason is obvious: poor and middle-income people cannot afford (or have a garage for) personal EV charging stations; EV insurance rates are through the roof in many countries; and most people cannot afford long waits for repairs.
Socialist Hugo Chavez once claimed that socialism was “the way to save the planet; capitalism is the road to hell.” Venezuela’s GDP per capita rose during Chavez’s reign, but under his successor Nicolas Maduro, GDP per capita dropped from $12,688 in 2013 to just $2,624 in 2019. The BBC reported in 2021 that three-fourths of the nation’s people were living in “extreme poverty.”
Contrary to the massive weight of historical evidence, they tell us that socialism is more benevolent and more equitable than free-market capitalism.
The late Charles Krauthammer, in October 2009, in a speech entitled, “Decline Is a Choice: The New Liberalism and the End of American Ascendancy,” warned that President Obama and the ultraliberal leadership of Congress were pursuing policies that, as Peter Ferrara put it, “will by design produce major declines in the standard of living of the American people.”
Many say the Biden Administration is more of the same – in spades. And in Dubai, the billionaires and their hired (or brainwashed?) disciples clamor for greater reductions in energy production, cutbacks on meat production (in favor of billionaire-owned fake meat and crickets), and other “sacrifices” by the hoi polloi that they will never make themselves. George Soros even boasted that “I fancied myself as some kind of god.”
But, as in the movies, a funny thing happened on the way to the Forum.
Here and there, nations and people began throwing out socialist leaders in favor of Giorgia Meloni in Italy (whose election opened up a crack in the Net Zero unity), Christopher Luxon in New Zealand, and Javier Milei in Argentina. Even Geert Wilders was the highest vote-getter in the Dutch elections. Even Justin Trudeau’s reign in Canada is under serious threat.
The would-be dictators and their minions in the media and “public service” are not happy, and their dismay (and panic?) is being reflected in Dubai and in the media.
Christiana Figueres, the architect of the Paris Climate Agreement said, “We have to keep the outrage really high because we are so darn late.” In an interview with Al Jazeera, Figueres added, “I thought fossil fuel firms could change. I was wrong.”
True. She was wrong – to think companies don’t respond to demand. Or to think that people would voluntarily give up the freedom that gasoline has long afforded them. She was wrong to think major sacrifices by Westerners would prod China, India, and African nations into eschewing fossil fuels their people know “fueled” the West’s rise to prosperity.
The natives are restless – and freedom is worth fighting for.
The post National elections threaten the UN climate agenda appeared first on CFACT.
You must be logged in to post a comment.