Day: May 2, 2024

Patrick Brown: The Social Feedback Loops Constraining Climate Science

In the realm of climate science, the focus is often on the environmental feedback loops that intensify global warming. However, the social feedback loops influencing the creation and dissemination of climate science are equally potent and far less scrutinized. These social mechanisms significantly shape the research landscape, often prioritizing narratives that align with certain political and social agendas over a balanced and comprehensive understanding of climate issues.

From Watts Up With That?

Patrick Brown of the Breakthrough Institute has written an excellent article: The Social Feedback Loops That Constrain Climate Science

If researchers were perfectly dispassionate reasoners with no motivations other than truth-seeking, their published papers could be taken as a direct, objective view into reality. But as I argued not long ago in an essay in The Free Press, that idealized notion of science is a fantasy. Stemming from a frustration that I felt about not being able to take high-impact climate science at face value, I decided to call out what I see as one problem: The highest-profile research is heavily influenced by cultural forces and career incentives that are not necessarily aligned with the dispassionate pursuit of truth.https://thebreakthrough.org/journal/no-20-spring-2024/the-social-feedback-loops-that-constrain-climate-science

In the realm of climate science, the focus is often on the environmental feedback loops that intensify global warming. However, the social feedback loops influencing the creation and dissemination of climate science are equally potent and far less scrutinized. These social mechanisms significantly shape the research landscape, often prioritizing narratives that align with certain political and social agendas over a balanced and comprehensive understanding of climate issues.

The Allure of High-Impact Publications and Their Consequences

Brown discusses how research, fundamentally a social endeavor, relies on communication through publications in peer-reviewed journals. The prestige associated with journals like Nature and Science significantly influences the research they choose to publish. These journals, acting as gatekeepers, preferentially select studies that support prevailing narratives, such as the imperative of limiting global warming to 1.5°C, as outlined in the Paris Agreement.

This selection bias is not without consequence. It subtly coerces researchers into framing their studies in ways that are likely to be viewed favorably by high-impact journals, often at the expense of a more nuanced or comprehensive approach. For instance, studies might focus on how climate change negatively impacts an environmental phenomenon while neglecting other significant factors. This methodological tunnel vision can lead to a distorted portrayal of climate science in the public sphere.

The article elaborates on this issue, stating:

“Framing research in a way that at least directionally supports the predominant narrative makes the path to a high-impact publication much less treacherous… rather than ask, ‘What is the magnitude of the influence of climate change on the phenomena I am studying relative to all other influences?’ it is more prudent to ask, ‘How does climate change negatively impact the phenomena I am studying?’”https://thebreakthrough.org/journal/no-20-spring-2024/the-social-feedback-loops-that-constrain-climate-science

The Economic Costs of Climate Policies: An Overlooked Narrative

Brown notes that one of the most glaring omissions in current climate science literature is a balanced discussion on the economic impacts of climate policies. High-profile journals frequently publish papers that discuss the benefits of stringent climate policies without a corresponding analysis of the costs. For example, a paper might highlight the economic savings from adhering to the 1.5°C limit without considering the substantial costs of such rapid decarbonization.

This lack of balanced analysis could potentially mislead policymakers and the public about the true costs and benefits of climate policies. Research that does attempt to present a more balanced view often finds it difficult to gain traction in high-impact journals, likely because it challenges the prevailing narrative.

The article touches on this issue as well, explaining:

“Our study showed that when costs were considered alongside benefits, the conclusion of the benefit-only analysis was overturned: the Paris Agreement targets would impose net harm on the world economy through 2100… It was the finding of the study, rather than the topic, that was unwelcome.”https://thebreakthrough.org/journal/no-20-spring-2024/the-social-feedback-loops-that-constrain-climate-science

The Role of Political and Editorial Bias in Shaping Climate Science

Editors and journal policies significantly influence the kind of research that is published. High-profile journals not only reflect but also shape scientific discourse, pushing a narrative that aligns with certain political goals. For instance, endorsements by journal leadership of political figures and policies clearly signal an alignment with specific policy agendas, such as those encapsulated in the Paris Agreement.

This alignment raises questions about the purity of scientific inquiry within these publications. When journals overtly associate with political agendas, they risk compromising their objectivity and the trust of the scientific community and the public.

The article critically notes:

Leadership at Nature and Science have made it clear that they endorse the political goals of the Paris Agreement — to rapidly transition the world’s energy and agricultural economies so that global warming remains below 1.5°C (or at most 2°C) above preindustrial levels.https://thebreakthrough.org/journal/no-20-spring-2024/the-social-feedback-loops-that-constrain-climate-science

…

Nature as an institution officially endorsed Joe Biden in the 2020 U.S. presidential election, citing, among other reasons, his policies in support of the Paris Agreement. Facing some pushback on their explicit embrace of politics, Nature subsequently doubled down on their political statements. The current editor-in-chief of Science, Holden Thorpe, has defended the idea of scientific journals endorsing policies and politicians — implying that the authority of science subsumes the entirety of the climate problem all the way through to the amount of power that the government should yield in dictating a solution.https://thebreakthrough.org/journal/no-20-spring-2024/the-social-feedback-loops-that-constrain-climate-science

Breaking the Feedback Loop: Proposals for a More Equitable Scientific Discourse

Brown offers potential solutions, such as, to counteract the bias introduced by social feedback loops, several structural changes are necessary. One approach could be to alter the publication process to focus more on the research question and methodology rather than the results. This could help mitigate the publication bias where only results that fit the predominant narrative are favored.

Additionally, increasing transparency in the peer review and editorial decision-making process could help reveal any biases in the publication process. Publishing peer reviews and editorial decision letters, even for rejected manuscripts, could foster a more open and equitable scientific dialogue.

Conclusion

The social dynamics within the climate science community significantly impact the research agenda and the resulting literature. A thorough examination of all aspects of climate science can lead to a deeper understanding of the complexities and potential biases within this field. Both the scientific community and the journals that disseminate research must strive for greater neutrality in their approaches to the publication and discussion of scientific research. This is essential for fostering a more comprehensive and critical approach to climate science, enabling a more robust and informed scientific discourse that can serve the diverse needs and concerns of global society.

Dr Brown’s essay is well worth reading in its entirety.

German solar industry collapsing: unable to make solar panels from solar power

About 90% of solar panels installed in Germany come from China, and earlier this year one of the last solar panel manufacturers closed in Germany. Last week, what was left of the industry begged for mercy (and subsidies) which they didn’t get. Now another German solar panel manufacturer has closed down.

From JoNova

By Jo Nova

About 90% of solar panels installed in Germany come from China, and earlier this year one of the last solar panel manufacturers closed in Germany. Last week, what was left of the industry begged for mercy (and subsidies) which they didn’t get. Now another German solar panel manufacturer has closed down.

For some cruel reason German factories which are close to their customers, can’t compete with distant foreign factories which have access to slave labor, fossil fueled shipping and cheap coal fired electricity?

The bigger question, seemingly, is how did the country that invented the printing press, diesel engines, and the theory-of-relativity get fooled by such a stupid ploy? Someone told them they could save the world with unreliable energy, so they converted their generators to unreliable ones, only to discover that they can’t afford to use unreliable generators to make the unreliable generators they need to keep saving the world?

The only government stupider than Germany is the one that has already seen how badly this worked out and announces they’re going to do the same thing. Australia is not only ten years too late, but China has flooded the market to the point where people are using solar panels as garden fences, and we have our own glut of solar power at midday.

The last hope of the German solar industry was a government mandated “bonus” for people who bought German solar panels.

April 23rd:

German solar industry warns “last chance” for sector’s renaissance could be missed

Benjamin Wehrmann CleanEnergyWire

Carsten Körnig, head of solar power lobby group BSW,  …added that the solar industry was disappointed by the decision to leave out a “resilience bonus” for installations made in Europe. Given the stiff competition between producers in the U.S. and Asia for securing a share of the market in solar panel production, Körnig said including the bonus in the package would allow Germany to achieve greater supply security for the important future technology, adding that it is “perhaps the last chance for a renaissance of Germany’s solar industry”.

April 30:

Solarwatt becomes second solar PV producer to halt production in Germany in 2024

 Carolina Kyllmann CleanEnergyWire

Solar panel manufacturer Solarwatt is set to halt production of solar photovoltaic (PV) modules in its factory in Dresden, business daily Handelsblatt reported. “Under the current circumstances, running a production facility here in Germany is extremely difficult economically, and we cannot justify this,” Solarwatt head Detlef Neuhaus told the newspaper. The plant with an annual production capacity of 300 megawatts (MW) will close “for the time being” at the end of August, with 190 jobs directly affected by the shutdown.

China generates 60% of its electricity with coal, while Germany uses 32% coal, and 30% solar-and-wind power. What should Germany do, bring back coal, or get some slaves?

Solar panels are now in the “top five” worst slave industries in the world, yet still barely any of the morality-police care. They’re apparently too busy atoning for slavery they didn’t cause that doesn’t exist anymore to worry about slaves that are alive today.

Wyoming ranchers lasso climate concerns about cows

In his article “Wyoming ranchers not sold on breeding cows that fart and burp less” in The Cowboy State Daily, Andrew Rossi gives a straightforward response on cows and their farts and burps vis a vis climate change.

From CFACT

By Kathleen Marquardt

In his article “Wyoming ranchers not sold on breeding cows that fart and burp less” in The Cowboy State Daily, Andrew Rossi gives a straightforward response on cows and their farts and burps vis a vis climate change.

The clamor on cattle emissions comes after a study published in the journal Climate, “Meta-Analysis and Ranking of the Most Effective Methane Reduction Strategies for Australia’s Beef and Dairy Sector”, In it,researchers came to the ludicrous conclusion that, as Rossi translated, “cows of the future can and should fart less than today’s ozone-battering bovines”.

Naturally, the study puts it in high-sounding rhetoric: “The aim of this research is to rank the most effective strategies to reduce CH4 emissions in Australia’s beef and dairy sector, in order to guide governments and decision-making processes for emission reductions in line with a 1.5C world, the desired outcome from the Paris Agreement. Ranking the most effective reduction strategies for Australia’s beef and dairy sector.” Understand that only 2% of all greenhouse gases produced in the U.S. come from beef cattle.

The Wyoming cattlemen have a whole lot more sense, and they don’t waste words. Their description of this is “Full of Hot Air.”

“Cattle have plenty of gas in their tanks. Methane is the byproduct of standing around chowing down hay and forage all day long. It’s just part of the deal; people love how delicious cows are, as well as the other products they produce. But some argue their digestive processes and manure decomposition is destroying the planet.”

Please explain to me how 2% of all greenhouse gases produced in the U.S. can be worth tinkering with the DNA of cows. Or that reducing the number of cows on farms is a solution to carbon emissions.” The Wyoming Cattlemen make more sense:

If cattle can be selectively bred for milk or meat production, there’s probably a way to breed a lineage of less bloated bovines. But even if possible, Wyoming ranchers may still see the premise as being full of hot air.

“You could get a cow with zero emissions,” Moline said. “But if the meat product is worthless, what good is it doing? You can’t sacrifice low emissions for good quality meat.”

Cattle have been selected for bone structure, marbling, milk production, muscle tone, and many other factors. But could cows be chosen by the frequency and ferocity of their flatulence?

Rossi concludes his article, “Like many who live in Wyoming, I wonder what this will do to the price of food or to the cost of government?”. “Somebody, somehow will have to pay for these illogical programs.”

We, the people are the somebodies who are already paying for these illogical programs.

To read the full article go HERE.

PhD “Data/Climate Scientist” Can’t Provide Data on Extreme Weather Events

Back to Lindsey Gulden, the self-described Data/Climate Scientist. She would/could not provide a time series example to back up any part of her claim of ‘global climate to go off the rails’ … ‘more extreme events’. I asked her repeatedly for data, and she could only sign-off with ‘I made no such claim‘.

From Master Resource

By Robert Bradley Jr.

“Back to Lindsey Gulden, the self-described Data/Climate Scientist. She would/could not provide a time series example to back up any part of her claim of ‘global climate to go off the rails’ … ‘more extreme events’. I asked her repeatedly for data, and she could only sign-off with ‘I made no such claim‘.”

On LinkedIn, Saul Humphrey stated: 2023 was the hottest year on record and 2024 is threatening to be hotter still.  Humphrey then quotes from an article in The Independent, “Do the People Care About the Climate Crisis? These Voters Say Yes – but Polls Do Not” (April 19, 2024):

In the US 🇺🇸 wildfires destroyed more than 1.7 million acres in the first three months of 2024, already half of last year’s total, and forecasters expect an unprecedented number of Atlantic hurricanes.

Around 87 per cent of Americans say they have experienced at least one extreme weather event in the past five years — whether that’s drought, extreme heat, severe storms, wildfires or flooding. Three-quarters of adults believe the science that climate crisis is at least partly to blame, and the same percentage want the federal government to do something about it.

But when it comes to this year’s presidential election, the issue trails inflation, healthcare, immigration and jobs in the list of voter priorities.”

Humphrey concludes: “What does it take make the climate crisis the priority? Do we need to witness Armageddon before we do what is necessary?”

Note the irony of a person telling the rest of us: You are wrong and I am right on climate alarmism. And the audacity to use government coercion and taxpayer financing to impose the solution on the unschooled masses.

I commented on LinkedIn: “False causality. That is the real problem. Exaggeration backfires.”

Some 70 replies followed from a variety of folks, including some plenty smart-and-informed “skeptics” of climate alarm/forced energy transformation. But one comment stood out. Lindsey Gulden, self-described Data Scientist/Climate Scientist, stated:

Saul Humphrey: you should perhaps take it as a badge of honor that your posts seem to attract frequent input from Atlas Network folks who are paid to promote climate disinformation.

I answered: “False causality. Beliefs and the intellectual/moral high ground explain my passion and those that I know in the movement. Many of us take less pay to be able to challenge the false narrative of the Climate Industrial Complex. Consumers matter. Taxpayers matter. Fiscal sanity in the public sector matters. Freedom among consenting adults matter….”

Gulden: “Coming from a long line of fiscal conservatives, I agree with all of these statements: “Consumers matter. Taxpayers matter. Fiscal sanity in the public sector matters. Freedom among consenting adults matter.” What is bizarre to me is that we seem to be using the exact same values to make diametrically opposite points. It is fiscally irresponsible for any government to continue to use taxpayer dollars to give substantial corporate welfare to an industry that is causing the global climate to go off the rails and, with it, the stability of global markets, political systems, food supplies, etc. It is all in the service of a small group of people whose bank accounts benefit massively from the status quo. I don’t question your sincerity of belief. But I’d suggest those of you taking lower pay ought to demand the same pay as the executives of the industry you are propping up.”

Bradley: “I disagree with your alarmism in the last part of your sentence: ‘that is causing the global climate to go off the rails and, with it, the stability of global markets, political systems, food supplies, etc.’ Is this statement justified by time series data or climate model projections? The whole point of market wealth is resiliency to extreme weather from any cause–and that is where the advantages of dense, reliable, affordable mass energies come into play.”

Gulden: “The most problematic component of climate change isn’t that the mean temperature goes up. It’s that there is much more variability and much less predictability. More extreme events (extreme freezes, extreme precipitation, extreme heat). Uncertainty is bad for markets. So if you care about healthy free markets, dismissing climate change out of hand is risky.”

Bradley: “Show me the time series data on that. A reduction in the diurnal cycle does not suggest dire results. Hurricanes are less in theory and data, right? Are you saying that nature is optimal and/or cooling would reduce extremes? In any case, any extremes need affordable, reliable, plentiful energies–not wind and solar and batteries. And politicians and government failure.”

Gulden: “data on increasing extreme events are plentiful and from reputable sources. Hurricane frequency and intensity are increasing. For information from a reliable source, see, for example, https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/extreme-weather/.

Your assertion that ‘it’s just a decrease in the diurnal cycle’ doesn’t really hold water as an argument for lack of harm, even with just a bit of consideration. Being able to cool down at night is essential for people trying to survive heat waves without A/C. Regarding ‘government failure and politicians’: Politicians can at least be voted out of office. Although I’d *like* to vote oil and gas industry executives’ self-interested manipulations of civil society out of our daily life, I can’t.

Renewables are more affordable than oil and gas. Battery storage makes them more reliable. All of the above leads me to the conclusion that Atlas Network should provide member groups with more accurate talking points…although I must admit I do not think ‘accuracy’ is their goal.”

Bradley: “The NASA link is not responsive. I asked for time series data over the decades of extreme weather events, not what is supposed to happen under (incomplete) theory or what is predicted to happen from speculative climate models. Take the frequency of hurricanes over the last century or so. What does it show (asking you as a climate scientist).”

Gulden: “and no, that isn’t my area of expertise—which is why I pointed you to reputable sources on the subject.”

As this point,

Mark Rohrbacher commented: “… both Lomborg and Alex Epstein (and various weather sites) have researched ‘increased weather extremes and found them to be unsupported by data. I live in a hurricane area and our area has had a historically low amount of serious hurricanes in the last 30 years.”

Gulden: “Alex Epstein, formerly of the Cato Institute, founder of the Center for Industrial Progress, who does not like to discuss his funding sources, right? Who has no training in research?”

Bradley: “You lost some credibility by going ad hominem on Alex Epstein, who is merely providing the official statistics on weather extremes from others, as is Lomborg. I follow Alex Epstein and know him personally. He has never worked for Cato. Please show us the graph and link on hurricanes, quantitatively, number and intensity, for the last century. This is your area as a climate scientist, right?”

Gulden: “my bad…it seem I err in his former employer. Perhaps it is another libertarian think tank. Regardless, I see no way that mentioning his employers, his relevant credentials or lack thereof, and his refusal to disclose funding sources—completely relevant when your topic of writing is climate change and fossil fuels—are ‘ad hominem’ attacks. But if you wish to frame it in that way, I cannot stop you.”

Bradley: “A person without a high school degree can be right and a PhD expert wrong. (‘Expert Failure’ is a fascinating subject covered in a book of this title by Roger Koppl, by the way.) Can you simply provide the time series data on hurricanes or other extreme events to support your general claim of increasing extreme events? Just stick to the arguments and data please.”

Gulden: “I made no such claim. You may judge me as you wish. I’m going to adjourn from this discussion. Good luck.”

—————–

The entire thread should be read to see a variety of take-downs of the alarmist narrative. Kudos to Mark Rohrbacker, Matt Essex, Chris Matchette-Downes, Ian McCoy, Joseph Toomey, Richard Re, Les McMenzie, Lewis Ludwig, John Basilio, Richard Ericson, and many others. Their level of critical engagement of the alarmist narrative is impressive, indicating how the smart, critical middle is not buying what the Malthusian consensus is selling.

Back to Lindsey Gulden, the self-described Data Scientist/Climate Scientist. She would/could not provide a time series example to back up any part of her claim of ‘global climate to go off the rails’ … ‘more extreme events’. I asked her repeatedly for data, and she could only sign-off with ‘I made no such claim‘.” What an embarrassment to herself and her profession.

Appendix
Gulden’s lack of understanding about energy and economics basics is obvious from statements such as: “Renewables are more affordable than oil and gas” and “rooftop solar panels make good economic sense“.

Many other of her statements in the long thread are easily refutable, but I will stick to climate science. Note her silence on the benefits of CO2; the upside of moderate warming with a reduction of the diurnal cycle, the saturation effect of GHG forcing, all arguments against climate alarmism from a physical-science viewpoint.

The Case Against Net Zero

In October 2008, Parliament passed the Climate Change Act requiring the U.K. Government to ensure that by 2050 “the net U.K. carbon account” was reduced to a level at least 80% lower than that of 1990. (“Carbon account’ refers to CO2 emissions and “other targeted greenhouse gas emissions”.) Only five MPs voted against it. Then in 2019, by secondary legislation and without serious debate, Parliament increased the 80% reduction requirement to 100% – thereby creating the Net Zero policy.

From The Daily Sceptic

BY ROBIN GUENIER

In October 2008, Parliament passed the Climate Change Act requiring the U.K. Government to ensure that by 2050 “the net U.K. carbon account” was reduced to a level at least 80% lower than that of 1990. (“Carbon account’ refers to CO2 emissions and “other targeted greenhouse gas emissions”.) Only five MPs voted against it. Then in 2019, by secondary legislation and without serious debate, Parliament increased the 80% reduction requirement to 100% – thereby creating the Net Zero policy.

Unfortunately, it’s a policy that’s unachievable, disastrous and in any case pointless – and, importantly, that’s the case even if you accept that human carbon dioxide emissions are contributing to a rise in global temperature.

1. It’s unachievable.

Many vehicles and machines (used for example in mining, mineral processing, agriculture, construction, heavy transportation, commercial shipping and aviation, the military and emergency services) and products (for example concrete, steel, plastics – all needed for the construction of renewables – fertilisers, pharmaceuticals, anaesthetics, lubricants, solvents, paints, adhesives, insecticides, insulation, tyres and asphalt) essential to life and wellbeing require the combustion of fossil fuels or are made from oil derivatives. There are no easily deployable, commercially viable alternatives. Our civilisation is based on fossil fuels, something that’s unlikely to change for a long time.

Wind is the most effective source of renewable electricity in the U.K., but: (i) the substantial costs of building the huge numbers of turbines needed for Net Zero; (ii) the complex engineering and cost challenges of establishing a stable, reliable non-fossil fuel grid by 2035 (2030 for Labour) – not least the need to cope with a vast increase in high voltage grid capacity and local distribution; (iii) the enormous scale of what’s involved (immense amounts of space and of increasingly unavailable and expensive raw materials, such as so-called ‘rare earths’, required because, unlike fossil fuels, the ‘energy density’ of wind is so low); and (iv) the intermittency of renewable energy (see point 2 below), make it most unlikely that the U.K. will be able to generate sufficient electricity for current needs let alone for the mandated EVs and heat pumps plus industry’s requirements and other demands such as huge data centres the predicted growth of AI.

In any case, the UK doesn’t have enough skilled technical managers, electrical and other engineers, electricians, plumbers, welders, mechanics and other tradespeople (probably about a million are needed) to do the multitude of tasks essential to achieve Net Zero – a problem worsened by political demands for massively increased house building.

‘Net Zero’ means that there has to be a balance between the amount of any greenhouse gas emissions produced and the amount removed from the atmosphere. However there’s no detailed, costed (or indeed any) plan for such removal, thereby invalidating the entire project.

2. It would be socially and economically disastrous.

Neither of the main political parties’ all-renewable energy project includes a fully costed engineering plan for the provision of comprehensive grid-scale back-up when there’s little or no wind or sun, a problem that’s exacerbated by the pending retirement of fossil fuel and nuclear power plants. Both parties are now talking of building new gas-fired power plants – thereby undermining Net Zero – but they’ve not published any detail and, in any case, intend it seems to fit them with carbon capture and underground storage systems – an unproven, wasteful and expensive technology that hasn’t been shown to be viable on a national scale. This issue is desperately important: without full back-up, electricity blackouts would be inevitable – ruining many businesses and causing dreadful problems for millions of people, including health consequences threatening everyone and in particular the poor and vulnerable.

Even more serious is the fact that, because there’s no coherent plan for the project’s delivery, little attention has been given to its overall cost. All that’s clear is that it would almost certainly be completely unaffordable: for example, a recent National Infrastructure Commission projection of £1.3 trillion is probably far too low – estimates in excess of £3 trillion seem likely to be more accurate. The borrowing and taxes required for costs at this scale would destroy Britain’s credit standing and put an impossible burden onto millions of households and businesses.

Net Zero would have two other dire consequences:

  1. As China essentially controls the supply of key materials (for example, lithium, cobalt, aluminium, processed graphite and so-called rare earths) without which renewables cannot be manufactured, the U.K. would greatly increase its already damaging dependence on it, putting its energy and overall security at most serious risk.
  2. The extensive mining and mineral processing operations required for renewables are already causing appalling environmental damage and dreadful human suffering throughout the world, affecting in particular fragile, unspoilt ecosystems and many of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people; the continued pursuit of Net Zero would make all this far worse.

3. In any case it’s pointless.

For two reasons:

  1. It’s absurd to regard the closure of greenhouse gas (GHG) emitting plants in the U.K. and their ‘export’ mainly to SE Asian countries, commonly with poor environmental regulation and often powered by coal-fired electricity, as a positive step towards Net Zero. Yet efforts to ‘decarbonise’ the U.K. mean that’s what’s happening. 
  2. Most major non-Western countries – the source of over 75% of GHG emissions and home to 84% of humanity – don’t regard emission reduction as a priority and, either exempt from (by international agreement) or ignoring any obligation to reduce their emissions, are focused instead on economic and social development, poverty eradication and energy security. As a result, global emissions are increasing (by 62% since 1990) and are set to continue to increase for the foreseeable future. The U.K. is the source of less than 1% of global emissions – so any further emission reduction it may achieve cannot have any impact on the global position.

In other words, the Net Zero policy means the UK is legally obliged to pursue an unachievable, disastrous and pointless policy – a policy that could result in Britain’s economic destruction.

Robin Guenier is a retired writer, speaker and business consultant. He was for 20 years Chief Executive of various high-tech companies and advised the Government on communications technology. An earlier version of this article was first published on Cliscep.

The In-depth Story Behind the 97% of Scientists Climate Myth

This four year old presentation by Dr. John Robson investigates the unsound origins and fundamental inaccuracy, even dishonesty, of the claim that 97% of scientists, or “the world’s scientists”, or something agree that climate change is man-made, urgent and dangerous.

From Watts Up With That?

CDN

This four year old presentation by Dr. John Robson investigates the unsound origins and fundamental inaccuracy, even dishonesty, of the claim that 97% of scientists, or “the world’s scientists”, or something agree that climate change is man-made, urgent and dangerous.

For a transcript of this video including links to some of the sources, please visit https://climatediscussionnexus.com/videos/the-97-consensus-slogan/

To support the Climate Discussion Nexus, subscribe to our YouTube channel and our newsletter at http://www.climatediscussionnexus.com, like us on Facebook, follow us on X, and make a monthly or one-time pledge at http://www.climatediscussionnexus.com

TRANSCRIPT

There are so many empty slogans out there I wish we could tackle all of them at once. But the “97% of scientists agree” is surely the elephant in the room. Lots of people have tried to rebut it by dismissing the notion of consensus itself, or by praising the historical examples of renegade scientists who went against a prevailing consensus and turned out to be right. But that unnecessarily concedes the major claim itself, which the evidence shows is simply not true. I hope you enjoy the video, and that you’ll share it widely.
-JR

Narrator

The claim that 97% of the world’s scientists agree is pretty much the ace of trumps in the whole climate debate. After all, who’s going to argue against a consensus that strong, backed by so many experts. But what exactly are they supposed to agree on? If you look behind the curtain, no one seems sure what the experts actually said. Or who they are. Or… anything.

John

At first glance it seems straightforward enough. In 2013 President Barack Obama famously tweeted that “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.”

In 2014, his Secretary of State John Kerry said 97% of “the world’s scientists tell us this is urgent.” And that same year, CNN said “97% of scientists agree that climate change is happening now, that it’s damaging the planet and that it’s manmade.”

Narrator

That’s pretty much what most people think when they hear the 97% slogan: Every scientist believes man-made climate change is an urgent crisis.

But there are millions of scientists in the world. How many exactly were surveyed? When were they surveyed? Who did it? And what exactly did they agree on?

John

Let’s find out. I’m John Robson and this is a Climate Discussion Nexus Fact Check on the 97 percent consensus slogan.

To begin with, there are some ideas that pretty much all scientists accept. For instance that birds are descended from dinosaurs, though that idea was once dismissed as highly eccentric. And when it comes to climate, you don’t need a poll to tell you that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, meaning it likely has some overall warming effect. That’s been known since the mid-1800s. And if you did do a survey, you would find overwhelming scientific agreement on that point.

Also, there are lots of indications that the world is somewhat warmer now than it was in the mid-1800s, the end of a natural cooling period called the Little Ice Age.

Finally, virtually nobody disputes that humans have changed the environment of our planet, by releasing emissions into the air, changing the land surface, putting things in the water, and so forth.

These aren’t controversial ideas, and they’re accepted even by most climate skeptics. What we don’t accept is that any of them prove that humans are the only cause of global warming, or that climate change is a dangerous threat.

If 97% of scientists believed that, it would be troubling. Though even so, we’d still have to find some plan whose benefits outweighed its costs. In any event, that level of consensus that the problem was manmade and urgent would certainly be noteworthy. But the thing is, they don’t agree on that.

A close look at what survey data we have, and there isn’t much, tells us, yes, there is a great deal of agreement that CO2 is a greenhouse gas to some degree, that the Earth has warmed in the last 160 years, and that humans affect their surroundings. But that survey data also tell us there’s far less agreement on everything else including whether we face a crisis.

So where did this 97% claim come from and why is it so widely repeated?

Narrator

The 97% claim seems to have begun with a historian of science named Naomi Oreskes who, in 2004, claimed she’d looked at 928 articles about climate change in scientific journals, that 75% of them endorsed the “consensus view” that “Earth’s climate is being affected by human activities” and that none directly disputed it.

By 2006, in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, this finding had somehow morphed into “a massive study of every scientific article in a peer-reviewed journal written on global warming for the last 10 years and they took a big sample of 10%, 928 articles, and you know the number of those that disagreed with the scientific consensus that we’re causing global warming and that it’s a serious problem? Out of the 928, zero.”

John

That was a fib. Gore took a study that found 75% endorsed the idea that humans have some effect on climate and turned it into proof that 100% of scientists believe it’s a serious problem. It does no such thing.

Narrator

And nor do the handful of other surveys on the subject. For instance five years later, in 2009, a pair of researchers at the University of Illinois sent an online survey to over 10,000 Earth scientists asking two simple questions: Do you agree that global temperatures have generally risen since the pre-1800s? and Do you think that human activity is a significant contributing factor? [Note: They asked some other questions too, but didn’t report the questions or results in the publication.]

John

They didn’t single out greenhouse gases, they didn’t explain what the term “significant” meant and they didn’t refer to danger or crisis. So what was the result?

Narrator

Of the 3,146 responses they received, 90 percent said yes to the first question, that global temperatures had risen since the Little Ice Age, and only 82 percent said yes to the second, that human activity was a significant contributing factor.

Interestingly, among meteorologists only 64 percent said yes to the second, meaning a third of the experts in the study of weather patterns who replied didn’t think humans play a significant role in global warming, let alone a dominant one.

What got the most media attention was that among the 77 respondents who described themselves as climate experts, 75 said yes to the second question. 75 out of 77 is 97%.

John

OK, it didn’t get any media attention that they took 77 out of 3,146 responses. But that’s the key statistical trick. They found a 97 percent consensus among 2 percent of the survey respondents. And even so it was only that there’d been some warming since the 1800s, which virtually nobody denies, and that humans are partly responsible. These experts didn’t say it was dangerous or urgent, because they weren’t asked. [Note: or as noted above, if they were the results weren’t reported.]

So far the claim that 97% of “world scientists” are saying there’s a climate crisis is pure fiction. But wait, you say. There must be more. Yes, there is. But not much.

Narrator

Another survey appeared in 2013, by Australian researcher John Cook and his coauthors, in which they claimed to have examined about 12,000 scientific papers related to climate change, and found that 97% endorsed the consensus view that greenhouse gases were at least partly responsible for global warming. This study generated headlines around the world, and it was the one to which Obama’s tweet was referring.

John

But here again, appearances were deceiving.

Two-thirds of the papers that Cook and his colleagues examined expressed no view at all on the consensus. Of the remaining 34%, the authors claimed that 33% endorsed the consensus. Divide 33 by 34 and you get 97%. But this result is essentially meaningless, because they set the bar so low.

The survey authors didn’t ask if climate change was dangerous or “manmade”. They only asked if a given paper accepted that humans have some effect on the climate, which as already noted is uncontroversial. It could mean as little as accepting the “urban heat island” effect.

So a far better question would be: How many of the studies claimed that humans have caused most of the observed global warming? And oddly, we do know. Because buried in the authors’ data was the answer: A mere 64 out of nearly 12,000 papers! That’s not 97%, it’s one half of one percent. It’s one in 200.

And it gets worse. In a follow-up study, climatologist David Legates read those 64 papers and found that a third of them didn’t even say what Cook and his team claimed. Only 41 actually endorsed the view that global warming is mostly manmade. And we still haven’t got to it being “dangerous”. That part of the survey results was simply invented, by politicians and activists.

Other researchers have condemned the Cook study on other grounds too. For instance economist Richard Tol showed that over three-quarters of the papers counted as endorsing even the weak consensus actually said nothing at all on the subject. And evidence later emerged that the authors of the paper were drafting press releases about their findings before they even started doing the research, which indicates an alarming level not of warming or of consensus but of bias.

The reality is that neither this study, nor a handful of others like it, prove that 97% of scientists believe climate change is mostly manmade, let alone that it’s a crisis. The fact that people who claim to put such stock in “settled science” accept such obvious statistical hocus pocus is both astounding and disappointing.

Narrator

So what do climate experts really think? The year before Obama sent out his tweet, the American Meteorological Society (AMS) surveyed its 7,000 members. They got about 1,800 responses. Of those, only 52% said they think global warming over the 20th century has happened and is mostly manmade. The remaining 48% either think it happened but is mostly natural, or it didn’t happen, or they don’t know. And while it’s possible that the three-quarters who didn’t answer split the same way as those who did, it’s also possible that committed alarmists are more likely to answer such surveys. In any case, it’s a small sample, even of AMS members, let alone of the world’s scientists.

John

There was one more survey a few years later by the Netherlands Environment Agency that claimed 66% of climate experts believed humans were mostly responsible for warming since 1950. Which falls far short of 97% even if it outperforms the other studies.

A social psychologist named Jose Duarte, who specializes in survey design, published an analysis of that one, pointing out that they diluted the sample by including large numbers of psychologists, philosophers, political scientists, and other non-experts, making their results meaningless as a measure of what scientists think. Just as you’ll find that the people who cite that 97% number are overwhelmingly not trained scientists, certainly not trained statisticians.

Narrator

So we’re no farther ahead than when we began. Most experts agree on the basics, namely that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and probably causes some warming and that humans have some impact on climate probably including some warming. But they actively debate the rest: How much warming will there be? Is it a problem? Should we try to stop it, or adapt, or wait and see? These are all important questions and we need good answers.

John

And there’s the claim that many of the world’s national science academies, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists across the globe, have issued statements supporting the consensus about global warming and demanding government efforts to cut emissions. The problem is, not a single one of those societies took a survey of their members before issuing their statements in the name of their members. The statements were put out by a small number of activists using their committee positions to make it look as though their views are shared by all the world’s experts. But if they are, why didn’t these authors survey their members before publishing the statements?

There are a couple of other studies that claimed to prove a consensus. But they run into the same problems. All they show is wide agreement on the uncontroversial bits. They offer no information about whether a majority of scientists think global warming is a crisis. And then they’re spun wildly by non-scientists to tell us things they don’t begin to say, often about questions they didn’t even attempt to investigate .

The problem isn’t just that we don’t know what percentage of scientists agrees with this or that statement about global warming. It’s something much worse. All this talk of a 97% consensus amounts to a dishonest bullying campaign to stifle scientific debate just when we need it most because the question looms so large in public policy.

As physicist Richard Feynmann once said, “I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned.” And that’s especially true when we’re asked to take drastic action based on those answers.

Not long ago that survey expert I mentioned earlier, Jose Duarte, warned his fellow scientists about the negative consequences of claiming consensus. He said:

“It is ill advised to report a consensus as though it is an aggregation of independent judgments. Humans are an ultrasocial species, and dissent is far costlier than assent to a perceived majority… A scientist who contests the prevailing narrative on human-caused warming, or merely produces smaller estimates, will likely end up on a McCarthyite blacklist of ‘deniers’. Self-described mainstream climate scientists refer the public to such lists, implicitly endorsing the smearing of their colleagues. This is disturbing, and unheard of in other sciences.”

The unfortunate truth is that there is strong political pressure for climate experts not to question claims of impending doom. Those who do so face steep personal and professional costs, including a barrage of abuse that can be highly unpleasant for people who mostly wanted to devote their lives to the quiet pursuit of knowledge not to noisy polemics. And that means we should listen carefully to them when they feel compelled to speak out anyway.

Whether they represent 50%, or 10%, or 3% of experts, what matters is the evidence they bring and the quality of their arguments.

And on that, I would hope we have 100 percent agreement.

For the Climate Discussion Nexus, I’m John Robson.

HT/Pierre Gosselin

It’s coal to the rescue as wind and solar fail to keep German lights on

In Germany they call it the “Energiewende,” meaning energy transition, and it doesn’t work.

Germans have been forced to come to grips with sober energy reality after binging on more than half a trillion Euros of so-called “alternative” energy, such as wind turbines and solar panels. This dramatically increased the price of electricity and created a serious risk of blackouts.

From CFACT

By Craig Rucker

In Germany they call it the “Energiewende,” meaning energy transition, and it doesn’t work.

Germans have been forced to come to grips with sober energy reality after binging on more than half a trillion Euros of so-called “alternative” energy, such as wind turbines and solar panels.  This dramatically increased the price of electricity and created a serious risk of blackouts.

Germany actually just announced plans to reactivate coal plants to provide reserve power and lower the risk of blackouts during the coming winter and years to come.

Bloomberg reports that:

Germany’s coal phase-out plans face a potential setback after the energy regulator predicted the country will need a lot more fossil-fuel power plants on standby to help keep the lights on in the coming years.

The need for so-called reserve capacity to cover shortfalls in wind and solar generation during the 2026/27 winter period is set to reach 9.2 gigawatts, double the amount put aside for the last heating season, the regulator said Tuesday. That’s even more than the 8.3 gigawatts of mainly coal-fired backup deployed in 2022, when Russia curbed pipelined natural gas supplies to Europe.

The solution the German government is pursuing is no solution at all — offsets!

Reuters reports that German  “coal-fired power plans will be reactivated and the government will make proposals by summer next year on how to offset increased carbon dioxide these plants will generate this winter.”

Germany will purchase some kind of offset certificates that will have no meaningful impact on the fact that German coal plants burn brown lignite, which is the dirtiest and least efficient variety of coal.  It is far inferior to the cleaner-burning hard black anthracite mined in America.

The German energy economy has fallen victim to conflicting Green ideologies.

As Germany invested a fortune in wind and solar which are unable to meet its energy needs, it simultaneously shut down clean, safe, functioning nuclear plants that were already paid for.

Germany provides a powerful energy lesson in what not to do.

Will America learn in time?

Cat 6 hurricanes are just more hysterical climate gibberish

Well, “there they go again,” as Ronald Reagan would say.

From CFACT

By Joe Bastardi

Well, “there they go again,” as Ronald Reagan would say.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/you-re-gonna-need-a-bigger-number-scientists-consider-a-category-6-for-mega-hurricane-era/ar-AA1nI6CQ

The Category  6 crowd is at it again. We all know they would like to declare a climate emergency during the hurricane season. But the idea of Cat 6 is to make you think storms are worse now than ever.

If you want to do this, there are other storms from the past that should already be there. And on the power and impact scale, I advocate for several.  But it’s the usual worse-than-ever jibberish.

This was called for before. Hurricane Florence in the Atlantic had nothing but near-record warm water in front of it and was already a major hurricane, so there was speculation it would hit the coast and would be in a different category of its own. This was nonsense, and I pointed out why it would weaken beforehand (apparently, they know nothing about what happens when hurricanes slow coming to the coast in an unfavorable Madden Julian Oscillation). In short. 1) the bigger the storm, the more energy it needs, and is more likely to draw in conditions that will limit it. 2) There are limits to how strong a storm can get, such as friction. 3) The very fact the storm is so strong means it’s cooling the water it is over, also a self-limiting factor.

This is why the Saffir Simpson scale should be replaced by our power and impact scale. We use Saffir Simpson as the basis for a pressure and wind at the center, but in our power and impact scale, we take pressure tendencies over a period of time (for instance, if the storm is intensifying quickly, you add a category because conditions are favorable for the transport of strong winds to the surface. It may be 90-95 % of the strongest flight-level winds; if weakening, quickly subtract, as it is in an environment opposite, so it may be as little as 50% when friction is factored in. Lili in 2002 and Idalia last year were classic weakeners, and both hit well under what they were portrayed as). But we use the radius of hurricane-force winds (the sum of the extent in the 2 greatest quadrants);; 50 and 34-knot winds also are factored in. For mariners, we add a radius of 12-foot seas. (There needs to be work on rainfall totals, but that is more a function of speed of movement and interaction with nontropical processes.) This gives us more variables that can evaluate the total power of the storm. How do you think a storm like Sandy, with only 80 mph winds at the center, did so much damage so far away.? Because it was large. Long Island is 100 miles from where Sandy made landfall in NJ. Look at the damage with Charley, a cat 4 that hit Florida in 2004, 100 miles away. You would not have known there was such a strong storm. So what they are doing is getting rapid development in close storms that are essentially fists of fury that are all occurring in phase 2 or 3 of the MJO and claiming they are stronger. When in reality, energy-wise, they are not as strong as some of the great storms of the past.

I have put our forecast on many times. It was made in December and called for 25 to 30 storms, and interestingly enough, that is now the mean of the forecasts out there with Dr. Manns group, with 33 being the highest. (He has a range of 27-39, which is over. 35% of the total mean number.) We have a 5 (or about 18%) range for a lesser number because of uncertainty over the naming of storms in the middle of nowhere. If it were before the era that we see all the naming, it would likely be 25, but I have learned to adjust up).  But the NUMBER IS A RED HERRING. It is where they go and how strong we are pioneering, and no one takes a stand the way we do and have done since I came to Weatherbell.com in 2011. Of course, despite all the appearances and forecasts for all those years, Wikipedia does not mention us. Gee, now, why would that be?

The red area is the opposite of last year, where we had less-than-average.

Here is the link to what was put out on Dec 7, 2023.

https://www.weatherbell.com/hurricane-season-from-hell-first-look

Last year’s hurricane season is below; you can see almost all the activity out at sea. 4th most active as far as names, but who cares on land? They are all out at sea. Very little in the area we have targeted this year.

Except for Idalea, which fell apart as it got to the coast.

An active season is if you get hit. For instance, for the US, which is the more important season, what happened last year or this, 1985?

Six landfalling hurricanes, this is different from impact. For instance, suppose a hurricane stays just offshore like Helene in 1958, yet cat 3 or 4 conditions occur on the coast… well, you got hit by a cat 3 or 4)  This is the record, tying 1886.

Imagine, if this were today, how many there would be as you would be able to see them in the middle of nowhere — likely almost 2x the 12 we saw.

And perhaps more like 2020, the other year with 6 (31 total).

What we are forecasting this year would mean a challenge to that record. That is much more significant than the total number, but we play the total number game because it’s what everyone looks at. But like so many things, it is a sideshow. No one is going to have low numbers this year ( we just said it first). But last year proved what I have been saying for years: it’s a moot point if they hit nobody (except for mariners).

And no one in this meteo misinformation media will make a big deal about the major climate signal, the western Pacific, and its lack of storms again this year relative to averages. (We think 60% of normal.)

It is part of the Weaponization of Weather in the Phony climate war. In this case, it is the old “This is Spinal Tap” routine of turning up the amp to 11 by putting another category in despite no change in the actual sound.

Worth the watch for a laugh, but in a way, it is a prophetic satire of the mentality that we see today in so many things, meant to convince people by showing only one thing, and not the whole picture, that things are worse than ever. (Another piece of satire back in the old days, Andy Kaufmann’s claim on Letterman, {when he was funny}  that he was the intergender wrestling champion of the world.. we can go on and on with things like this.)

Interestingly enough, this recently came out. The “Discovery” by researchers of what people who forecast know. I have been saying this for years, and the power and impact scale would show it clearly. In totality, hurricanes are not getting worse.

Global-Warming-Inhibits-Hurricane-ActivityHerunterladen

It is why we see a lack of the long-tracked monsters that the power and impact scale I am advocating would show to have much more total energy. That being said, this is a year when some could show up, as well as the smaller rapid feedback storms. I have made no secret of that since December, and it will be Weaponized in this phony climate war.  The call for Cat 6 is just getting the weaponization started early.

Wake Up: Energy Transition Not Happening

Next time someone tells you that wind, solar and batteries are
the magical solution for all our energy needs ask them
if they have an idea of the cost… to the environment.

From Science Matters

By Ron Clutz

Wind and Solar The Grand Illusion

Mark Mills explains the many ways the deck is stacked against those gambling on Wind and Solar energy to replace hydrocarbon fuels.  The transcript is below in italics with my bolds and added images.

Have you ever heard of “unobtanium”?

It’s the magical energy mineral found on the planet Pandora in the movie, Avatar. It’s a fantasy in a science fiction script. But environmentalists think they’ve found it here on earth in the form of wind and solar power.

They think all the energy we need can be supplied by building enough wind and solar farms; and enough batteries.

The simple truth is that we can’t. Nor should we want to—not if our goal is to be good stewards of the planet.

To understand why, consider some simple physics
realities that aren’t being talked about.

All sources of energy have limits that can’t be exceeded. The maximum rate at which the sun’s photons can be converted to electrons is about 33%. Our best solar technology is at 26% efficiency. For wind, the maximum capture is 60%. Our best machines are at 45%.

So, we’re pretty close to wind and solar limits. Despite PR claims about big gains coming, there just aren’t any possible. And wind and solar only work when the wind blows and the sun shines. But we need energy all the time. The solution we’re told is to use batteries.

Again, physics and chemistry make this very hard to do.

Consider the world’s biggest battery factory, the one Tesla built in Nevada. It would take 500 years for that factory to make enough batteries to store just one day’s worth of America’s electricity needs. This helps explain why wind and solar currently still supply less than 3% of the world’s energy, after 20 years and billions of dollars in subsidies.

Putting aside the economics, if your motive is to protect the environment, you might want to rethink wind, solar, and batteries because, like all machines, they’re built from nonrenewable materials.

Consider some sobering numbers:

A single electric-car battery weighs about half a ton. Fabricating one requires digging up, moving, and processing more than 250 tons of earth somewhere on the planet.

Building a single 100 Megawatt wind farm, which can power 75,000 homes requires some 30,000 tons of iron ore and 50,000 tons of concrete, as well as 900 tons of non-recyclable plastics for the huge blades. To get the same power from solar, the amount of cement, steel, and glass needed is 150% greater.

Then there are the other minerals needed, including elements known as rare earth metals. With current plans, the world will need an incredible 200 to 2,000 percent increase in mining for elements such as cobalt, lithium, and dysprosium, to name just a few.

Where’s all this stuff going to come from? Massive new mining operations. Almost none of it in America, some imported from places hostile to America, and some in places we all want to protect.

Australia’s Institute for a Sustainable Future cautions that a global “gold” rush for energy materials will take miners into “…remote wilderness areas [that] have maintained high biodiversity because they haven’t yet been disturbed.”

And who is doing the mining? Let’s just say that they’re not all going to be union workers with union protections.

Amnesty International paints a disturbing picture: “The… marketing of state-of-the-art technologies are a stark contrast to the children carrying bags of rocks.”

And then the mining itself requires massive amounts of conventional energy, as do the energy-intensive industrial processes needed to refine the materials and then build the wind, solar, and battery hardware.

Then there’s the waste. Wind turbines, solar panels, and batteries have a relatively short life; about twenty years. Conventional energy machines, like gas turbines, last twice as long.

With current plans, the International Renewable Energy Agency calculates that by 2050, the disposal of worn-out solar panels will constitute over double the tonnage of all of today’s global plastic waste. Worn-out wind turbines and batteries will add millions of tons more waste. It will be a whole new environmental challenge.

Before we launch history’s biggest increase in mining, dig up millions of acres in pristine areas, encourage childhood labor, and create epic waste problems, we might want to reconsider our almost inexhaustible supply of hydrocarbons—the fuels that make our marvelous modern world possible.

And technology is making it easier to acquire and cleaner to use them every day.

It would take a wind farm the size of Albany county NY to replace the now closed Indian Point nuclear power plant.

The following comparisons are typical—and instructive:

It costs about the same to drill one oil well as it does to build one giant wind turbine. And while that turbine generates the energy equivalent of about one barrel of oil per hour, the oil rig produces 10 barrels per hour. It costs less than 50 cents to store a barrel of oil or its equivalent in natural gas. But you need $200 worth of batteries to hold the energy contained in one oil barrel.

Next time someone tells you that wind, solar and batteries are
the magical solution for all our energy needs ask them
if they have an idea of the cost… to the environment.

“Unobtanium” works fine in the movies. But we don’t live in movies. We live in the real world.

I’m Mark Mills, Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, for Prager University.

There is no charge for content on this site, nor for subscribers to receive email notifications of postings.

Developing Nations Reject Western Carbon Colonialism

Guyana President Irfaan Ali is the latest leader of a developing nation to publicly note the hypocrisy of those pressuring countries like his to forego wealth in pursuit of a “green” agenda.

From Watts Up With That?

By Vijay Jayaraj

Guyana President Irfaan Ali is the latest leader of a developing nation to publicly note the hypocrisy of those pressuring countries like his to forego wealth in pursuit of a “green” agenda.

In a fiery response to a BBC interviewer’s questioning of Guyana’s “right” to emit carbon dioxide in developing $150 billion of oil and gas reserves, President Ali questioned the reporter’s “right to lecture us on climate change. I will lecture you on climate change.”

It is not new, but still dismaying, that many leaders of developed nations assume a posture of moral superiority in leveling criticisms at countries with expanding economies and increasing emissions of carbon dioxide. Ensconced in seats of power from Brussels to Washington, D.C., they point accusing fingers while overlooking centuries of using coal, oil and natural gas to enrich their own countries.

The double standard fails to acknowledge the urgent needs of less advanced countries endeavouring to improve the lot of an impoverished citizenry. Such a nation is Guyana, the third smallest South American country in area.

The Guyanese president told the British journalist that it was hypocritical for rich countries to ask poor ones to reduce emissions. President Ali questioned the moral authority of those that benefited from the hydrocarbon-driven Industrial Revolution, whose most notable technological impetus was the coal-fired steam engine.

“The world, in the last 50 years, has lost 65% of all its biodiversity,” said the president whose country is home to a large rainforest. “We have kept our biodiversity. Are you valuing it. Are you ready to pay for it? When is the developed world going to pay for it, or are you in their pockets?”

President Ali’s comments echo those of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and others who have rejected the climate alarmists’ hostility to fossil fuels in favor of exploiting hydrocarbons to support economic growth.

From the perspective of a developing country, the climate crusaders are particularly annoying when they travel in fuel-guzzling private jets to exclusive locations for United Nations’ climate conferences. The amount of CO2 such a flights release surpasses the yearly emissions of an ordinary individual in a developing country.

Per Capita Emissions and Energy Poverty

Except for nuclear power, fossil fuels are the densest form of energy and so are the most efficient in powering economic growth. Their use — and their CO2 emissions — have a direct relationship with a society’s wealth. Economies with low poverty rates either have high per capita emissions, or have been through a phase when emissions were elevated, because of the central role that fossil fuels played in their development.

Thus, barring a few countries that are blessed with abundant water resources for hydroelectric generation or with nuclear power plants, low per capita emissions equate to poverty. While large developing countries like India produce a significant amount of CO2 emissions in total, the per capita emissions of individual citizens are dwarfed by the carbon footprints of people in the developed West.

For example, global per capita CO2 emissions in 2022 were just over 4 tons while India’s were less than 2 tons. In the U.K. — the BBC’s home — per capita emissions were almost 5 tons.

The African continent has per capita emissions of less than 1 ton; the Central African Republic, 0.05 tons, with 70 percent of its citizens in extreme poverty, making it the fifth poorest country in the world.  Another African country among the five poorest is the Democratic Republic of Congo with just 0.04 tons per capita. According to the World Bank, 4.6% of the Congolese people live on less than $2.15 per day.

Doomsday-promoting politicians cling to their luxuries while millions have no access to clean water, modern appliances and automobiles. The Guyanese president and others are quite right to call out the hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy.

This commentary was first published at Real Clear Energy on April 24, 2024.

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, U.K.