This is an update of articles that I have read that I want to mention but only have time to provide a brief summary. I have also included links to some other items of interest. Previous commentaries are available here.
I have been following the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) since it was first proposed and most of the articles described below are related to the net-zero transition. I have devoted a lot of time to the Climate Act because I believe the ambitions for a zero-emissions economy embodied in the Climate Act outstrip available renewable technology such that the net-zero transition will do more harm than good. The opinions expressed in this article do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other company I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.
Northeast Wildfires
Under the category of yet another instance where those who do not understand the difference between weather and climate the recent wildfires in New York and New Jersey are being blamed on climate change. In brief, climate is what you expect, and weather is what you get. In the context of climate because wildfires have occurred many times in the past the observed wildfires are due to weather. A post at Climate Realism documents the history of wildfires in New Jersey, provides a reference to the New York wildfire data, and shows that the trend of national wildfire data “shows the acreage lost to wildfires in the United States has declined sharply since the early part of the 20th century.”
Climate Scam Terminology
Chris Martz interprets climate terminology in this post. He argues that anthropogenic global warming is not a “hoax” or “scam” because there is a legitimate underlying scientific basis. He points out that there is general agreement on the following points:
Global mean surface temperature (GMST) has risen about 1.2°C since 1850. The warming since 1980 is about as equal in magnitude and rate as the early 20th century warming from 1910 to 1945. In general, it has been warming for >250 years.
Burning of coal, oil and natural gas for energy has increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) levels by ~51% since 1850. We know this because there is an isotopic fingerprint in the decrease of C13/C12 ratios. While this is not uniquely indicative of anthropogenic origin, it is a pretty solid indicator.
Earth’s average surface temperature is a function of energy gain versus energy loss. Given there is a radiation spectrum on CO₂ in the infrared (IR) band of the electromagnetic (EM) spectrum, all else constant, adding more of it to the atmosphere should reduce the rate of cooling by emission of IR to space. In effect, it induces a cooling tendency in the stratosphere and a warming tendency in the troposphere. This has in fact been observed.
However, he explains that there is no agreement on how much of the observed warming is man-made, the equilibrium climate sensitivity, whether warming is dangerous or beneficial, and the best measures for adaptation and mitigation.
For what it is worth I concur with the three points of agreement. I also believe his conclusion is correct, especially his description of the real scam below:
So, there is in fact a legitimate scientific basis behind global warming theory. The basics are pretty well understood; the devil is in the details and the science is far from settled.
The case isn’t closed. That book remains wide open on the table.
However, what is indeed a scam is the push for “Net Zero” CO₂ emissions by 2050.
A legitimate scientific issue has become captive of a Malthusian religion by power-hungry elected officials and unelected bureaucrats. Climate policy is an anti-capitalist, anti-human movement. These people push for one-world governance where you are told what you can and cannot eat, what appliances you can and cannot buy, where you can or cannot travel and want to force us to adopt a carbon credit cap and trade system in a cashless society. The policy is the scam, not the basic underlying scientific theory.
Home-Based Battery Storage Fantasy
One of the “solutions” of clean energy fanatics is that we don’t need to rely on utility-scale energy storage or need to make transmission upgrades if grid operators can tap into electric vehicle batteries and home storage batteries. The Manhattan Institute rightly calls that electricity “magical thinking.”
Jonathan Lesser eviscerates a recent article in the Conversation that makes such a claim. He argues that the need for more solar and wind means that transmission will be needed to get that energy to where it is needed, and local distribution networks will have to be upgraded when everything is electrified if using home batteries is to work. Then he estimates how much this magical solution would cost – on the order of $3 trillion just for the batteries. His conclusion is right on the money:
Ignoring physical and economic realities may be fashionable, but reality always wins in the long run. The electric grid and its components form a complex system which most of us take for granted, which enable misleading claims regarding the simplicity of electrifying everything and powering it all almost exclusively with wind, solar, and batteries. Electric utilities and planners can provide a public service by explaining why this scenario, given today’s technology, isn’t possible.
Disinformation Censorship
Charles Rotter addresses a big concern of mine.
In yet another chilling example of Orwellian overreach, the G20 Summit in Brazil has unveiled a new international effort to stifle dissent under the banner of “fighting disinformation.” This latest scheme, dubbed the Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change, is spearheaded by the United Nations and UNESCO. With a financial war chest provided by nations like the United Kingdom, France, and Sweden, this initiative isn’t about “truth” or “science”—it’s about control.
I agree with his description:
Let’s call this what it is: a blatant attempt to silence anyone questioning the so-called climate crisis narrative. Under the guise of combating “misinformation,” these global bureaucracies aim to crush free thought and erase critical voices from the public square. This isn’t just an attack on skeptics—it’s an assault on open discourse itself.
Ron Clutz published a related article “Misinformation” Means “Shut Up”. Clutz excerpts an article by Daniel B. Klein that reveals the power play currently destroying our civil discourse. There is a quote defining disinformation as meaning:
‘Shut up, peasant.’ It’s a bullet aimed at killing the conversation. It’s loaded with hostility to reason, evidence, debate and all the stuff that makes our democracy great.
When the Climate Act Scoping Plan was being discussed misinformation accusations were thrown about whenever advocates responded to things they did not want to hear. Don’t be surprised when you hear it used again when experts inevitably point out the Climate Act wind, solar, and energy storage approach is impossible.
Energy Transitions Don’t Happen on Command
Bud’s Offshore Energy explains why many who think it might be possible to transition to zero carbon understand that a politically motivated schedule is a disaster waiting to happen. He includes graphics by Bjorn Lomborg and Alex Epstein that show the energy transition is not happening according to plan.
Videos
Gerard Holland lays out the staggering cost of renewable energy at Alliance for Responsible Citizenship Australia. Rich Ellenbogen notes:
The video is about 14 minutes long and it is well worth watching. It discusses the staggering costs of the energy transition in Australia. If the video sounds familiar, it is because he is bringing up the same issues that we have been beating the drum on, except he is primarily discussing costs. The reason for the cost discussion is because of Australia’s incredibly favorable renewable landscape. Their technical issues are a fraction of those that NY State will face. In NY State, we will not only have the economic hurdles that he mentions but we will also have an incredibly challenging technical landscape to address also. The speaker claims a cost of $95,000 per person. Because of the higher population densities and the lower capacity factors for the energy in NY State, it will cost far more to site, install, and wire the transmission for the renewable generation. In addition, Holland notes that the burden of the costs will disproportionately be on the backs of the poor. The same will be true in NY State and that is already occurring but that is what the CLCPA is doing in the name of “Climate Justice
Debate: Is Decarbonization Worth the Cost
Note that this link takes you to the end of the video. I had intended to do a post on this debate, but other issues prevented that. Tom Shepstone summarized the debate here. The closing statements of the debaters is worth a listen. Four key points from those that argue the decarbonization is worth the cost: we can’t do 100% as net-zero programs like the Climate Act demand, we need to do research, we must learn adaptation, and decarbonization using nuclear works.
Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York 