Victor Davis Hanson has a new podcast in which he discusses issues facing the West (most are self inflicted dysfunctions) and discusses the start of the crumbling of the climate narrative. He attributes Bill Gates changing his mind to AI. Basically Bates is heavily invested in companies that have made large bets on AI. Gates is smart enough to realize that these data centers will need massive new sources of electricity that wind and solar cannot provide. Hence if Gates wants to surpass Musk in wealth, he will need to support new generation capacity from nuclear, natural gas, and even possibly coal.
The other issue that is biting Europe heavily is that China has largely captured the wind turbine and solar panel manufacturing industries and is flooding the world with cheap product. Hanson claims that its part of conscious strategy to make the West economically non-competetive so that China can rise to dominant status.
I have made this statement before. You are arguing science while your opponents are arguing politics. Climate catastrophism is a business and a big one. Wind and solar companies have made huge investments in it as have NGOs like the Sierra Club. If you want the big money you have to sell FEAR. This is why both RCP 8.5 and the weather attribution that never seems to happen is so important to them. Although things have changed in the past couple of years, many NSF grants were dependent on selling fear. Science is hopefully making you a good living on Substack but it will never get you on the cover of Time Magazine or get you elected to any political office. It won't get you a billion dollars in tax subsidies
Remember what that esteemed climate scientist Great Thunberg said: We went extinct two years ago.
Show me the incentives and I will show you the outcome: Warren Buffett
"Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services re-released its major report on the treatment of pediatric gender dysphoria after putting it through post-publication peer review. It emerged unscathed. For years, America’s leading medical associations have insisted that “gender-affirming care” for minors is grounded in a solid scientific foundation. This review process gave them a chance to prove it. Instead, what happened says more about the state of U.S. medical groups than anything we’ve seen in a long time.
HHS invited three organizations that have spent years insisting that “gender-affirming care” for minors is safe, effective, life-saving, and evidence-based: the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American Psychiatric Association (APA), and the Endocrine Society. This was their chance to show the public the solid data behind those claims.
Two of the three didn’t bother. The AAP and the Endocrine Society simply refused to participate. ...
The lone group that did participate—the APA—submitted a review so careless and superficial it’s hard to believe they read the report at all. The HHS authors’ reply reads like an adult patiently explaining basic concepts to a child, as they walked one of the nation’s largest medical organizations through the most elementary principles of evidence-based medicine."
My layman’s opinion - follow the money. Those pushing hardest for the least plausible, worst case scenario are more than likely the ones who have the most to gain from the public purse.
Roger, this kind of behavior is known as the "Texas Marksman's Method". The shooter puts a bullet into the side of a barn, then steps up and paints a bullseye around the bullet hole. Then he takes a picture of the painted bullseye, inviting admiration for his accuracy.
When you're trying to change the world, whether it's climate hysteria to kill off fossil fuels, or refuting Enlightenment values and the Scientific Method, or Western values of the primacy of the individual (vs artificial contrived group indentities), then you can NEVER be wrong. Even a scintilla of doubt might keep zealots from doing the awful things that eventually must be done to enforce the Brave New World.
To be fair to the IPCC and the scenario builders, wasn't there a time when increasing reliance on coal was at least possible, if not probable? I attended a power industry conference in 2001, and one of the presentations predicted increased reliance on coal, specifically for the US, on the grounds that US natural gas production was already at maximum, with production in many fields declining and little prospect for major new discoveries. Obviously, this turned out not to be true.
But was there a time in the 1990s when increased reliance on coal was a plausible scenario, possibly the most likely? Perhaps continued use of such scenarios reflects both researchers' familiarity with these scenarios and institutional inertia. Plus, of course, these scenarios produce the most eye-catching conclusions, which ensure notoriety for authors and continued funding. Which doesn't excuse 8+ years of failing to update the prior assumptions.
Then we in Australia have the official Bureau of Meteorology, which recently admitted that a budget of $4 million to upgrade its public web site had grown to $96 million.
Our BOM is supposed to be a statutory body devoid of political influence. Yet, on digging, others have found that much of the $96 was spent on the large international consulting company Accenture. Further digging shows the top management of Accenture has many people from the World Economic Forum. Both Accenture and WEF have been in bed together for a decade or more, busily promoting a net zero type of future with "renewables" replacing hydrocarbon fuels.
What are the chances of our BOM remaining steadfastly devoid of politics and dismissing any contamination of their pure neutral thoughts after a decade of close ties with two of the big global bodies calling for change our energy use and electrical generation?
In the olden days, bodies seeking to benefit from a future big on computers used to have in-house computer staff including programmers, to help decide which new gear and programming would help their future needs best. I cannot see why BOM, which has already bought a lavish supercomputer, could not handle the programming and its quality control internally. Why use $96 million worth of consultants?
The ever-increasing price of electricity in Australia, correlated as we well know to the increase in penetration of Renewable Generation, is becoming the trigger issue for many voters to wake up to the farcical cost of Net Zero for Australia. However, a significant inertia of opinion that still believes in the Net Zero BS is due to the fact that most people younger than about 35 (perhaps worldwide, but in Australia at least) have been indoctrinated and scared by Climate Change apocalypse predictions for every stage of their "education", so this myth will continue to be accepted by a significant cohort.
Although the political pushback has begun in Australia, the well-funded and politically savvy government-money rent-seekers are never going to admit any error. They are assisted by our national taxpayer-funded broadcaster, the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC), which is very much biased towards the views of the IPCC and its rent seekers, so the once-trusted ABC is still managing to scare a lot of well-off middle-class inner-city listeners (voting block) who still comprise a significant part of their listener base.
Fortunately, there are at last some opposing views coming into the 'debate'. One particularly brave example is the Aussie journalist, Chris Uhlmann. Chris is one of the few journos taking them on - I suggest it is well worth following and supporting him.
Very valuable insights here, thanks. I just read parts of the Stern review from 2006 and found it was based on the IPCC A2-assumptions of a 15bn people world running on synthetic fuel made from coal since we had run short of crude oil. Add in some feedback catastrophes and you had “business as usual” warming of 5-6 degrees.. Given the promise that saving the world would cost no more than 1% of GDP, it was no wonder politicians were motivated into making their ambitious commitments!
Given the continued use of flawed climate scenarios and the unbridled support of them by the vast majority of climate warriors, one must conclude that main stream climate scientists, economists, and the press are totally corrupt.
The reaction by the climate grifters was completely predictable and I am pretty sure that if you dig through the comments to some of the early posts on the relative likelihood of the various scenarios you'll find numerous commenters predicting exactly what has come to pass.
This seems to be good, but frankly, I couldn't get through it all because I was overwhelmed by the arrogance of COP30, Dr. Hausfather, and others who would seem to "credit" humans for "progress" from X to Y.
Where are the studies that prove that? Who has done the research that shows reduced carbon emissions over the past decade HAVE CAUSED a shift in future scenarios?
Apologies for my bluntness here, but the bullshit from the climate community has grown stale, not that it was all that tasty a dish in the first place. When will we realize that we need to adapt a sensible energy policy first and let the climate take care of itself, as it has for the past 4 billion years?
What the climate alarmist narrative drivers don't realize is that this is an issue of credibility. You can only shout wolf so many times before people realize you are liar and/or propagandist. The only way to recover from this is to admit you were wrong all along and promise to do better in the future. Like all modern information operations, they attempt to create strong emotions that will result in action. But its not must the climatists but most of our elite institutions who have lost credibility including regime media with public trust at an all time low.
Victor Davis Hanson has a new podcast in which he discusses issues facing the West (most are self inflicted dysfunctions) and discusses the start of the crumbling of the climate narrative. He attributes Bill Gates changing his mind to AI. Basically Bates is heavily invested in companies that have made large bets on AI. Gates is smart enough to realize that these data centers will need massive new sources of electricity that wind and solar cannot provide. Hence if Gates wants to surpass Musk in wealth, he will need to support new generation capacity from nuclear, natural gas, and even possibly coal.
The other issue that is biting Europe heavily is that China has largely captured the wind turbine and solar panel manufacturing industries and is flooding the world with cheap product. Hanson claims that its part of conscious strategy to make the West economically non-competetive so that China can rise to dominant status.
Meanwhile, Roger's "Iron Law of Climate Policy" seems to be holding firm, and will continue to do so for a long time to come.
Isn't the absence of concrete result from COP30 a sign that reality begins to prevail over sinister, diabolical manipulations?
I have made this statement before. You are arguing science while your opponents are arguing politics. Climate catastrophism is a business and a big one. Wind and solar companies have made huge investments in it as have NGOs like the Sierra Club. If you want the big money you have to sell FEAR. This is why both RCP 8.5 and the weather attribution that never seems to happen is so important to them. Although things have changed in the past couple of years, many NSF grants were dependent on selling fear. Science is hopefully making you a good living on Substack but it will never get you on the cover of Time Magazine or get you elected to any political office. It won't get you a billion dollars in tax subsidies
Remember what that esteemed climate scientist Great Thunberg said: We went extinct two years ago.
Show me the incentives and I will show you the outcome: Warren Buffett
A little off topic but very relevant to the collapse of elite institutions.
From https://substack.com/home/post/p-179371446
"Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services re-released its major report on the treatment of pediatric gender dysphoria after putting it through post-publication peer review. It emerged unscathed. For years, America’s leading medical associations have insisted that “gender-affirming care” for minors is grounded in a solid scientific foundation. This review process gave them a chance to prove it. Instead, what happened says more about the state of U.S. medical groups than anything we’ve seen in a long time.
HHS invited three organizations that have spent years insisting that “gender-affirming care” for minors is safe, effective, life-saving, and evidence-based: the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American Psychiatric Association (APA), and the Endocrine Society. This was their chance to show the public the solid data behind those claims.
Two of the three didn’t bother. The AAP and the Endocrine Society simply refused to participate. ...
The lone group that did participate—the APA—submitted a review so careless and superficial it’s hard to believe they read the report at all. The HHS authors’ reply reads like an adult patiently explaining basic concepts to a child, as they walked one of the nation’s largest medical organizations through the most elementary principles of evidence-based medicine."
My layman’s opinion - follow the money. Those pushing hardest for the least plausible, worst case scenario are more than likely the ones who have the most to gain from the public purse.
Roger, this kind of behavior is known as the "Texas Marksman's Method". The shooter puts a bullet into the side of a barn, then steps up and paints a bullseye around the bullet hole. Then he takes a picture of the painted bullseye, inviting admiration for his accuracy.
When you're trying to change the world, whether it's climate hysteria to kill off fossil fuels, or refuting Enlightenment values and the Scientific Method, or Western values of the primacy of the individual (vs artificial contrived group indentities), then you can NEVER be wrong. Even a scintilla of doubt might keep zealots from doing the awful things that eventually must be done to enforce the Brave New World.
To be fair to the IPCC and the scenario builders, wasn't there a time when increasing reliance on coal was at least possible, if not probable? I attended a power industry conference in 2001, and one of the presentations predicted increased reliance on coal, specifically for the US, on the grounds that US natural gas production was already at maximum, with production in many fields declining and little prospect for major new discoveries. Obviously, this turned out not to be true.
But was there a time in the 1990s when increased reliance on coal was a plausible scenario, possibly the most likely? Perhaps continued use of such scenarios reflects both researchers' familiarity with these scenarios and institutional inertia. Plus, of course, these scenarios produce the most eye-catching conclusions, which ensure notoriety for authors and continued funding. Which doesn't excuse 8+ years of failing to update the prior assumptions.
Brian, it has been a while. But I must say your logic would keep the world defined as flat back in the day.
Charlie Webster,
Then we in Australia have the official Bureau of Meteorology, which recently admitted that a budget of $4 million to upgrade its public web site had grown to $96 million.
Our BOM is supposed to be a statutory body devoid of political influence. Yet, on digging, others have found that much of the $96 was spent on the large international consulting company Accenture. Further digging shows the top management of Accenture has many people from the World Economic Forum. Both Accenture and WEF have been in bed together for a decade or more, busily promoting a net zero type of future with "renewables" replacing hydrocarbon fuels.
What are the chances of our BOM remaining steadfastly devoid of politics and dismissing any contamination of their pure neutral thoughts after a decade of close ties with two of the big global bodies calling for change our energy use and electrical generation?
In the olden days, bodies seeking to benefit from a future big on computers used to have in-house computer staff including programmers, to help decide which new gear and programming would help their future needs best. I cannot see why BOM, which has already bought a lavish supercomputer, could not handle the programming and its quality control internally. Why use $96 million worth of consultants?
Geoff S
The ever-increasing price of electricity in Australia, correlated as we well know to the increase in penetration of Renewable Generation, is becoming the trigger issue for many voters to wake up to the farcical cost of Net Zero for Australia. However, a significant inertia of opinion that still believes in the Net Zero BS is due to the fact that most people younger than about 35 (perhaps worldwide, but in Australia at least) have been indoctrinated and scared by Climate Change apocalypse predictions for every stage of their "education", so this myth will continue to be accepted by a significant cohort.
Although the political pushback has begun in Australia, the well-funded and politically savvy government-money rent-seekers are never going to admit any error. They are assisted by our national taxpayer-funded broadcaster, the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC), which is very much biased towards the views of the IPCC and its rent seekers, so the once-trusted ABC is still managing to scare a lot of well-off middle-class inner-city listeners (voting block) who still comprise a significant part of their listener base.
Fortunately, there are at last some opposing views coming into the 'debate'. One particularly brave example is the Aussie journalist, Chris Uhlmann. Chris is one of the few journos taking them on - I suggest it is well worth following and supporting him.
Very valuable insights here, thanks. I just read parts of the Stern review from 2006 and found it was based on the IPCC A2-assumptions of a 15bn people world running on synthetic fuel made from coal since we had run short of crude oil. Add in some feedback catastrophes and you had “business as usual” warming of 5-6 degrees.. Given the promise that saving the world would cost no more than 1% of GDP, it was no wonder politicians were motivated into making their ambitious commitments!
Given the continued use of flawed climate scenarios and the unbridled support of them by the vast majority of climate warriors, one must conclude that main stream climate scientists, economists, and the press are totally corrupt.
The reaction by the climate grifters was completely predictable and I am pretty sure that if you dig through the comments to some of the early posts on the relative likelihood of the various scenarios you'll find numerous commenters predicting exactly what has come to pass.
This seems to be good, but frankly, I couldn't get through it all because I was overwhelmed by the arrogance of COP30, Dr. Hausfather, and others who would seem to "credit" humans for "progress" from X to Y.
Where are the studies that prove that? Who has done the research that shows reduced carbon emissions over the past decade HAVE CAUSED a shift in future scenarios?
Apologies for my bluntness here, but the bullshit from the climate community has grown stale, not that it was all that tasty a dish in the first place. When will we realize that we need to adapt a sensible energy policy first and let the climate take care of itself, as it has for the past 4 billion years?
What the climate alarmist narrative drivers don't realize is that this is an issue of credibility. You can only shout wolf so many times before people realize you are liar and/or propagandist. The only way to recover from this is to admit you were wrong all along and promise to do better in the future. Like all modern information operations, they attempt to create strong emotions that will result in action. But its not must the climatists but most of our elite institutions who have lost credibility including regime media with public trust at an all time low.
What was the real goal? To decrease emissions (the impact of which is debatable), or increase investment in “clean energy” and research grants?
But worldwide temperatures are still increasing according to the climate community. So what is the real point?