Trump Resists Progress on Global Warming

Exclusive: Market trends now favor renewable energy as a cost-effective alternative to fossil fuels, but President Trump’s resistance to this good news is doing real damage in the fight against global warming, reports Jonathan Marshall.

By Jonathan Marshall

With petrochemical billionaires Charles and David Koch paying many of the GOP’s bills these days, it’s no wonder conservative policymakers are pushing hard to protect dirty fossil fuels against competition from clean, renewable energy. But entrepreneurial capitalists whom conservatives claim to worship are fighting back, slashing costs for wind and solar power to the point where few customers can refuse them.

A wind-powered turbine.

A remarkable new study by Lazard, the venerable New York investment house, concludes that the unsubsidized cost of energy from new wind and solar plants now falls decisively below that of nuclear and coal plants, and even below that of efficient natural-gas-fired generation. The gap is widening each year as scale economies and improvements in turbine and photovoltaic technology drive cost reductions. Significantly, even cautious modelers at the U.S. Department of Energy concede these trends.

Even more disruptive is Lazard’s finding that “in some scenarios the full-lifecycle costs of building and operating renewables-based projects have dropped below the operating costs alone of conventional generation technologies such as coal or nuclear.” In other words, it’s often cheaper to shut down those older plants and replace them with new wind and solar projects.

Where local conditions especially favor renewable energy, the cost advantages of wind and solar have become enormous. Last spring, for example, Tucson Electric Power inked a 20-year deal to purchase enough solar energy to power more than 20,000 homes at a price of less than 3 cents per kilowatt-hour. (One kilowatt-hour is the amount of energy needed to light ten 100-watt bulbs for an hour.)

That’s just half the cost of new gas and coal generation and about a quarter of the cost of new nuclear power. Only the cheapest wind power can compare.

Trump Fights the Market

Members of the Trump administration, and many Republicans in Congress, are trying to derail the renewable express train.

President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump arrive to the Murabba Palace, escorted by Saudi King Salman on May 20, 2017, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, to attend a banquet in their honor. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)

Secretary of Energy Rick Perry has called for “rebalancing the market” by issuing federal rules to tilt the playing field in favor of coal and nuclear power. Perry was reportedly influenced by the CEO of Murray Energy, a major coal company that sells much of its product to U.S. utilities whose traditional generating plants are becoming uneconomic.

In an effort to boost profits for coal companies, the Trump administration is also working with Peabody Energy to subsidize continued operation of the Navajo Generating Station in Arizona, whose owners voted in February to close the 43-year-old plant. The coal-fired facility has been a major source of air pollution and haze in the Grand Canyon and is the third largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the nation.

Speaking at a Kentucky Farm Bureau event in October, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt said “I would do away with the incentives that we give to wind and solar,” even though current law already schedules most credits to expire by 2020 for wind and 2022 for solar.

Echoing his sentiment, the latest House tax bill guts clean energy tax credits, though the draft version under consideration by the Senate keeps them intact. The Senate’s reluctance reflects the fact that many of the nation’s more than 300,000 jobs in renewable energy production are in heavily Republican states.

As renewable energy costs continue to fall, however, the Trump administration is finding it hard to repeal the laws of supply and demand.

In August, Duke Energy Florida said it was scrapping plans to build a new nuclear plant and would instead double the Sunshine State’s solar capacity as part of a $6 billion program to modernize the state’s power grid and build 500 new electric vehicle charging stations.

Meanwhile, American Electric Power, one of the country’s leading owners of coal-fired plants, announced in July that it is investing $4.5 billion to build the nation’s largest single-site wind project, in western Oklahoma. Beyond that 2,000 megawatt project, AEP has plans to acquire 5,300 megawatts of additional renewable power by 2030 to diversify its power production portfolio and slash carbon emissions.

In a survey this spring of 32 power utilities operating in 26 conservative states, Reuters found only one that said it might prolong the life of its coal-fired units to please the Trump White House.

“The number of utilities betting their futures on renewable energy seems to be growing by the day,” observes the investment website The Motley Fool. “Utilities aren’t investing billions of dollars into renewable energy to save the climate or appease environmentalists, they’re doing so because it’s in their best interest financially. Renewable energy is now the lowest cost option when building new power plants and that’s what’s driving adoption. If these utilities are any indication, there will be tens of billions more poured into the industry over the next decade.”

The same trend is happening globally, as major greenhouse polluters like China and India invest tens of billions of dollars in new solar and wind plants. Even the world’s fossil-fuel capital, Saudi Arabia, is joining the revolution: In October, its power authorities received an astonishingly low bid of only 1.8 cents per kilowatt-hour for a 300-megawatt project in the north of the kingdom. Unlimited sun and cheap land make solar power the cheapest resource even in the land of oil.

Policy Imperatives

With renewable energy costs in sharp decline, and utilities shifting their investments accordingly, why should we care if President Trump’s team denies the existence of climate change and lauds the future of coal? Because with global carbon emissions still rising, the world must dramatically step up its response if we hope to keep the impact and cost of global warming in check.

Solar panels.

“Humanity has failed to make sufficient progress in generally solving these foreseen environmental challenges, and alarmingly, most of them are getting far worse,” declared a communique by more than 15,000 scientists from 184 countries published this month in the journal BioScience. “Soon it will be too late to shift course away from our failing trajectory.”

To keep overall warming of the planet under 2 degrees Celsius relative to pre-industrial levels — about twice the increase to date — global annual investment in clean energy must triple, according to a major new analysis issued this October by Stanford University’s Precourt Institute for Energy.

As climate activist Bill McKibben told a recent international climate conference in Germany, “If we have any hope of preventing absolute civilization challenge and catastrophe, then we need to be bringing down carbon emissions with incredible rapidity, far faster than it can happen just via normal economic transition.”

In other words, we can’t afford to depend on slow market adjustments. We need continued renewable energy subsidies and new carbon taxes to accelerate the transition to cleaner energy. We need increased investment in customer energy efficiency programs. We need to tackle carbon emissions not just from power plants, but from transportation, industry and agriculture — all potentially greater challenges.

Daunting as that agenda is, we can at least find some comfort in signs — like the new report from Lazard — that market forces are finally lining up to help humanity save itself.

Jonathan Marshall, former editor of the Next100 blog on clean energy and the environment, is author of the recent stories “Trump’s War for Coal Raises Risks,” “Trump Takes Aim at Energy R&D Funds,” and “The World’s Shift to Electric Cars.”

91 comments for “Trump Resists Progress on Global Warming

  1. Lars Per
    November 28, 2017 at 07:25

    Zachary Smith
    November 27, 2017 at 6:07 pm
    “Professional Troll, or Amateur. That’s the only real question.”

    Ad hominem. That’s the only answer you seem to be able to find to my point. Yes instead of facing the reality better to hide fast behind an ad hominem attack that by the way says nothing.

    start of rant:
    You talk here about ‘the science of climate change’, sea level rise, acidification and climate catastrophe, fight against oligarchs but you don’t see the woods because of the trees?

    Does it make sense to start a conversation here with people who do not seem capable of civil conversation?
    After the sea level satellite measurements started in 1992 the first results published in 2000 showed almost no sea level rise. Certainly no acceleration.
    Then in 2003 it was adjusted, calibrated to show 3 mm/year.
    Jason II was to be a more precise satellite. Original data showed no sea level rise. Then it was adjusted…

    Envisat -european hightech satellite would bring us clarification. The data showed no sea level rise for many years, until it was demised. Guess what? Adjusted post-mortem and voila, we have sea level rise accelerating.

    Argo. Sea temperature. Showed the oceans are cooling in first results.
    And then, o wonder, somebody found faulty buoys showing cooling. Removing those buoys and adjusting the remaining showed finally warming.

    Now adjusting data may be a reasonable thing to do in some cases, but then we have climategate where we learned scientists colluding to do just that, adjust data for a good cause.
    If you go and look at historic temperature data you see relative values changing in the past, the past becoming cooler. Year after year, decade after decade.

    So why can this be? How comes?
    If you try to point this or talk about it, you are a denier. (? what?)
    If a scientist tries to question this (s)he is a fossil fuel shill, in the pocket of oligarchs. His wikipedia page will be destroyed.

    If you say that natural variations existed, see little ice age, see medieval warm period, see vikings in Greenland, you are a denier, that is not true, that was only partially restricted to Greenland not global etc.

    The climate change only slowly during the ages to now accelerating dangerously. Never in history were such big changes. If you point out to Younger Dryas period where significant bigger changes have been registered in sorter period you are a troll or that was an accident.

    If you point out that increasing CO2 at the current ppm works as fertilizer you are a fossil fuel shill.
    BTw, fossil fuel? All that fossil fuel on Titan came from dinosaur who flew out there? Or maybe there are also abiotic processes that create hydrocarbons?

    If you point out the oceans are basic and contain 40-80 times more CO2 then the whole atmosphere you are a fossil fuel shill.

    If you point out that climate models work with a fix assumption of increased W/m2 and will thus automatically warm, but do not contain proper energy budget, do not calculate the energy flow in the atmosphere, nor the lapse rate you are flooded with arguments going around the point.
    The energy flow in the CO2 bandwidth of 15um is so small its changes aren’t even measurable, I assume that’s why all the adjustments are needed.

    There are many problems in this world, pollution, still famine. Current CO2 ppm is not a problem but rather a lucky result from industrialization. The Earth is greening as seen from satellites over decades. Plants can withstand better droughts with more CO2 in the atmosphere.

    When I was a young boy and learned some history I was wondering who could have been the people who opened Kerkaporta to allow the ottomans sneak into the town?
    No, this is only a legend, no human could be so treacherous I thought, that would be cutting into ones own flesh… for what?
    Then I learned the greens. Yes, it is possible, such humans exists.

    This is the feeling that I get from such comments as Zachary’s.
    End of rant

  2. Zachary Smith
    November 27, 2017 at 22:50

    Tonya T. Neaves
    The climate is changing, but not just because of humans. Here’s why that matters.
    Nov.27.2017 / 4:48 PM ET

    Just spotted this one. It appears to be a new approach by the Big Fossil Fuel Industries. Wonder how much George Mason University will be getting in the way of some new grants. Or by what other “compensation” methods they use these days.

    Strictly speaking, the author is telling the exact truth. There are indeed many factors influencing climate. Where she turns into a hack is the way her article preposterously emphasizes those other influences.

    Man is indeed responsible for a large portion — possibly even a majority — of global warming. But also in play are complex gravitational interactions, including changes in the Earth’s orbit, axial tilt and torque.

    Absolutely true, except for that cute “possibly” crap.

    This fact needs to be included in the public debate. Because these gravitational shifts, occurring over millennia, can influence climate patterns and ultimately lead to noticeable variations in seasons.

    No, that fact does NOT need to be included in the public debate. The Milankovich factors are really slow acting. We’ll be long dead before they exercise any appreciable influence. From the Wiki:

    The major component of these variations occurs with a period of 413,000 years (eccentricity variation of ±0.012). Other components have 95,000-year and 125,000-year cycles (with a beat period of 400,000 years). They loosely combine into a 100,000-year cycle (variation of ?0.03 to +0.02). The present eccentricity is 0.017 and decreasing.

    Back in January of 1959 Isaac Asimov wrote an essay titled “No More Ice Ages?” In it he described the slow and subtle factors in the orbital variations and declared these would surely be totally overwhelmed by the relentless increase of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere. Things are a lot worse now than they were in 1959!

    If Tonya T. Neaves wasn’t sleeping through her science classes she’d have learned this to be the case. This is a classic example of lying on the grandest of scales by stating the strict truth along with an unmerited emphasis on trivial factors to fuzz things up.

    Like with the pack of Deniers here, and the Zionist propagandists, Neaves is engaged at throwing sacks of shit at the fan to confuse the issue. Perhaps she’s a fanatical/closet Denier herself, but I’d sure like to see if there is a financial motive involved for somebody or other.

  3. Lars Per
    November 27, 2017 at 17:26

    Neobiognosis says: November 25, 2017 at 1:05 pm

    “With faux indignation you exclaim “without CO2 we would not be alive”.
    Like the debate is about whether CO2 would poison us or not. For your information, we have survived and thrived with CO2 at 275 ppm.

    Plants need CO2.
    If someone would magically lower the CO2 proportion in the air from 400 ppm to 275 ppm that would condemn some 15% of world population to starvation. That is more then 1 billion people.

    C3 plants would suffer of CO2 starvation with CO2 as low as 180 ppm – as was during the ice ages (C3 plants represent 90%+ of all plants)
    Please take a look, go by alphabet letter and look at hundreds of scientific studies to understand what CO2 means

    • Zachary Smith
      November 27, 2017 at 18:07

      Professional Troll, or Amateur. That’s the only real question. A quick search turned up Lars doing his thing at several places.

      Here he is tossing sacks of **** into the fan.






      Probably an Amateur with a hobby, but Exxon supplemental checks or travel vouchers to Denier Conventions may show up in his mailbox for his fine work on sites like this and those at the links.

    • LJ
      November 28, 2017 at 15:13

      Don’t worry about it Lars, Cow Farts and Methane from fracking will saturate the biosphere with CO2 like never before. According to cores taken fron ancient glacier at many points around the world, the present environ is the richest in CO2 ever. Your point is ridiculous. PS,,Trees breathe CO2 but they don’t like global warming, will flora adapt to micro climate shift fast enough to eat process enough CO@? or will we have to live off pond scum? Easy solution lots of folks die but that’s now the human race always ends anyway isn’t it?. People die. Plants , of well. Let’s all be vegan and worry about it.

  4. R Davis
    November 26, 2017 at 23:50

    Please know that even if the US were to win a war with Russia & China & North Korea … the whole of the Asia Pacific Region in fact & take over their oil & gas reserves …. all this new oil & gas transported to Israel first …………. of course …………. & then the left overs to the US … it would not last long.

    & NOT IF
    And here we are at last hanging of the cliff side.

  5. R Davis
    November 26, 2017 at 23:29

    * Britain to Ban New Diesel & Gas Cars 2040 – The New Your Times.
    * France to ban sale of diesel & cars by 2040
    * UK Joins Frances, says goodbye to fossil fuel cars by 2040

    France – going mainly electric within six years.

    It sounds great doesn’t it.
    Cars will be banned from the inner city area.
    We will ride bikes like they do in India & Asia.
    Maybe we can introduce that romantic vehicle of Asia the rickshaw to haul our shopping home from the market.
    The donkey could make a significant come back also.
    It would make for many new & interesting excuses for being late for work.
    My quandary is this ….. how are we going to transport sizable goods like food from the country side to the factory to the warehouse to the supermarket so that we can haul the stuff home on the cart.
    Electric trucks & buses are possible.
    But where is all this electricity going to come from ?
    How on Gods earth …………. when we are experiencing power outages ………. because we don’t have the capacity to generate enough electricity to power home usage ……… are we going to transfer all the transport burden upon the power supply of out nation ?
    There will be no more TV that is for sure …. sacrifices will have to be made & TV & Radio will be the first to take the hit.

    • Zachary Smith
      November 27, 2017 at 00:04

      Sir, I must ask if Consortium News is the only site on the internet which works for you. Consider this:

      Electric trucks & buses are possible.
      But where is all this electricity going to come from ?

      Even a trivial search would have shown that electric trains are also quite “possible”, and I understand they have been extremely common in Europe for a long time.

      Where to get the electricity? A search of ‘largest photovoltaic power stations’ turns up quite a list.


      The output of these is restricted by the amount of scrub land you’re willing to use. Deserts suddenly become valuable, and the local wildlife is hardly inconvenienced at all. But the Deniers correctly say (they’re not always lying or delusional) that the daylight isn’t always available because of something called “night”. A great many strategies are available for that.


      Batteries are the most obvious system, and they just keep getting better. But there are lots more. Backups like wind work too. The entire US isn’t likely to be windless at any given point. Synthetic fuels are another one – this is something the Nazis did during WW2, so it is hardly “new” technology”.

      There will be no more TV that is for sure …. sacrifices will have to be made & TV & Radio will be the first to take the hit.

      Were you drinking when you wrote this post?

  6. Zachary Smith
    November 26, 2017 at 20:52

    Essays like this one by Mr. Davidson MUST be rejected and trolled by Big Fossil Fuels. The task is not an easy one, for though the people in the employ of Big Fossil Fuels are very, very good, their task is increasing with every passing day. The extremely bright and ruthless people doing the scut work for BFFs are usually very able and capable in manipulating humans in the lower IQ ranges. Unfortunately for them, people with IQs of 85 are – in absolute terms – extremely bright critters themselves. They may initially fall for the smooth-talking propagandists, but they can see changes themselves. The older ones recall as well as the rest of us how things were in decades past, and what THEIR grandpa told them about the weather back then.

    Other issues are coming to a head as well. The Deniers who have been attracted to this thread the same way small nails are attracted to a magnet are reduced to claims that wind and solar aren’t really less expensive than coal/gas/oil. Everyday news stories make a lie of that. Since I’m in Indiana, I’ll present this one.

    Indiana energy bill would eliminate net metering, move to ‘buy-all, sell-all’ solar model

    Indiana legislators have introduced a bill that many fear could kill the state’s solar industry by ending net metering and also essentially preventing people from using the energy from their own solar panels.


    The Electrical Utilities are doing their level best to keep their profit levels up by making “contributions” to the elected *hores legislators in Indianapolis. It’s that way all over the nation, by the way. Even relatively expensive roof-top solar electricity generation is threatening to the Utilities, and the prospect of thousand-acre farms of solar cells is causing them to foul their pants.

    In the mailers I get from my very own Electric Company are editorials and articles begging me to call/write Indianapolis and Washington DC to pass some laws protecting their current way of doing business.

    The example of Puerto Rico is a telling one.

    Puerto Rico: Ruined Infrastructure and a Refugee Crisis
    November 24, 2017

    Two U.S. Congressmen, Kevin McCarthy and Steny Hoyer, visited Puerto Rico in November to assess the situation. They found Puerto Rico “in a state of frenzied recovery”, but with people cut off by destroyed roads and fallen electric lines, with little food and little medicine and “hope for a swift recovery even scarcer”. They pledged to fight for more resources for the island to ensure not only that it can be rebuilt but also that it can withstand the next storm.

    Meanwhile, a United Nations team went to Cuba at around the same time to assess the damage and recovery there. It found that the devastation was comparable to that experienced by Puerto Rico, but that the recovery had been swift. Voluntary teams rushed in to rebuild the collapsed infrastructure and the state provided insurance to agriculturalists and homeowners who had suffered damage. A decade ago, Cuba had rebuilt its power system into a series of 1,800 decentralised diesel and fuel-oil fired electric plants. The microgrid was quickly restored to full power a week after the hurricane. It is a system that has been opposed by private monopoly power companies.


    That article says that 130,000 refugees have already moved from the island to the mainland. The capitalist system has totally failed those US citizens who have the wrong language and even-more-wrong skin color. How the devil is the fabled Capitalistic System going to cope with refugees in the millions? Tens of millions? Hundreds of millions.

    Simple answer – it can’t. And it is doubly damned by being a huge contributor to the Climate Change from Global Warming itself.

    Conclusion: we’re in one hell of a mess.

    • Zachary Smith
      November 27, 2017 at 00:14

      Oops – I had two windows open, and checked the wrong one to get the author’s name.

      Sorry, Mr. Marshall.


  7. exiled off mainstreet
    November 26, 2017 at 13:25

    Don’t expect anything from the US or its vassal states on this issue. The level of corruption is too great. China is where the major advances will come from, and because of their population, that is the key anyway. If they make major breakthroughs, the US will not be able to prevent the developments as indeed the facts in the article indicate.

    • LJ
      November 26, 2017 at 18:15

      EOM Think you may be right about China and the EU . They are trying to leapfrog the USA on energy tech right now and our smart guys aren’t rising to the challenge. Why should they they make more money investing in China anyway? Look at GM for instance. It almost went bankrupt in the USA and need a bailout in the mortgage fiasco meanwhile GM China was becoming more profitable.. Greed and Capitalism are king in the USA and money is Free speech and corporations are people. It’s a headlong disaster course vessel ( Thank You Captain Beefheart) . Will it take us to the point of suicide?.I do not know, maybe you should ask a new citizen or a recent immigrant. That appears to be the focus now. Grow demand for the corporate bottom line and feed the MIC. IWE , our nation , has lost the way nothing shows this more clearly than Trump and the Republicans on Energy policy but Obama called himself the Pipeline President. Dems are no better . Even Jerry Brown is pro Big Oil.

  8. Zachary Smith
    November 26, 2017 at 12:45

    November 26, 2017 at 4:05 am

    Maybe, but are people willing to pay the price of the alternatives, for example 400$/Mwh on-grid(gross) for wind power? When it reaches your power outlet in your house we are talking close to 1 USD per Kwh.

    Are you really ready for this?


    David Fisher
    November 26, 2017 at 11:50 am

    Did you read the article?

    Of course he didn’t read the article, and most especially that important link to Lazard. The Deniers are either paid *hores or ordinary joe sixpack folks who live in a dream world.

    I wasn’t a bit surprised by the enormous cost of rooftop solar. The *hores and fanatics are going to point to that to “prove” that photovoltaics are Al-Gore dream stuff. The Solar Tower schemes may have some real-world uses in a few situations, but they’re among the few ways for Big Corporations to cash in on alternative energy. They’re not cheap either.

    When “evidence” provided by the Deniers comes from youtube or Forbes or The Wall Street Journal, it’s like the Israel Propagandists referencing editorials in the neocon New York Times or Jeff Bezos’ Washington Post.

    • JB
      November 26, 2017 at 16:07

      Please do not shoot the messenger because you don’t like the message. Some real life costs from UK National Grid:

      “The National Grid document, Accessing Renewable Energy, deals with the issue of “balancing the grid” to get the right amount of power from different sources across the UK so that it can maintain a supply to customers.

      It says wind power could cost “£300 – £800 per mega watt hour (MWH) compared to conventional generation at £23 per MWH”.

      Similar data can be found from studies in Germany, Denmark, Holland. At least be well informed.

  9. mike k
    November 26, 2017 at 11:51

    Ah, the many flavors and colors of human reflections on human caused climate change! Interesting, especially on these pages.

    But none of these comments seems to consider seriously the potential for this problem to trigger our near term extinction. An interesting omission in light of the tendency of humans to ignore or deny the existence of unpleasant realities. Perhaps the comments so far are like the many different tunes one whistles while hurrying past a graveyard at night with eyes averted?

    Having worked with others for years to find ways to get people to look at various lethal scenarios that are unfolding before their uncomprehending eyes, I am far from being naively hopeful folks will suddenly snap out of their trance and face present world reality and near future certainty. Au contraire.

    Perhaps I am wasting my time trying to tell people to look at what they are determined not to see? Tant pis! I seem to be condemned to be a herald without portfolio or salary. Quel dommage – mais c’est la vie………….

    • LJ
      November 26, 2017 at 18:02

      Mike K it appears to already be a done deal but don’t sweat what you can’t control. Man can always go underground in smaller numbers and grow food in high rises using nukes as a bridge tech for a couple hundred years and we can build rockets for guys and gals like Musk and other Billionaires to fly away to Mars. It will be great fun and will give people a sense of purpose as well. This is why there were legends like the Pied Piper of Hamel leading lemmings over a cliff. ( Or was it the children) Why The Book of Revelations The Book of the Hopi and other eschatological treatise predict apocalypse. . Maybe things will work out but for now the lunatics are definitely in charge of the asylum . Good luck, change may be on the horizon but we better not miss the chance if we get one. Peace.

  10. DFC
    November 26, 2017 at 09:20

    Anyone who is a Climate Change cause supporter here, I DARE you to logically explain these two articles:

    How Government Twists Climate Statistics

    Former Obama Energy Department Undersecretary Steven Koonin on how bureaucrats spin scientific data.


    In Their Own Words: Climate Alarmists Debunk Their ‘Science’


    *And for good measure, just like they don’t report Hurricane records past the 1980s, courtesy of the Steve Koonin video above, here is what they do with the Arctic Ice data:

    NOAA : Hiding Critical Arctic Sea Ice Data


    Any takers? I bet you can’t.

  11. fudmier
    November 26, 2017 at 05:56

    JB’s point is well taken,, complete costs in all categories of cost of all forms of energy are essential to rational comparison and trending analysis. One category of cost that rarely gets counted is the monopoly cost; that is those costs, associated to the patents held or obtained by the little guy inventor and sold for peanuts to the big guy monopoly. If there were no patent costs, no copyright costs, no anti-competition monopoly power costs what would the trends look like then?
    Rarely can one see the cost of these monopoly powered technologies, called patents, to our society. I invents a technology, in part funded by subsidy, grant or institutional funding, patents it, and B acquires it for peanuts, which still was a lot of money to I, and L then charges everyone in the industry for the use of technology L did not invent: how should that cost be shown on the trends or in the line item costs? So expiring patents need to be taken into account in trends. If the politicians were interested in getting energy costs down, they would reduce the lifetime of patents in the photonics industry to fewer than two years.
    About two years ago, I saw a British study which analyzed patent costs to society; the monopoly costs were astronomical parts(%) of the total cost of many, many things. Patents make the poorest members of our society subsidize those of who are already the richest because they had the capital, subsidy, or whatever to own the patented technologies.

  12. JB
    November 26, 2017 at 04:00

    These numbers by Lazard are very optimistic, on the verge of being called science fiction. Also, remeber Lazard has a vested economic interest bringing in new business. Their 30$-60$/Mwh wind turbine numbers is in the real life approx 400$/Mwh as documented by several Universities that don’t have an economic interrest in these investments.

    If you see what the real on-grid electricity costs are in Denmark and Germany that has invested heavyly in wind, even 400$ seem optimistic. Why can’t people pushing these plans at least be real about these numbers? I know that we need to conserve fossil fuel, but people should be able to make informed decisions based on REAL numbers.

    But I suspect this is what the plan is; hide the real cost. Remember, electricity in Denmark/Germany is 2-3 times more expensive than elsewhere in Europe. IE, the end users are paying the real price of these policies.

    • November 26, 2017 at 08:38

      Yes, pouring more and more money down huge black ratholes is idiocy.

      There is a reason why China was so insistent that the US remain in the Paris Accord.

  13. November 26, 2017 at 02:46

    I am so glad to see that people are taking consortium to task for pushing these stories without reserving the slightest degree of skepticism for the so called consensus view. This is a true shame and sadly serves the oilogarchy whom led the charge in divestment, intent to transition their monopoly into the sale of these carbon indulgences through the church of cap and trade. The UN’s Maurice Strong was a Rockefeller oil man and, inconveniently, the solution to this manufactured crisis, the cap and trade scheme touted by the implacable AlGore, bears the grimy fingerprints of the odious Ken Lay. Sweet dreams children

  14. fudmier
    November 26, 2017 at 01:36

    Clearly Dr. K and Mike K are not on the same page. I think Mr. Wilson, you may discover the wars for control of the oil gas around the globe have set global humanity on a search to design a type of society that can render Dr. K’s vision. Division of the world into teams, called nation states, and appointing the most corrupt that can be found within as team leader, has not served humanity very well.

  15. LJ
    November 25, 2017 at 21:10

    The new word is at least 3.5 degree temperature rise by the end of the century . If the world got real serious real quick and it won’t , the world’s temperature is still set to rise, sea ice will melt and CO2 will be released from tundra in Siberia as the permafrost melts worsening carbon excess in the atmosphere.. Shifts in local micro climates are inevitable ( There is a good article in the SF Chronicle today regarding California’s Cap and Trade system by the way.) The marketplace is changing things but not fast enough and the Paris Accords are not strong enough or enforcable with no hard targets for the biggest polluters ( US and China) . Trump isn’t helping but he is not to blame for what is happening. This has been going on for many decades now. If you are as old as I am , you may recall both President Jimmy Carter and then Governor Jerry Brown of California appearing on national television and stating that the United States needed to move away from fossil fuels and develop renewable energy sources to prevent a future climate crisis due to ” The Greenhouse Effect”. That was 40 years ago.

  16. Ben
    November 25, 2017 at 17:48

    Be vegan and drive whatever you want.

  17. mike k
    November 25, 2017 at 11:55

    So many of our global problems can be solved by not doing. Not eating beef, not engaging in reproductive sex, not joining or fighting in wars, Not indulging in excessive travel, not purchasing high tech items. The sustainable world we seek is mainly dependent on subtraction rather than addition. We need less not more. The primary obstacle to peace is our addiction to more than we really need – which is grossly demonstrated in the moral depravity and insane greed of those at the top of our social pyramid of infinite and never satisfied desires.

    • November 25, 2017 at 12:34

      Agreed. As long as individuals/societies/civilizations/empires continue to pursue ‘growth’ we are fubar.
      It is as Donella Meadows argued in Thinking in Systems: “…a clear leverage point: growth. Not only population growth, but economic growth. Growth has costs as well as benefits, and we typically don’t count the costs–among which are poverty and hunger, environmental destruction and so on–the whole list of problems we are trying to solve with growth! What is needed is much slower growth, very different kinds of growth, and in some cases no growth or negative growth. The world leaders are correctly fixated on growth as the answer to all problems, but they’re pushing with all their might in the wrong direction…leverage points frequently are not intuitive. Or if they are, we too often use the backward, systematically worsening whatever problems we are trying to solve.”

      • Zachary Smith
        November 26, 2017 at 21:18

        As long as individuals/societies/civilizations/empires continue to pursue ‘growth’ we are fubar.

        Exactly! Steady-state Capitalism may exist, but I’ve never heard of any such version. Writing without references and off the top of my head, didn’t Capitalism really take off with the discovery of vast and distant lands where superior European armament and superior European diseases could force the natives to send the local resources back to Europe, die, or both? Swarms of settlers with those superior weapons and carrying fatal diseases either found – or quickly created – empty lands. For the past few centuries the “growth” strategy worked, if always at somebody else’s expense.

        The game is over, yet the “economists” are still trying to justify their existence with predictions of “36,000 Dow”, or how Trickle Down will work after all if we all hold our mouths just right. That latter scheme is before the US Congress at this very moment, and is a desperate effort by the Super Rich to suck even more wealth from me and those like me to enhance their own power and glory. There is never “growth” enough. After all of us are living in squalor, they’d continue to fight with each other to become King of the Mountain.

        Those psychopaths are already thinking they’re immune to natural laws. From something I posted earlier this year at h**ps://

        And if the Earth dies, and if the Sun dies, we shall live up there, father. Cost what it may: a tree, a billion trees, all the trees that life has given us.

        The Rich Bastards just don’t care anymore. If the Earth dies from the chaos of Climate Change, they plan to leave. To orbital habitats. To a Moon colony. To a Mars colony. They really don’t care, and that’s the legacy of Growth Capitalism in the end game.

    • john wilson
      November 25, 2017 at 14:23

      We have long been conditioned to be what we are an animal species. If we did away with all our high tech stuff the world would become full of raving basket cases. There was a study done somewhere where teenagers were deprived of their phones, Ipads and other electronic ironmongery for ten days or so and it was found at the end of the experiment that they were all showing marked signs of distress with some of the group actually having to come out of the trial before its completion. I was once with a young person, who having started on a long journey by train and suddenly realizing she had forgot her phone, went absolutely berserk and wanted to activate the train emergency stop system. She wept and cried for the whole of the journey and was in a state of extreme distress by the time we had reached our destination. Your ideas have merit, Mike, but don’t stand a chance of becoming a reality.

  18. Dan D
    November 25, 2017 at 11:09

    The largest subsidy by far is the military budget propping up the oil industry.

    • mike k
      November 25, 2017 at 11:45

      The beef industry is also a huge source of CO2 in the atmosphere. The Amazon forest is mainly being destroyed by clearing land for soy beans to feed beef.

      • November 26, 2017 at 08:34

        “The Amazon forest is mainly being destroyed by clearing land for soy beans to feed beef.”

        This make me laugh out loud. A lack of facts and the ability to think seems to be a common characteristic with the “true believers.”

      • Nancy
        November 27, 2017 at 12:26

        Not to mention the methane emitted and the colossal amount of water used in raising animals for food.

  19. Dr. K
    November 25, 2017 at 10:34

    I am PhD level atmospheric/oceanic scientist with an MBA so I am going to make my case. Here it is:

    60% of warming in the troposphere (the part of the atmosphere human’s influence) comes from water vapor – not CO2 equivalents (e.g. methane, nitrous oxide, and carbon dioxide). The IMF recently published a document that stated to reduce CO2 equivalents to sustain global temperature the world must spend $700 billion dollars a year on clean energy programs and other mechanisms to clean-up fossil fuel consumption.

    However, NOWHERE, not even with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, have considerations been made regarding the role of infrastructure and how albedo and population growth is impacting the planet’s temperature. Thermodynamics dictates that the more people the more energy required. The more parking lots covered in asphalt the more energy absorbed and the more energy that is shuttled below ground (because all of the energy absorbed is not re-radiated to the atmosphere at 100%), More people and more infrastructure to support those people = more water – think of Vegas, swimming pools and fountains and showers, and cooking in restaurants, etc.

    This $700 billion until 2030 that the IMF is spouting is not going to do any good. Even if we spend the money, if the population continues to grow, the planet will still warm. The only reason for doing this is to reduce oceanic acidification – so the ocean’s can sequester more carbon dioxide so we all can breathe.

    So, my recommendation is this. It is time for the “leaders” of the world ( and I use the term “leader” with a grimace) to do the only thing that will assure that the temperature is maintained. Get rid of homelessness and poverty and provide everyone with a basic standard of living while capping the wealth of the elite. That is the only way to ensure this plant survives. The elite are the problem. They, and their stupid ideas, like this carbon equivalent nonsense while raping the poor of the world MUST STOP!

    CO2 equivalent mitigation is not going to stop the global warming. This is a problem driven by greed and power and the only way to stop it is to raise standards of living and to offer women and men around the world equal rights and dignity – the dignity that the elite are working every day to dismantle.

    • mike k
      November 25, 2017 at 11:40

      It is true that the best solution (and perhaps the only one) would be a comprehensive revolution in our whole culture, and indeed our very idea of what being human means, but in order to buy time to effect such sweeping changes, perhaps we should focus on doable fixes for particular aspects of our overall civilizational mess.

      • Jake G
        November 25, 2017 at 13:06

        The biggest population growth is in 3rd world countries. Why are they growing so quickly? Because they dont have enough to live but enough to not die. They make babies over babies to compensate for their poverty. Developed countries dont grow much in population.

        So what is the solution? “Give” (actually let them develop their own economy finally, which in some cases simply isnt possible due to their culture) those poor people more so their population growth will go down as well? Give them less so they will die? Do it like China and mess up the society completely, creating perverts en mass, mass killings of girls and drive men into suicide because they cant find a woman?

        There is no easy fix. And the hypocrisy on this topic (people are causing “global warming”, but we are against making less people) shows that you fell for a lie. Not that I expect you to finally realize that after your propaganda bot-like fanatic posts here about it.

    • November 25, 2017 at 13:20

      “However, NOWHERE, not even with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, have considerations been made regarding the role of infrastructure and how albedo and population growth is impacting the planet’s temperature.”…it is implicit!

      A doctor….really, and you wrote this.

      A PhD level atmospheric/oceanic scientist with an MBA ? Really.

      The disparity between the language you use, the naivety of sentence and content and how different it is to the knowledge of subject matter and language required to obtain a PhD lay your prevarication transparent! Sad really!

      • Zachary Smith
        November 25, 2017 at 22:13

        No references, either. As you said, sad.

        • JB
          November 26, 2017 at 04:15

          Here is one reference from Forbes Contributors:

          This is of course in no way any proof of anything, it just shows that the truth is more complex than most people think.

          • November 26, 2017 at 07:03

            To argue about this number is to embrace a red herring. It is noticeable that no one from the GWPF or FORBES or any other of the organisation can contradict the principal thrust the collective studies, namely…

            “1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.

            2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming. ”

            All else is nit picking at the periphery! There is no counter-fact to the 97%.

            All the organisations attempting to pick at the edges of a robust statistical analysis of the science are in the main funded by parties associated with the fossil fuel industries.

            The scientists who are out there recording what is happening to our planet come from right around out planet. They represent many different organisations and cannot all be accused of the specious funding argument.

            Epstein, who wrote your Forbes article is funded by the Cato institute and a libertarian. He has no background in science, not published research in science, and as a BA in philosophy. Well that just about does it for me, when philosophers start dabbling in the real world of science.

      • Mulga Mumblebrain
        November 26, 2017 at 01:08

        Plainly lying, an old denialist trick. I am a self-confessed genius and Nobel Prize winner…

      • JB
        November 26, 2017 at 04:11

        No need for an ad-hominem argument. At least try to make an argument to show him wrong.

        You are not making the situation any better. People read his text and your text, and he comes out as a better man.
        So keep cool.

        • November 26, 2017 at 07:08

          I am perfectly cool. But I will call people who are patently lying. The problem with CO2 use is directly related to population growth. Anyone who has a modicum of intelligence would know that. Were the population of the planet as it was 200 years ago, then it is not a problem. To come into a debate, and use an appeal to authority, firstly with a ridiculous name (Dr K), and then make a hugely unintelligent and flawed statement like he has done, whilst claiming to be a scientist, needs calling. You would be a fool to believe what has been posted by this person.

          • JB
            November 26, 2017 at 16:21

            Anyhow, this article is not really about this. To make things clean, I’m not want you would call a “denier”. I know CO2 is a greehouse gas. I’m pointing out that the true renewable energy costs are high and that people should observe this. There is a lot of data from European countries, and electricity costs are increasing.

      • Dr. K
        November 26, 2017 at 16:03

        Neobionnosis – NOWHERE in the IPCC report is there information regarding the shuttling of heat below ground due to infrastructure. Albedo measurements are ALWAYS shown for re-radiation to the atmosphere – NOT to substructures. NOWHERE are the thermodynamic calculations on the role of populations in urban heat-island led infrastructure changes below ground.

        The oceans are cooling. The Kyoto Protocol ONLY lists 6 CO2 equivalent species – and water vapor IS NOT ONE OF THEM.

        If you think it is a good idea for the IMF to spout a $700 billion a year spending spree until 2030 and if you think that this will help global warming then you are delusional. The only way to decrease global warming is for scientists to acknowledge that the current theory is flawed. CO2 equivalent species are not responsible for global warming. Thermodynamics is the reason and the thermodynamics dictate that warming is related to population growth and albedo and land use changes. Not CO2 equivalent species.

        The scientists conducing models have used flawed data – such as on-board ship water to prove the ocean is warming – this is flawed science.

        Perhaps instead of criticizing you should read more about how the data is used – instead of being a bot that follows the “climate change lie” hook line and sinker.

        You want references – try these…. and ask Judith Curry why she left Georgia Tech.

        Or do some research about how Germany and other states have seen their costs rise for energy due to renewable energy issues:

        I am done with the liberal bots that do not understand science or how it is done. I did it for 20 years and I worked in the world of climate change for 10 of them. But no more. I will not watch the governments around the world drive people into poverty and kill off millions while doctoring data.

        The elite are trying to destroy civilizations and idiots that follow elite logic without question are allowing this evil to perpetuate.

        But not me. So criticize all you want. I have heard it all before and so have my colleagues – which is why we no longer work in the demonic hole that is academic science anymore.

    • JR
      November 25, 2017 at 13:31

      Dr. K – you definitely do not write like a highly educated individual, so I very much doubt your claims. Or perhaps you skipped those classes.

      In any case, the oceans have taken up the majority of the heat, versus parking lots and whatnot. You cannot expect the oceans to sequester “more carbon” unless you reduce the existing acidification first. How do you propose to do that?

      And your other arguments are pretty uniformed. Homelessness isn’t a problem of carbon emissions, in fact, they have the lowest carbon footprint of all. And then you’re “elite” comments prove your low education. The rich have a larger carbon footprint then the rest, but it’s actually agriculture that is the worst. Which apparently you chose to ignore, or don’t even know.

      Population is a huge problem, and it is the technological societies that create the worse levels of pollution, consumption of resources and emissions that has to be dealt with. You’re sitting here in front of a keyboard, which proves that you too are among the “rich” and have a large carbon footprint. It is your society that is at fault, along with everyone in it (including me) for the imbalance in the world of poverty, emissions, and pollution. How we live. What we expect. What we continue to demand. Our carbon footprint is enormous.

      And there is not “stopping global warming” now. And in language that even you will understand, “Well, duh! That’s why it keeps warming up”.

      It boils down to some simple terms, too many people expecting too many resources which are heavily exploited by industry and business trying to make too much profit. Growth is now the bane of human (and planetary) survival.

      Humans built a non-sustainable society and are trying to innovate their way out of this predicament. It will not work, because it continues to exacerbate the imbalances inherent in civilization, and civilization versus nature or the natural world. It’s also known as physics and biology by the way. You cannot build a technological society with high energy and resource demands without screwing up the planet, while leaving human greed and population unchecked. So now you also have to solve ideology. Good luck with that.

      It is not more we need, but less. Humans do not “require” a highly advanced society heavily dependent upon energy and resources, but that’s what we built. We cannot give this to everyone either without making things worse. So we’re going to fail as we try, harder and harder, making it worse and worse.

      If you truly support equality, then you have to first grasp the fundamentals.

      • November 26, 2017 at 08:29

        I think you should apply your last sentence to yourself, JR.

        Is man-made CO2 a significant cause of any of the current warming? Do we know? Do you have any idea about what the science actually consists of that implicates man-made CO2 as a significant factor?

        Sorry, but you do not sound knowledgeable at all about this subject.

        • Zachary Smith
          November 26, 2017 at 12:55

          Just before this fellow goes on my “no-reply” list, I want folks to carefully examine the central paragraph of his post. Posting at this level of ignorance takes a special kind of “loopy”. Or desire for easy money from the likes of Exxon.

          • November 27, 2017 at 12:54

            Yes, that’s the way out of an inconvenient question, isn’t it? Doesn’t it bother you that the emperor has no clothes?

      • Dr. K
        November 26, 2017 at 16:11

        JR – another uninformed comment. Data supports the theory that those with less economic resources destroy environments faster than those with moderate means – its called the Kuznets curve – perhaps you have never heard of it.

        Also ocean acidification would be partially mitigated if the population stopped rising so fast – how to do you do that? You provide equality – especially to women – so they are not dependent on males for support – which leads to less childbearing.

        When men control women, women have more children – it is fact all around the world – or perhaps you missed those classes.

        The ocean sequesters carbon. That is why the oxygen level is 21% in the atmosphere. The ocean is cooling now – not warming. And the oceanic thermohaline circulation is responsible for transporting heat around the globe.

        The problem with climate models is that they do not account for the impact of land use change and the transport of heat below ground. They also do not account for changes in the sun/earth connection and the change in geothermal energy.

        But you believe what you want to believe – like the rest of the brainwashed masses.

      • Zachary Smith
        November 26, 2017 at 19:55

        It may be important to expose these hacks, but discussions with them are impossible, for “truth” is quite meaningless to them. Look at the dingle’s first claim:

        I am PhD level atmospheric/oceanic scientist with an MBA

        This person later says “The ocean is cooling now – not warming.” He doesn’t even understand the basics! An educated hack would carry on about this being some kind of “natural” or “cyclical” event, not a flat denial.

        Then there is the introduction of a seldom-heard-of scientific “fact”.

        another uninformed comment. Data supports the theory that those with less economic resources destroy environments faster than those with moderate means – its called the Kuznets curve – perhaps you have never heard of it.

        The very educated person who specializes in this “stuff” can’t even name the billy club he is swinging around. That he doesn’t know the “Kuznets Curve” isn’t the “environmental Kuznets curve (EKC)” speaks volumes about his “expertise”. I wasted some time looking for the latter, and found this:


        Summary. — This paper presents a critical history of the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC). The EKC proposes that indicators of environmental degradation first rise, and then fall with increasing income per capita. Recent evidence shows however, that developing countries are addressing environmental issues, sometimes adopting developed country standards with a short time lag and sometimes performing better than some wealthy countries, and that the EKC results have a very flimsy statistical foundation. A new generation of decomposition and efficient frontier models can help disentangle the true relations between development and the environment and may lead to the demise of the classic EKC.

        The Zionist propagandists endlessly throw sacks of **** at the fan. It’s in the interest of Exxon and other Big Fossil Fuel outfits to do the same. Given how badly this fellow writes, he is probably an energetic billy-bob of a Denier. How else can a person account for sci-babble like this:

        The problem with climate models is that they do not account for the impact of land use change and the transport of heat below ground. They also do not account for changes in the sun/earth connection and the change in geothermal energy.

        • Dr. K
          November 27, 2017 at 20:51

          Zachary – I am a PhD level scientist with an MBA and no I cannot educate you on a post board. What I am saying is fact. The problem I have is trying to explain things to people without a basic understanding of information.

          So I give up. Believe what you want.

          And I am a woman. Not a man!

          • Lars Per
            November 29, 2017 at 17:33

            I’m impressed Dr. K, thank you for your honest position. It requires a lot of courage to fight the CAGW, especially as a scientist PhD level atmospheric/oceanic scientist!
            Thank you!

    • Nancy
      November 27, 2017 at 12:24

      How about animal agriculture? I’ve read that it produces more greenhouse gases than all transportation combined.

  20. 39191
    November 25, 2017 at 10:09

    In 1960 the World population was sum 4 billion, today it is 7 billion.
    Until the issue of population is recognized as a factor in “Global Warming” the proponents of various “solutions” can not be taken serious…..

    • mike k
      November 25, 2017 at 11:11

      Overpopulation is one of our major critical problems, but it does not obviate the other crucial problem of climate change. These problems are of course related, but they can also be independently altered for the better. To say we must deal with population before we can effect climate change is incorrect.

  21. JP
    November 24, 2017 at 23:59

    When the swamp send one of its own swamp rats to the oval office, what do you expect? Every cabinet position is filled with a crocodile from the same swamp. Those swamp creatures are repealing legislation in a way that endangers the planet and its occupants. I propose we get Mullers swamp aminal removal service to come out and expedite the removal of these predators and pests.

    • mike k
      November 25, 2017 at 11:06

      Except that Mueller is one of the biggest swamp critters of them all. This guy is one of the most evil denizens of our world – not a surprise for the head of the secret police. The democrats reveal their true colors by choosing him for their hit man on Trump.

  22. jim
    November 24, 2017 at 23:57

    What are ‘carbon emissions’? At least get this right, its CO2. Without CO2 we would not be alive. This is all complete garbage. There is NO scientific evidence linking CO2 with increased temperatures. Any increased average temperatures over the last century are due to slight increases in winter and night-time temperatures. Maximum temperatures have declined slightly.
    The energy economics referred to are ‘made up’. The most efficient land based wind generator is twice the price in MWh terms than new CCGTs and new coal plant. That is why China and India are currently planning and building over 1000 new coal fired power stations. In addition the renewable plant is non-firm, does not provide system support and needs at least the equivalent MWh of fossil fueled generation as back up.

    • john wilson
      November 25, 2017 at 05:43

      I’m inclined to agree with you Jim, although I don’t have enough scientific acumen to really make a sound judgement. I seem to remember the whole world was on board for Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, but that didn’t turn out to be true. Whilst I think the jury is still out regarding man made global warming, I see no harm in individuals buying their own solar panels to reduce the cost of their own electricity bills. It may be that the enormous increase in world populations and all the materials and meat etc they eat is a contributing factor as well. The obvious way to solve global warming if there is such a thing would be to drastically reduce the worlds population of humans who are ravaging the earth of most of it’s resources.

      • mike k
        November 25, 2017 at 11:02

        Try to get informed by real science John, without it your opinions have no merit. The scientific jury is not “out.” on this one. Anthropogenic global warming is solid scientific fact, supported by research carried on for years now.

    • mike k
      November 25, 2017 at 10:56

      You’ve been drinking too much climate change denier koolaid Jim. You are tuning out the overwhelming consensus of world scientists.

      • Jake G
        November 25, 2017 at 12:58

        I advise you to research that “consensus”. Its as much as a hoax as the rest of this topic. That 97% was a blatant scam, to be exact.

      • Larry
        November 25, 2017 at 21:20

        Mike, the “consensus” of scientists used to believe the world was flat. Nothing is more dangerous than groupthink run amok. The “scientific consensus” argument in this case was a sham. Until you can explain how ice cubes can boil water, and minus 50C CO2 in the troposphere can heat a plus 17C earth, on average, then the second law of thermodynamics prevails and the backradiation theory of the “greenhouse effect” is worse than “unscientific”. The shame here is the waste of precious money, resources and political capital on a politically and greed motivated scam, which could be much better spent on addressing real, actionable climate crises like the pollution of our lakes, rivers and oceans, and the destruction of habitats. As for the economics of energy production, Jim is entirely correct.

        • Gregory Herr
          November 26, 2017 at 00:49

          Actually, there was never a time when a consensus of “scientists” believed the world was flat. As far back as Ancient Greece the “educated” had a pretty good idea the earth was a sphere. They did because of the tools of recorded observations and the application of reason and principles of geometry. Much later came the scientific revolution and the ensuing development of modern science, communications, and rigorous methodology.

        • November 26, 2017 at 15:44

          Larry, so what you are saying is that scientists used to believe the world was flat (which I’m not sure of) until evidense was revealed to demonstrate the contrary. So one would assume that if there was substantial evidense that climate change were not human caused they would again change their point of view. But they haven’t because there is no such evidense. You have just been led to believe there is. This is why we need to overturn Citizens United. No matter what your issue is, America offers a unique opportunity for a few big monied interests to buy politicians and thus control policy or at the very least get politicians to spout of their bogus “science”. Just as big tobacco did, they can use their wealth to inject enough disinformation to make people think there is no consensus or the consensus doesn’t matter or (fill in the blank with any pseudo intellectual babble you want). THERE IS NO DEBATE ON THIS AMONG SCIENTISTS. Exxon Mobil knew fossil fuels were causing climate change which is why they spent so much money to suppress the science. The US is the only country where a debate is even discussed, and not coincidentally the only major country not signing on to the Paris Accord. It is easy to get frustrated with deniers but we must remember they are the vicitms of a deliberate campaign to disinform the public just enough to keep the billions flowing in for as long as they can. Like big tobacco big oil/coal know they cannot suppress the truth forever.

        • November 26, 2017 at 17:02

          Did ice cubes boil your brain?

      • Ciclismo
        November 26, 2017 at 21:44

        “Official science” is an oxymoron. The best evidence that there is something fishy about climate change is the fact that scientific skepticism is so vilified. The consensus is fabricated.
        Read this, follow the links. If you approach it with an open mind guarded by a healthy skepticism you will see there is at the very least a hidden agenda that has perverted anything resembling truth.

        Caring for the environment should be everyone’s priority. I think clean power is a no-brainer, but the focus on CO2 is a racket.

        • Steve
          November 29, 2017 at 15:25

          I went to your link and they talked about how the IPCC Summary For Policymakers (SPM) was subject to political influence due to the “horse trading” behind the scenes which resulted in the SPM not reflecting the actual science so much as it does the promotion of a certain (political) agenda — in this case, the claim is that the SPM supports the conclusion of AGW in spite of the supposed evidence to the contrary. It struck me as funny, considering how I’ve heard the exact opposite was true. From what I’ve read in the past from various sources is that yes, the “horse trading” goes on but that the pressure is in the exact opposite direction — i.e., the pressure is to water down the actual science to make the predictions seem less dire and undermine the urgency of action placed on policy makers. This is why events on the ground seem to have outpaced projections.

          Another thing that tends to undermine your theory that the scientific consensus doesn’t actually support the conclusion of AGW is the fact that there have been numerous polls and surveys of scientists and their work that indicate the opposite. One of the more impressive studies was a peer-reviewed survey carried out by Skeptical Science where they surveyed over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts over a period of 10 years and came to the conclusion that it supported the 97% consensus. Further, they followed up by emailing the scientist authors and asking them to rate their own papers, again they came to the same conclusion of a 97% consensus.

    • Jake G
      November 25, 2017 at 12:57

      The whole topic is a political and economical one. Not a scientific one. And thus we see lots of corruption, lies, hypocrisy and scams.
      I feel betrayed by science for acting like this. I thought the vast majority of scientists were objective, impervious to corruption. But here we are. Like in the 1400s.

    • November 25, 2017 at 13:05

      With faux indignation you exclaim “without CO2 we would not be alive”.

      Like the debate is about whether CO2 would poison us or not. For your information, we have survived and thrived with CO2 at 275 ppm. Introduce straw men, you obviously need to, but forgive us for calling you on it.

      Now for your remaining unscientific bilge.

      “There is NO scientific evidence linking CO2 with increased temperatures”…..really!

      Carl Axel Arrhenius has quite obviously evaded you. You seem completely unaware of the satellite data clearly demonstrating the increased absorption of radiation at the wavelength absorbed by CO2. You seem to be wholly ignorant of radiative forcing as measured at the earths surface.

      The next convolution of science is “Any increased average temperatures over the last century are due to slight increases in winter and night-time temperatures.”

      Have you even the slightest clue what is required to construct an intelligent argument. You have just informed us warming is due to warming. ” Any increased average temperatures over the last century are due to slight increases in winter and night-time temperatures. ” Really Einstein, this is drivel of the worst kind?

      “Maximum temperatures have declined slightly.” – Out of which dark hole did you pull this garbage?

      The rate at which maximum temperatures have been broken over the last few decades far outstrips the rate of minimum temperature records.

      You are a fine example for the Dunning-Kruger effect!

    • JR
      November 25, 2017 at 13:06

      Jim – you are simply parroting the same idiocy as all your compatriots. There is a great deal of information on how C02 warms up land, oceans and air. It also causes acidification, which helps lower critical elements in the food chain. But you know this already, you just refuse to accept the scientific fact. Most likely, you prefer to continue to embrace ancient writings by ignorant men as your bastion of truth. Regarding average temperatures, it takes about four seconds to find the supporting graphs and scientific data to demonstrate that yes, they are continuing to rise, right alongside the C02 emissions. China and India build coal because they can, you’re deliberate attempt to misread and misreport the actual facts only makes you look like yet another idiot. Which you are. Or a fossil fuel shill. Same thing. But what is a real mystery is why do you even bother posting such claptrap in the first place? What is it you hope to gain? Like those ancient words of magic and mystery, the world has moved on. Why haven’t you?

    • evelync
      November 25, 2017 at 18:35

      1. Do the Math: The Science of Climate Change:

      2. Exxon knew and took steps to protect their offshore platforms from rising seas:

      “A few weeks before seminal climate change talks in Kyoto back in 1997, Mobil Oil took out a bluntly worded advertisement in the New York Times and Washington Post.

      “Let’s face it: The science of climate change is too uncertain to mandate a plan of action that could plunge economies into turmoil,” the ad said. “Scientists cannot predict with certainty if temperatures will increase, by how much and where changes will occur.”

      One year earlier, though, engineers at Mobil Oil were concerned enough about climate change to design and build a collection of exploration and production facilities along the Nova Scotia coast that made structural allowances for rising temperatures and sea levels.”

      3. Fight against climate change is also a fight against the abuses of the energy oligarchs:

    • November 25, 2017 at 20:41

      I’m afraid, Jim, that facts and logic are not going to get you very far with people practicing the religion of global warming. We cannot afford to continue to throw this much money down ratholes.

      Those here who disagree – answer me one very simple question to determine if you are practicing a type of religion, or if you are actually basing your beliefs on something that you are accepting as blind faith.

      Question – Please tell me, in your own words, no technical descriptions necessary, what does the science consist of that implicates man-made CO2 to any significant current warming?

      • David Smith
        November 26, 2017 at 04:22

        K.J. Temperature is the energy of movement of molecules in a sample(in this case air). Molecules with three or more atoms have the capacity for resonant vibration to specific frequencies of radiation, depending on structure. CO2 is one such molecule, and it”s structure, a carbon atom between two oxygen atoms, causes it to vibrate to several frequencies of infrared radiation. This vibration is energy of movement (increased temperature) that is passed on through collision to the other component molecules of the atmosphere, such as nitrogen. Hence, infrared that would have radiated into space is instead “absorbed” by CO2, “amplified” by resonant vibration, and passed on by collision raising the temperature of the atmosphere. Without CO2 in the atmosphere, Earth would be an ice-ball, 270ppmCO2 produces what we recognize as a normal climate, 350ppmCO2 produces Eocene climate, about the heat limit for mammals(and it took millions of years to reach 350ppmCO2). We have gone from 270ppm in the 19th century to 315ppm in 1954 to 407ppmCO2 in 2017.

        • November 27, 2017 at 12:50

          CO2 is a greenhouse gas, It has contributed to making the world warmer. By itself, however, it fails to account for the bulk of the warming. I don’t think that there is any dispute about this. Feedback is assumed, and the models depend on this feedback. Models use what are called sensitivity factors – in essence, a fudge factor. That’s the only way the models can account for the warming.

    • Curious
      November 25, 2017 at 23:22

      Well Jim, this is an interesting comment since as of October of this year 31,487 scientist refute your lack of knowledge, and the letter didn’t even mention methane which is also interesting. Please tell the world the 31,487 scientist are wrong or have an agenda which runs counter to your knee-jerk reaction to the prevelant science. Perhaps you have you own satellite in orbit that many are not privey to, and this would be most helpful to all those people who study this as a living.
      Also, they didn’t mention the methane which is another problem, especially as the permafrost melts in many areas of the world. We all await your satellite data with very, very interest instead of an opinion without said science.
      Please help out all those ‘fakes’ as the time is right for scientific rebuttal, not self engrandized spew.

      • November 25, 2017 at 23:41

        So, “Curious” – You should not have any trouble whatsoever answering that one simple question about what the science actually consists of that shows man-made CO2 to be a significant factor in any current warming.

        Or, on the other hand, is your belief a religious type belief where you simply accept what the “high priests” say on blind faith?

        (And, yes, there is a simple answer to that question.)

        • David Fisher
          November 26, 2017 at 11:55

          OK, genius, what is the simple answer?

          • November 27, 2017 at 12:52

            So, you are admitting that your faith in CO2 being a significant factor in any current warming is a religious type belief?

    • November 26, 2017 at 16:57

      Ahh, who let the wingnuts out?

    • November 26, 2017 at 17:01

      Jim, did you copy this from Exxon’s playbook?

      Actually, with too much CO2, besides global warming, you, I and other animal life would suffocate.

      And, you’re also wrong on what China’s doing on energy, and other things.

    • ToivoS
      November 26, 2017 at 21:35

      Jim wants us to know: At least get this right, its CO2. Without CO2 we would not be alive.

      Well that much is true. It is also true for H20, NaCl, KCl, Fe ions, SO4, and dozens of other chemicals. But are you aware that too much of any of those will kill. As for CO2 we do know that too much of that will kill any oxygen breathing animal within minutes and just a little bit more than is currently in the atmosphere will change current life on earth. Jim, have you any idea how stupid your statement is?

  23. November 24, 2017 at 22:50

    Market forces aren’t good enough.

    Either us, or China, or the EU jointly — the only three economies with enough “throw weight” — need to adopt a carbon tax PLUS a carbon tariff. NOW. Period.

    The whole world must be put on one, mandatory, carbon-pricing page.

    • JB
      November 26, 2017 at 04:05

      Maybe, but are people willing to pay the price of the alternatives, for example 400$/Mwh on-grid(gross) for wind power? When it reaches your power outlet in your house we are talking close to 1 USD per Kwh.

      Are you really ready for this?

      • David Fisher
        November 26, 2017 at 11:50

        Did you read the article?

        • JB
          November 26, 2017 at 16:05

          Yes, I did.

      • November 26, 2017 at 16:59

        This makes no sense at all, JB. Given that, after initial construction of turbines, wind energy, which ALREADY is as cheap as coal, would NOT BE TAXED.

        And, no, wind power does not destabilize the electric grid, in case you’re gig to claim that.

        There’s also room to expand solar, increase conservation and more.

        On the conservation side, think if offices turned their summer AC up just 1 degree. Ditto on groceries and retail stores.

        • JB
          November 27, 2017 at 13:12

          What doesn’t make any sense? I’m stating real costs, not theoretical ones. I’ve listed one source below; UK National Grid.

          The 400$/Mwh cost is the cost of wind power, all cost factors included. Let me state this in business terms: What would the cost be per Mwh delivered to the national grid system assuming a predefined level load following houshold and business electrical usage. Also, assuming no subsidies of any kind.

          Answer: approx 400$/Mwh

Comments are closed.