Michael Mann claim: "As to the quality of Happer’s climate science, well that’s hard to speak to because he doesn’t actually do any climate science, and never has."
Climate Depot response: Mann is massively incorrect on this key point. Claiming Dr. Happer "doesn’t actually do any climate science, and never has" is an outrageous distortion of science and Mann should retract this claim. Former Harvard Physicist Dr. Lubos Motl responds to such charges about Dr. Will Happer: "When it comes to the main physical effect that is supposed to drive "climate change", he's not only an expert. He's one of the world's leading experts."
Shellenberger: "I came to understand the environmental implications of the physics of energy. In order to produce significant amounts of electricity from weak energy flows, you just have to spread them over enormous areas. In other words, the trouble with renewables isn’t fundamentally technical—it’s natural. Dealing with energy sources that are inherently unreliable, and require large amounts of land, comes at a high economic cost."
Bird Blenders: "As for house cats, they don’t kill big, rare, threatened birds. What house cats kill are small, common birds, like sparrows, robins and jays. What kills big, threatened, and endangered birds—birds that could go extinct—like hawks, eagles, owls, and condors, are wind turbines. In fact, wind turbines are the most serious new threat to important bird species to emerge in decades. The rapidly spinning turbines act like an apex predator which big birds never evolved to deal with."
Shellenberger: "Obama spent about $150 billion on renewables between 2009 and 2015, and we just kept encountering the same kind of problems.”
Why opposition to nuclear energy? Shellenberger: People have 'a really strong desire to use energy to harmonize with the natural world. That turns out to be a bad idea because the more natural resource we use, the worse it is for the natural environment."
Novelist Michael Crichton, in the Caltech Michelin lecture in 1993, offered what some might see as a calming reassurance about the future of the earths’ climate. He looked back to the turn of the last century when people, "didn't know what radio was, or an airport, or a movie, or a television, or a computer, or a cell phone, or a jet, an antibiotic, a rocket, a satellite, an MRI, ICU, IUD, or what IBM was...”
Crichton went on, presenting a long list of the scientific inventions of the 20th century that changed human life for the better. Toward the end of the lecture he asked, "Now, you tell me you can predict the world of 2100?"
“Climate change will increase under-nutrition through increased food insecurity from extreme weather events, droughts, and shifts in agriculture. Climate change also affects the prices of basic food commodities, especially fruits and vegetables, potentially increasing consumption of processed foods.”
“Under-nutrition in early life increases the risk of adult obesity."
A study says obesity and climate change have common drivers and mitigating actions
Why India may be at risk of obesity: Undernutrition and obesity are two forms of malnutrition. Severe food insecurity is associated with lower obesity prevalence, but mild to moderate food insecurity is, paradoxically, associated with higher obesity prevalence among vulnerable populations living on marginal-quality diets and ultra-processed food products. “Undernutrition in early life increases the risk of adult obesity,” says Dr Shifalika Goenka of the Delhi-based Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI).
As with WW2, the Green New Deal will simply consume about half of American GDP...If you start with a budget of 40-60% of US GDP you can think really big, and the Green New Dealers have done just that. GDP is running around $20 trillion a year, or $200 trillion in ten years. Taking 40-60% of that is $80-120 trillion, so let’s call it an even $100 trillion to finance the Green New Deal dream.
The ways and means of raising this stupendous sum of $100 trillion are also clear in their minds. It will be done the same way WW2 was done, however that was. It is obvious to them that we can do this, because we have done it before. The specifics do not matter to the Plan. The Government can work them out.
"I am calling bullshit not just on AOC but on her progressive enablers in the news media who are giving her a pass on the most crucial test of moral and political leadership of our time when it comes to climate change: a person's stance on nuclear power."
"I am calling bullshit on climate fakery. Anyone who is calling for phasing out nuclear is a climate fraud perpetuating precisely the gigantic 'hoax' that [Oklahoma] Sen. James Inhofe (R) famously accused environmentalists of perpetuating."
"If you want to be a self-respecting progressive or journalist who is fairly considering or covering the climate issue, please stop giving Ocasio-Cortex and other supposedly climate-concerned greens a pass. THEY ARE INCREASING EMISSIONS."
Mark Mathis: 'The idea of a tax on carbon is that it will cause people to use smaller amounts of oil, natural gas, and coal while driving innovation in the energy sector. But there’s a big problem with this kind of blindered thinking. Energy is not like any other commodity. It is the foundational component of all commodities and our options are extremely limited...'
'On the electricity side, the grid requires a constant flow of electrons. Sixty-three percent of this power comes from fossil fuels, 20 percent from nuclear, and about seven percent from hydroelectric. That’s 90 percent! Wind and solar combined provide only 7.6 percent, but even this small number is deceptive. Wind and solar are intermittent, so they require baseload sources (mostly natural gas) to keep the electricity flowing when they aren’t performing...
'Then there’s mining, which is also heavily dependent on oil, natural gas, and coal. In order to significantly ramp up wind and solar energy we correspondingly have to accelerate mining. The key ingredients in renewable energy technologies are rare earth minerals. It takes a large amount of fossil fuel to extract them...'
'Fossil fuels are deeply embedded in every aspect of the modern world. Trying to get people to use less of them by making everything more expensive and then giving people money back through an inefficient government-controlled program is a flawed premise from start to finish.'