All of those news stories including “explainer” stories we are seeing right now are grossly misleading because they deliberately *exclude* all of the relevant context that @BjornLomborg provided above
The media do the same on floods, forest fires, hurricanes, etc
As @AlexEpstein notes, humans took a dangerous climate and made it safe, we didn’t take a safe climate and make it dangerous
The idea that the climate was safe before humans caused climate change is an infantile fantasy & the Edenic foundation to a false, apocalyptic narrative
The apocalyptic climate narrative depends on gross ignorance of the infrastructure that protects us, from A/C to flood control to electricity
Is it a coincidence that the same people who mislead & terrify people about the weather also oppose A/C, flood control, & reliable power?
What overwhelmingly determines whether people die in heat waves is whether they have A/C — and thus cheap and reliable electricity — not whether temperatures reach 111° instead 109°, or whether there are 5 more days a year when temps go over 100°.
What overwhelmingly determines whether there are floods is whether there are flood control systems, not whether there’s few more millimeters of rainfall
What overwhelmingly determines whether fires destroy forests is whether they are well-managed, not a few more hot days.
Well-managed forests survive the heat
Where forest mismanagement is a *necessary* & *sufficient* cause of high-intensity fires, climate change is not
The well-managed Shaver Lake, where there was robust fire prevention, provided the proof last summer
How can we protect ourselves, and our children, from the alarmism, which causes anxiety/depression, and is used to justify policies that make energy/food expensive?
In a word, science. We’ve assembled the best-available science, which debunks alarmism
Is there a single book that debunks the alarmism in an entertaining and accessible way, using stories and characters to illustrate basic physical & economic realities, and praised by the worlds leading scientists and scholars?
Yesterday, Biden appeared to have scored a big climate policy victory in announcing a deal with Republicans to spend hundreds of billions on new infrastructure, including $73B for new solar and wind farms and $15B for electric vehicle infrastructure and electric buses.
But the total ends up being just $88B, which is less than the “clean tech” portion of the 2009 stimulus and a far cry from the trillions progressives demanded. The total for electric cars is less than 1/10th the $177B Biden requested. And there is no Clean Electricity Standard.
"China is... running its solar industry using forced labor linked to an ongoing genocide. That simply can’t be tolerated or ignored. We can’t save the planet by increasing the suffering of the world’s most vulnerable people."
As I have been reporting, it won’t be cheap or easy to relocate or replicate China’s solar industry
“The availability of cheap coal energy & labor in Xinjiang enabled Chinese polysilicon makers to dominate
solar industry, making it difficult for manufacturers to replace them”
A major new investigation by @NPR of Calfornia's Gov. @GavinNewsom is damning:
"An investigation from @CapRadioNews and NPR’s California Newsroom found the governor has misrepresented his accomplishments and even disinvested in wildfire prevention."
"California’s response faltered under Newsom. After an initial jump during his first year in office, data obtained by CapRadio and NPR’s California Newsroom show Cal Fire’s fuel reduction output dropped by half in 2020, to levels below Gov. Jerry Brown’s final year in office."
Nations spent trillions subsidizing solar & wind but the share of energy from fossil fuels is nearly unchanged, going from 80.3% to 80.2% over last 10 years
The reason is because unreliable, weather-dependent energies can’t replace reliable energies
In 2017 my colleagues @energybants@Ramamurthy_Arun discovered that there was no correlation between solar or wind and the “carbon intensity” of energy — CO2 emissions per unit of energy — at an aggregated level
By contrast, the deployment of nuclear & hydro was strongly correlated with declining carbon intensity of energy. Why? Because both are reliable, and can thus replace coal and nat gas plants, where solar panels & wind turbines cannot. They can only operate alongside fossil fuels.
Genocide & actual environmental justice is at stake
If you're capable of watching this video, then you're capable of understanding the inherently physical reason that renewables have massively negative environmental impacts
Energy-dense fuels require far less in the way of materials, and produces far less in the way of waste, compared to energy-dilute solar and wind
We think of solar panels as clean but there is no plan to deal with their toxic waste
Bombshell new study published in @HarvardBiz Review finds that solar panel waste will make the electricity produced by solar panels *four times* more expensive than experts had predicted
Here's why everything they said about solar was wrong
In 2018 I argued that solar panels weren’t clean & produce 300x more toxic waste than high-level nuclear waste. In contrast to nuclear waste, which is safely stored and never hurts anyone, solar waste threatens poor trash-pickers in sub-Saharan Africa.
An influential analyst, @solar_chase called my article, “a fine example of 'prove [renewable energy] is terrible by linking lots of reports which don't actually support your point..."