Call or complete the form to contact us for details and to book directly with us
888-854-5871 (Toll-free USA)


Contact Owner

Skip to Primary Navigation Skip to Primary Content Skip to Footer Navigation

In the Wake of the News

The 15-Minute City - ORIGINAL CONTENT

The 15-Minute City is a relatively recent fascination of those interested in fomenting concern about climate change and using that concern to expand control over our lives.

The basic premise is a city, or section of a larger city, in which residents would have access to basic human needs including work, shopping, education, healthcare and leisure within a 15-minute walk or bicycle ride from anywhere in the city. To put that in perspective, a typical walking pace is approximately 3 miles per hour, while a typical cycling pace is approximately 15 miles per hour. Therefore, the diagonal distance between the opposite corners of a square 15-minute city would be between approximately three quarters of a mile and three and three quarters miles. If we assume that not all residents have or use bicycles, our square city would be approximately one-half mile square, or one quarter of a square mile, or approximately 5 city blocks on a side. This 15-minute city would have a population of 50,000 to 100,000, or 200,000 to 400,000 per square mile. Manhattan Island, for comparison, has a population density of approximately 74,000 per square mile and is one of the most densely populated cities in the world. Therefore, the population density of the 15-minute city would be almost 2.5 times the population density of Manhattan Island.

Activities such a manufacturing and farming would almost certainly not occur within the 15-minute city, but 15-minute cities could be constructed adjacent to manufacturing facilities or surrounded by farmland to minimize travel distances for those working in the factories or on the farms. Such cities would be reminiscent of the “company towns” built by many industrial facilities to provide employee housing and services.

The size of dwelling units would be far smaller than is currently typical in the US. For example, assuming an average occupancy of 3 persons and an average dwelling size of 600 square feet, the 15-minute city would require approximately 16,000 to 30,000 dwelling units with a total area of 10-20 million square feet in a total land area of approximately 1.7 million square feet. Assuming a 25% land area allocation for parks, recreation facilities and walking/cycling paths, plus building space allocations for offices, stores, schools, hospitals or urgent care facilities and indoor leisure facilities, the buildings in the 15-minute city would average approximately 10-20 stories.

These cities would be expected to constitute substantial urban heat islands, with average near-surface temperatures 6-8°F warmer than the surrounding rural areas. This warming would be the result of the combination of wind blocking by the multi-story buildings and heat absorption by the building mass during the day, which would be released at night, raising nighttime temperatures. The UHI effect would likely be offset somewhat by the relative absence of road surfaces and vehicle traffic.

These conditions might be relatively acceptable to current city dwellers, despite the minimal living spaces and the increased population density. However, they would likely be unpleasant for current suburban and rural dwellers.


Urban Heat Island



Tags: Climate Change Solutions

33 simple 'Bullet Points' prove CO2 is innocent of global warming: by a GEOLOGIST for a change- Highlighted Article


From: ResearchGate

By: Roger Higgs

Date: April, 2019

33 simple 'Bullet Points' prove CO2 is innocent of global warming: by a GEOLOGIST for a change


GEOCLASTICA LTD TECHNICAL NOTE 2019-11, updated Feb 2023. Firstly, please be aware that ALL GEOLOGISTS ARE ENVIRONMENTALISTS; we adore nature and abhor pollution. Welcome. You're one of >40,000 people to visit since I posted this item in April 2019. After reading these 33 simple 'bullet points', you will know that: (1) harmless CO2 is certainly not a 'pollutant' (as if!); and (2) it is madness to waste trillions of taxpayer dollars on 'carbon capture and storage' (CCS) that is both needless (CO2's small greenhouse effect is negated by feedbacks omitted in 'climate models') and undesirable (man's CO2 additions have made Earth greener, stimulating vital crop yields and forest growth). Nevertheless WE DO NEED TO TRANSITION AWAY FROM FOSSIL FUELS (i.e. oil, gas, coal; NB I'm a geology consultant for oil companies), but not due to life-giving CO2, instead because they will become too expensive as they grow scarcer. THE SOLUTION IS SIMPLE: (A) freeze fossil-fuel usage at current levels (no new fossil-fuel-burning power stations or industry); (B) ban petrol & diesel vehicles & the REAL pollution they emit (nitrous oxides, unburnt diesel, tyre dust, etc.) immediately in cities & towns; (C) rapidly expand nuclear power (it produces ZERO air pollution; ample barren locations exist for radioactive-waste storage) while we … (D) urgently accelerate development of clean nuclear FUSION. PLEASE SHARE THESE 'BULLET POINTS', which collectively prove CO2 did not cause the 'Modern Global Warming'. I have assembled these 33 unquestionable FACTS (as opposed to INTERPRETATIONS, always open to question) during my 7 years, to date (Feb 2023), of self-funded (hence unbiased) full-time literature research on ALL the scientific disciplines relevant to climate- and sea-level change (i.e. geology, geophysics, archaeology, astrophysics, meteorology, oceanography, physics, chemistry, etc.), backed by 35 years as a geological consultant, preceded by a doctorate (Oxford 1982-86), MSc (Calgary) and BSc (London), all in geology. Contrast the IPCC's 2013/14 and 2021/22 reports, each with more than 700 authors, NONE (or possibly 1) of them a geologist (see my 1-page Technical Note 2019-10 here on ResearchGate). We urgently need to get the truth about CO2 out to the public and especially into schools and universities, to end the brainwashing of YOUR children and grandchildren with the 'CO2 is a pollutant' fallacy. The money squandered needlessly and ineffectually 'tackling' beneficial(!) CO2 should instead be spent alleviating GENUINE problems faced by world society, including overpopulation, poverty, famine, REAL pollution (auto emissions, chemical spills, plastics, sewage, etc.) and the IMMINENT >2-METRES SEA-LEVEL RISE jointly driven by (A) man's emissions of airborne soot and (B) our Sun's recently ended, record-breaking 'Grand Maximum' (Bullet 17). For literature SOURCES, please click on 'Linked data'. (continue reading)


33 simple 'Bullet Points' prove CO2 is innocent of global warming: by a GEOLOGIST for a change


Tags: Highlighted Article

(in)Dependence Day 2023 - ORIGINAL CONTENT

The United States energy independence achieved in 2020 has been sacrificed on the altar of climate change, terminated with malice as part of an effort to “end fossil fuels”. This effort would ultimately make the entire US energy economy dependent upon intermittent renewable generation, some form of energy storage plus existing nuclear, hydro, geothermal, biomass generation and as yet undefined “Dispatchable Emission-Free Resources”.

The ”end fossil fuels” effort has proceeded faster on the supply side than on the demand side, causing the US Administration to go “hat in hand” to OPEC, Venezuela and even Iran seeking to arrange imports of foreign oil to fill the growing gap between domestic supply and demand. This Administration effort has not been well received by those potential suppliers. OPEC has recently announced a 1 million barrel per day reduction in production. US dependence, in this case, is amplified by sales of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve which have left the SPR dangerously depleted.

The transition to a largely renewables plus storage energy economy increases our dependence on weather, as well as on foreign supplies of key materials required for the manufacture of wind turbines, solar collectors and storage batteries. Many of these materials are rare earth minerals, most of which are not currently available in the quantities which would be required to repower the US energy economy and some of which might not ever be available in those quantities. Many of those minerals are primarily controlled by nations which are unfriendly to the US, leaving us dependent on our enemies for our future wellbeing.

The requirement for energy storage in the renewables plus storage energy economy leaves us dependent upon technology which, for the most part, does not exist today and might never exist. The large seasonal variation in wind and solar generator output creates a requirement for long-duration storage capable of storing energy over a period of months when generation is in surplus for use during months when generation is inadequate to meet grid demand. The only established technology for such storage currently in use is pumped hydro storage. However, there has been major environmentalist resistance to the construction of pumped hydro storage facilities, particularly flow of stream facilities which require damming existing waterways.

Elimination of fossil fuel use also faces major challenges in several industries for which there is no existing electric alternative process, such as the production of iron and the calcining of coal. The impact of the “end of fossil fuels” on industrial processes which rely on fossil fuels for their process chemistry, on the synthetic fertilizer industry and on the production of the thousands of products made from derivatives of oil remains uncertain.

Our growing dependence is purportedly driven by a perceived need to avoid the adverse effects of climate change resulting from the emissions of CO2 and CH4 from fossil fuel production and use. However, numerous other nations of the world are increasing their consumption of fossil fuels in the interests of economic development and energy independence. As a result, our growing dependence on weather, renewable energy and energy storage, the increasing cost of energy in our economy and the decreasing reliability and resilience of our electric grid will have no measurable effect on future climate change, but will likely result in economic de-development.

“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”

H. L. Mencken



Tags: Electric Power Generation, Energy Storage / Batteries, Green Energy Transition, Energy Independence

Climate Change Fears of Teen Activist Are Empirically Baseless - Highlighted Article


From: Just Facts Daily

By: James D. Agresti

Date: October 17, 2019

Climate Change Fears of Teen Activist Are Empirically Baseless

At a recent United Nations summit, 16-year-old activist Greta Thunberg claimed that the Earth is on the brink of destruction and that older generations are betraying younger ones by not doing enough to stop climate change. The media has amplified these allegations by giving her speech broad, glowing coverage, but the fears she expressed are not grounded in reality.

The End of Humanity?

Thunberg says that she is “one of the lucky ones” who are not already “dying” from global warming and claims that with “today’s emissions levels our remaining CO2 budget will be gone in less than 8.5 years.” She frets that if we exceed this so-called budget, we risk “setting off irreversible chain reactions beyond human control.”

Such apocalyptic beliefs are common among young people. A recent Scott Rasmussen/HarrisX poll found that 51% of U.S. voters under the age of 35 believe it is “somewhat likely” or “very likely” that the “the earth will become uninhabitable and humanity will be wiped out” in “the next 10–15 years.”

Thunberg says her fears are justified by “more than 30 years” of “crystal-clear” science, but as detailed below, just the opposite is true. Contrary to predictions made three decades ago, a broad range of environmental and human welfare indicators related to the effects of climate change have stayed level or improved. Yet, in accord with a stratagem published at the outset of this period, many people are unaware of this.

“Getting Loads of Media Coverage”

Exactly 30 years ago in 1989, climatologist Stephen Schneider—the creator of the journal Climatic Change and one of the founding members of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—told Discover magazine that in order to “reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change”: (continue reading)


Climate Change Fears of Teen Activist Are Empirically Baseless

Tags: Highlighted Article

Technology Forcing - ORIGINAL CONTENT

Government regulators periodically issue regulations which they are fully aware cannot be met with currently available technology; that is, the regulations force the development of the new technology needed to satisfy them within some defined time frame. In some cases, the regulation is expected, not to result in new technology development and implementation, but rather to drive non-compliant equipment and processes from the market when the technology forcing is unsuccessful or the resulting technology is uneconomic.

Government’s climate change efforts include several cases of technology forcing, some clearly intended to drive equipment and processes from the market. One very recent example is US EPA’s proposed tightening of PM 2.5 emission standards to a level which would make compliance of coal-fired generating stations either impossible or uneconomic. The Administration goal to terminate coal-fired electric generation by 2030 virtually guarantees that, even if complying technology became available, it would not be economically justified to install it in a power plant required to cease operation in 2030.

Similarly, requirements to reduce CO2 emissions from natural gas combined-cycle powerplants by applying high level Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage (CCUS) systems would likely drive most or all such generators from the market by the administration’s 2035 goal, since design and installation cost recovery would be virtually impossible over the next 12 years. CCUS would significantly reduce power plant capacity and efficiency and increase operating costs.

The electricity generating system intended to replace coal and natural gas generation is also facing technology forcing. Wind and solar generators operate intermittently and require electricity storage to provide continuous output. There are currently batteries which can provide output smoothing for wind and solar generation for periods of approximately 4 hours. Research is underway on batteries capable of operation over approximately 8 hours. However, the only technologies capable of long-duration support for intermittent generators are pumped hydro and compressed air storage.

The largest current pumped hydro storage facility in the US, the Bath County Pumped Storage Station (BCPSS) has a generating capacity of 3 GW and a storage capacity of 24 GWh. Therefore, it could support intermittent generation with a capacity of 3 GW for a period of 8 full load hours. It would require 15 such storage facilities to replace 3 GW of wind generation with a 50% capacity factor through a 10 day “wind drought”. There has been significant resistance to the construction of such large pumped hydro storage facilities in the US.

Another example of technology forcing is EV batteries. Current light duty EVs are range limited, particularly in very hot and very cold weather. Medium duty trucks and transit buses and similar vehicles require larger batteries to permit full day operation without recharging. Long-haul, over-the-road tractors require sufficient battery capacity to haul maximum legal loads for the maximum number of miles and hours their drivers are permitted to operate. These requirements must be met by 2035 if production of ICE vehicles of those classes is to be banned then.

Finally, while there has been some development effort regarding battery-powered railroad engines, it appears likely that electrification of freight rail will follow the development of electrified passenger rail, drawing power from overhead catenaries using pantographs.

While technology forcing can be effective, there is significant risk to the overall enterprise if the required technology does not become available on the required schedule or its capabilities do not meet the required performance parameters.


Tags: Technology Forcing, Fossil Fuel Elimination / Reduction, Electric Power Generation, Energy Storage / Batteries

Thorough analysis by Clintel shows serious errors in latest IPCC report - Highlighted Article


From: Watts Up With That

By: Clintel

Date: May 10, 2023

Thorough analysis by Clintel shows serious errors in latest IPCC report


  • IPCC hides good news about disaster losses and climate-related deaths
  • IPCC wrongly claimed the estimate of climate sensitivity is above 2.5°C; it is more likely below 2°C
  • IPCC misleads policy makers by focusing on an implausible worst-case emissions scenario
  • Errors in the AR6 report are worse than those that led to the IAC Review in 2010


The IPCC ignored crucial peer-reviewed literature showing that normalised disaster losses have decreased since 1990 and that human mortality due to extreme weather has decreased by more than 95% since 1920. The IPCC, by cherry picking from the literature, drew the opposite conclusions, claiming increases in damage and mortality due to anthropogenic climate change. These are two important conclusions of the report The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC, published by the Clintel Foundation.

The 180-page report is – as far as we know – the first serious international ‘assessment’ of the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report. In 13 chapters the Clintel report shows the IPCC rewrote climate history, emphasizes an implausible worst-case scenario, has a huge bias in favour of ‘bad news’ and against ‘good news’, and keeps the good news out of the Summary for Policy Makers.

The errors and biases that Clintel documents in the report are far worse than those that led to the investigation of the IPCC by the Interacademy Council (IAC Review) in 2010. Clintel believes that the IPCC should reform or be dismantled.

With the recently published Synthesis Report, the IPCC finished its sixth assessment cycle, consisting of seven reports in total. An international team of scientists from the Clintel network has analysed several claims from the Working Group 1 (The Physical Science Basis) and Working Group 2 (Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability) reports. This has now led to the report The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC. (continue reading)


Thorough analysis by Clintel shows serious errors in latest IPCC report


Tags: Highlighted Article

Social Cost of Preferences - ORIGINAL CONTENT

Preference :the act, fact, or principle of giving advantages to some over others
:priority in the right to demand and receive satisfaction of an obligation

The federal government, state governments and state utility regulators have established preferences for wind and solar electric generators, requiring that they be the first generators in line to supply power to the grid when weather conditions permit, while essentially freeing them from the obligation to serve since they are understood to be intermittent generators which cannot be dispatched. They are “source of opportunity” power generators, used when they are available and replaced by conventional generation when they are not available.

Wind and solar are widely acclaimed as being the lowest cost source of electricity. They are also preferred because their operation does not result in CO2 emissions which might contribute to climate change. The availability of production tax credits allows wind and solar generators to consistently bid low wholesale prices into utility, ISO (Independent System Operators) and RTO (Regional Transmission Organizations) supply bidding processes. However, their intermittency requires the grids they serve to provide smoothing services and to maintain rapid response generation capacity to compensate for longer interruptions. These services and generation resources add to the real cost of wind and solar generation.

The output of wind and solar generation facilities displaces a portion of the generating capacity of conventional generation in the generation mix. However, the intermittency of wind and solar generation require that conventional generation capacity be available to meet grid demand during periods when wind and solar are not generating, or are not generating at capacity.

Utilities, ISOs and RTOs must maintain operating conventional generation capacity to replace the output of wind and solar facilities when they are not generating, as well as capacity to replace the capacity of the largest conventional generator in operation should it experience an unscheduled outage to assure grid reliability.
As the generating capacity of wind and solar increase, the operating outputs of the conventional generators are decreased, though they must remain in operation, ready to satisfy grid demand if wind and/or solar generator output decrease. This increases their cost of operation per MWh generated. The wholesale electricity price is determined by the cost of the next unit of capacity required to meet grid demand. Therefore, as the cost of operation of conventional generation increases, the cost of wholesale power also increases, as does the profitability of wind and solar generation.

Most of the coal-fired conventional generation capacity is utility owned. However, much of the natural gas combined-cycle generation capacity is owned and operated by merchant generators. The utilities are generally able to negotiate rates which maintain the profitability of their coal generation assets. However, the merchant generators might require proportionally higher prices to maintain profitability, further moving them down the dispatch order and further increasing wholesale electricity prices.

The combination of these factors are the reason why intermittent wind and solar generation, while supposedly less costly than conventional generation, have not resulted in reduced electricity rates as promised.


Tags: Wind Energy, Solar Energy, Power Grid

Social Cost of Mandates - ORIGINAL CONTENT

Broken Window Economics: an event that seems to be beneficial for those immediately involved can have negative economic consequences for many others.

The US and most countries have energy economies based on fossil fuels, plus contributions from nuclear, hydro, geothermal and biomass. The US and the other OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries have announced goals to replace the fossil fuel uses in their economies with renewable generated electricity across the entire spectrum of energy uses. These goals have been accompanied by mandates to eliminate specific fossil fuel end uses for electric generation, to halt the production of internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles and to replace all fossil fuel end uses by dates certain.

These mandates require the retirement of existing electric generation, vehicle production and appliance production facilities, many before the end of their useful lives and the construction and outfitting of new, replacement facilities. The Biden Administration has argued that these efforts would result in the creation of millions of new, high paying union jobs, though they would also likely result in the elimination of a similar number of similar jobs.

The US currently has a fleet of 200 GW of coal generation capacity, 50 GW of which is scheduled to be retired by the 2030 mandated retirement goal for coal generation. The remaining 150 GW has been scheduled to be retired over the period from 2030 – 2048. Early retirement of these coal plants would strand approximately $35-40 billion of undepreciated private generation assets. It would also strand approximately $30 trillion of coal resources. It is uncertain how the owners of these assets would be compensated for their forced abandonment. Those costs would represent a societal cost of the mandate to close the generating facilities and the resulting abandonment of the coal resources.

The US currently has a fleet of 500 GW of natural gas generation capacity. Approximately 400 GW of that capacity is less than 30 years old, which is a common mid-life for natural gas generators. This suggests that more than 200 GW of natural gas generating capacity would be forced out of service by the 2035 mandated retirement goal for gas generation. Early retirement of these plants would strand another $35-40 billion of undepreciated private generation assets. Again, it is uncertain how the owners of these assets would be compensated for their forced abandonment. These costs would also represent a societal cost of the mandate to close the generating facilities and the resulting abandonment of billions of dollars of natural gas resources and underutilization of natural gas pipeline capacity.

The US also has tens of billions of dollars of automotive manufacturing facilities which the owners would be forced to retire and replace with facilities designed to manufacture EVs and EV batteries, at the same time stranding several billion of dollars of oil resources and oil refining capacity.

Investments in ICE vehicles and natural gas appliances and equipment would be unlikely to be affected by the mandates, since they would likely have outlived their usefulness by 2050.


Tags: Coal, Internal Combustion Engine (ICE)

150 Ways the Biden Administration and Democrats Have Made it Harder to Produce Oil & Gas - Highlighted Article

From: Institute for Energy Research

By: Thomas J. Pyle

Date: May 23, 2023


150 Ways the Biden Administration and Democrats Have Made it Harder to Produce Oil & Gas

President Biden and the Democrats in Congress have a plan for American energy: make it harder to produce and more expensive to purchase. Since Mr. Biden took office, his administration and its allies have taken over 150 actions deliberately designed to make it harder to produce energy here in America. A list of those actions, which includes a few high-profile actions taken in states like New York and California, appears below. A list of those actions appears below. A PDF of the full list is available to download here.


On January 20, 2021,

  1. Besides canceling the Keystone XL pipeline,
  2. President Biden restricted domestic production by issuing a moratorium on all oil and natural gas leasing activities in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
  3. He also restored and expanded the use of the government-created social cost of carbon metric to artificially increase the regulatory costs of energy production of fossil fuels when performing analyses, as well as artificially increase the so-called “benefits” of decreasing production.
  4. Biden continued to revoke Trump administration executive orders, including those related to the Waters of the United States rule and the Antiquities Act. The Trump-era actions decreased regulations on Federal land and expanded the ability to produce energy domestically.

On January 27, 2021, (continue reading)


150 Ways the Biden Administration and Democrats Have Made it Harder to Produce Oil & Gas


Tags: Highlighted Article

Social Cost of Subsidies - ORIGINAL CONTENT

Subsidy: a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public.

The US federal government, several state governments and numerous local governments offer subsidies to assist various aspects of the energy system transition being undertaken in response to climate change. These subsidies are offered for wind and solar generation, electricity storage, electric vehicles, electric vehicle charging stations, and electric appliances and equipment. These subsidies reduce the individual transaction costs for the purchasers of the various devices. However, they also increase the societal cost of the transition.

Wind and solar generation facilities, whether for grid-scale applications or site-specific applications, displace some portion of the output of the existing electric power generation fleet during periods when the wind is blowing and/or the sun is shining. The existing power generation fleet provides the remainder of the grid demand when wind and solar generation are operating and all of the grid demand when wind and solar generation are not operating. Therefore, the subsidies provided for wind and solar generation facilities incentivize the installation of redundant generation facilities, increasing the total cost of the electric generation fleet and thus, the societal cost of electricity.

The cost of wind and solar facilities includes both equipment and installation costs, which are borne by the owners of the facilities. The subsidies available reduce the owners' transaction costs, but not the real cost of the facilities. The subsidies provided by government add to the societal costs of the facilities. These subsidies must be funded either by offsetting reductions in other government programs, increased taxation or incremental government borrowing.

The available subsidies for electric vehicles (EVs) function similarly. The vehicle manufacturer offers the EV to the market at a price which includes its costs and profit. The subsidies reduce the purchasers’ transaction costs, but not the cost and price of the vehicle. The subsidies add to the societal cost of the transaction. For example, an EV with a MSRP of $60,000 is sold to the purchaser at that price. The purchaser then receives a tax credit of $7,500. This reduces the purchaser’s net transaction price to $52,500,  but increases the societal cost of the transaction to $67,500. Again, these subsidies must be funded either by offsetting reductions in other government programs, increased taxation or incremental government borrowing. The same is the case for the subsidization of EV charging infrastructure.

The recent subsidies offered for the purchase of electric appliances and equipment under the “Inflation Reduction Act” are intended to incentivize the purchase of electric heat pumps, water heaters, ranges, laundry dryers and similar residential and commercial equipment. These subsidies are intended to “kick-start” the transition to “all-electric everything” intended by 2050.

Most of the government funding for subsidies to support the transition to renewable electricity generation and “all-electric everything” is coming from incremental borrowing, adding to the existing federal deficit. This borrowing injects additional money into the economy, likely increasing rather than reducing inflation.


Tags: Electric Vehicles, Electric Power Storage

Is AR6 the worst and most biased IPCC Report? - Highlighted Article


From: Watts Up With That

By: Andy May

Date: May 16, 2023

Is AR6 the worst and most biased IPCC Report?

This is the text of my presentation on Tom Nelson’s podcast which can be viewed here. The question and answers start at about 18:15 into the interview.

The first IPCC Physical Science Basis report is called “FAR” and was first published in 1990. An updated 1992 version of the report contains this statement:

“global-mean surface air temperature has increased by 0.3°C to 0.6°C over the last 100 years … The size of this warming is broadly consistent with predictions of climate models, but it is also of the same magnitude as natural climate variability. … The unequivocal detection of the enhanced greenhouse effect from observations is not likely for a decade or more.”

(IPCC, 1992, p. 6).

This was an accurate statement at the time, and it is mostly accurate to this day. In the past century (since 1920) temperatures have increased about one degree and I’m not sure we will be able to detect a human enhanced greenhouse effect in ten years, or ever, but otherwise the quote is still accurate. One degree of global warming in a century is well within natural climate variability according to historical records and records of glacier advances and retreats (Vinós, 2022, pp. 89-107).

Glaciers exist today, where no glaciers existed during the Medieval Warm Period from about 800 to 1200AD and during the Holocene Climatic Optimum from about 7500 to 4500BC. In addition, the Vikings farmed parts of Greenland where permafrost exists today. Ötzi, the Tyrolean iceman, who was frozen into a glacier about 5,000 years ago, and only recently discovered in his glacier tomb, can attest to the fact that modern glaciers are more advanced than they were before 3000BC.

The second report, called SAR was published in 1996 and 1997. Chapter 8 was a major issue when it came out because in the original draft, the scientists who wrote it all agreed to include this statement:

“no study to date has both detected a significant climate change and positively attributed all or part of that change to anthropogenic causes.”

(Final draft, approved by all 36 authors, SAR, July 1995)

Yet, in the final meeting of the IPCC supervising committee of government politicians, the editors and lead authors of the IPCC on November 29th, 1995, which went very late and into the early morning of November 30th, this statement was changed to read:

“The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.”

(IPCC, 1996, p. 4). (continue reading)


Is AR6 the worst and most biased IPCC Report?


Tags: Highlighted Article


“A goal without a plan is just a wish.”, Antoine de St.Exupery

“I love it when a plan comes together.”, John (Hannibal) Smith

The Biden Administration has announced a series of goals, leading to an overall goal of a Net Zero US economy by 2050. The intermediate goals include eliminating coal-fired electric generation by 2030, eliminating gas-fired electric generation by 2035, ceasing production of internal combustion engine vehicles by 2035 and moving to an “all-electric everything” energy economy by 2050. These goals are to be accomplished through a combination of executive fiat and regulatory restriction. One key planning element in support of these goals involves starving the oil and gas industries of supply through cessation of drilling and production permits and blocking of new pipeline construction, thus destroying legal industries and their participants and depriving their customers of future supply. Another key planning element in support of these goals involves incentivizing and subsidizing wind and solar generation, electricity storage and electric vehicles.

What is lacking in this picture is a comprehensive plan. For example, the goals of eliminating coal generation by 2030 and gas generation by 2035 are not accompanied by a plan element intended to assure that adequate wind and solar generation, electricity storage and transmission infrastructure are in place to maintain grid reliability and resilience as the conventional generators are removed from service.

There is also no plan element intended to assure that, as natural gas supplies deplete as the result of production constraints, sufficient natural gas remains available to supply the expected increased natural gas demand for power generation as coal generation capacity is removed from service. There is also no plan element intended to assure that sufficient natural gas remains available to meet residential, commercial and industrial customer demand during the transition to the “all-electric everything” energy economy.

There is no plan element intended to assure that electric generation, transmission and distribution capacity increase timely to accommodate the growth of electric demand and consumption resulting from economic and population growth and the transition to the “all-electric everything” energy economy by 2050.

There is also no plan element intended to assure that sufficient gasoline and diesel fuel remain available to supply the needs of the range of ICE vehicles remaining in service post 2035, when the goal is to terminate ICE vehicle production.

These missing plan elements appear crucial to the successful accomplishment of the Administration’s goals. It appears that the Administration plans to rely on the function of a regulated and constrained energy market to deal with these missing elements of the plan as the market rapidly transitions from a multi-fuel market with regulated competition to a renewable generation plus storage regulated monopoly.

The schedule for this transition appears to assume that the currently non-existent technology required for the Administration’s goals to be achieved will become available timely. This technology includes medium-duration and long-durations electricity storage and what are referred to a Distributed Emission-Free Resources (DEFRs) for electric generation, as well as fossil-free technologies for iron, steel and cement production.

If there is no Plan “A”, is there likely to be a Plan “B”?

“No battle plan survives contact with the enemy.”, Helmuth von Moltke


Tags: Net Zero Emissions, Power Grid, Clean Power Plan, Renewable Energy

Fauci, Fear, Balance and the Grid - Highlighted Article


From: Climate Etc.

By: Russ Schussler

Date: May 8, 2023


Fauci, Fear, Balance and the Grid

Reflecting on the U.S. response to the covid pandemic, Dr. Fauci provides some important insights on managing complex risks – with relevance to climate change and the electric grid transition.

Dr. Fauci discussing past covid measures was recently quoted as saying,

“(W)e looked at it from a purely public-health standpoint. It was for other people to make broader assessments—people whose positions include but aren’t exclusively about public health. Those people have to make the decisions about the balance between the potential negative consequences of something versus the benefits of something.”

I was surprised to hear that Dr. Fauci did not think that public health should have been in total control of the pandemic response.  But he is right. We needed diverse experts providing input and impacting policy choices – some who worry about public health, others who worry about individual health, others who worry about children, and others well versed on the economic impacts of it all.  Doing everything possible to stop the spread of covid, all other costs and consideration be damned, should have been expected to reduce the overall well-being of society and provide grossly suboptimal outcomes.  Focusing solely on covid risks was likely counterproductive even for those most at risk from covid.

In the U.S., the balanced path Dr. Fauci is now advocating was not seriously pursued during the pandemic. With the Covid panic, it seemed public health took over with one over-riding goal.  Advocates for individual health and individual health care found few available forums and inroads to appeal to and  impact policy makers. Appearing to be against the central narrative of those in power may have had severe consequences for individuals and organizations. In hindsight, many see that balancing competing views and values would have better served us all. In focusing so exclusively on the threat of covid, we increased our risk from so many other threats.  Many now understand that our “best” scientific understandings should be subject to challenges.  It certainly seems we needed “other people” to speak up, but those voices did not find the platforms they would need to influence policy and direction. (continue reading)


Fauci, Fear, Balance and the Grid


Tags: Highlighted Article


The consensed climate science community has created a narrative that anthropogenic emissions of CO2, CH4 and N2O are causing additional heat to be retained in the earth’s atmosphere, that this additional heat is increasing the global average temperature, that this increased temperature is changing earth’s climate, that this change in climate is undesirable, and that these anthropogenic emissions must be drastically reduced or eliminated to avoid pushing the planet through a ‘tipping point” from which it cannot recover. The narrative asserts that the climate changes are affecting the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, including hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts and even wildfires.

But what if the consensus narrative is in error in one or more of a variety of ways?


Climate Science

What if…

  • CO2 is not the climate “control knob”?
  • natural variation is contributing to recent warming?
  • land use changes are contributing to recent warming?
  • the Urban Heat Island effect has increased measured temperature anomalies?
  • “adjustments” to measured temperatures have increased reported anomalies?
  • climate models do not accurately model the climate?
  • climate models were hindcast against inaccurate temperature anomalies?
  • attribution models don’t model extreme weather events accurately?
  • the CO2 effect in the atmosphere is essentially saturated?
  • the additional CO2 in the atmosphere is causing beneficial global greening?
  • the additional CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing food crop production?


Climate Policy

What if…

  • recent climate change does not constitute a “crisis” or “existential threat”?
  • the current Social Cost of Carbon is negative?
  • Net Zero GHG emissions are not necessary?
  • driving the fossil fuel industries out of business is unnecessary?
  • intermittent renewable generation increases electric energy costs?
  • electricity storage increases electric energy costs?
  • long-duration electric storage capacity is unavailable?
  • renewable capacity additions lag conventional capacity reductions?
  • “all-electric everything” is unnecessary or undesirable?
  • electric vehicle utility remains limited?
  • renewable capacity additions lag “all-electric everything” expansion?
  • renewable intermittency adversely affects grid stability?
  • renewable intermittency adversely affects grid reliability?
  • there are no replacements for some products made from fossil fuels?
  • there are no replacements for some fossil-fueled processes?


Net Zero by 2050 is clearly Goal “A” for the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries, though just as clearly not for the developing nations. However, there appears to be no clear and comprehensive Plan “A” for achieving Goal “A”. There also appears to be no Plan “B” in the event that Goal “A” is unachievable or unnecessary, or the unidentified elements of Plan “A” fail to come together timely.

The ”What if” questions above are not new, but there has been great reluctance on the part of the consensed climate science community, their political allies and the main stream media to attempt to seriously address and resolve these issues. However, electricity prices are increasing, largely as the result of duplication of generating facilities. Grid reliability and resiliency is also being questioned by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, Independent System Operators (ISOs) and Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs) which are responsible for regulation and operation of the electric utility grid.


Tags: Climate Consensus, Climate Predictions, Climate Policy
Search Older Blog Posts