Naomi Klein admits global warming is not about science but destroying capitalism

Green Jihad

The Heartland Institute published a very revealing article about Leftist shock jock Naomi Klein who just published a new anti-capitalst screed entitled This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate. Essentially, Ms. Klein admits that the issue of climate change (formerly known as global warming) is not about science but really about overthrowingcapitalism.

“Our economic model is at war with the Earth,” writes Klein. “We cannot change the laws of nature. But we can change our economy. Climate change is our best chance to demand and build a better world.”

The Heartland article goes on to say:

For the author, this completely boring, run-of-the-mill flight delay became a flight of fancy, inspiring her new work. This flight delay, she reasoned, was evidence of climate change. Who cares, she added, if we know that the solar cycles impact the planet, even more than CO2 emissions ever could. Science is not the point, but it makes for a great alibi. “The really inconvenient truth is that it’s not about carbon—it’s about capitalism. The convenient truth is that we can seize this existential crisis to transform our failed economic system and build something radically better,” she writes.

Another motivational moment for Klein, a single mother, happened when she was reading a children’s book to her son. The story was about a moose. She worried that the young lad would “never seen a moose” in his life. Then, reading another children’s book, this one about bats, she worried that the boy would “never see a bat.” Her overly emotional reactions to everyday things — plane delays, reading bed time stories to junior — are something that she feels must motivate us all to give up our way of life.

I am sure Ms. Klein has no problem traveling by plane, car, or train in order to promote herself or her publications. If global warming is not about science then I guess, in Klein’s mind, her promotion without regard for her carbon footprint is justified since if people like her are successful then her emissions won’t matter. Yet she has no problem enjoying all of the benefits of capitalism while condemning it in word but not deed. However, those of us on the side of civilization and reason owe people like Klein a debt of gratitude for their honesty. Naomi Klein is open about what environmentalists deny or refuse to admit and the greens probably cringe every time she opens her pathetic mouth.

Ms. Klein isn’t the first to communicate the Left’s blunt honesty about climate change. During October of last year, PJMedia posted this revealing article soon after a climate change event in Oakland, California. The article reveals a strong far Left presence at the ceremony during September 21st. Here is a video of the keynote speaker taken at the gathering:

Energy Policy: Can Anybody Around Here Do Basic Arithmetic?

May 09, 2016/ Francis Menton

On Bernie Sanders’ website, there is this statement of the utopian future of energy:

Transitioning toward a completely nuclear-free clean energy system for electricity, heating, and transportation is not only possible and affordable; it will create millions of good jobs, clean up our air and water, and decrease our dependence on foreign oil.

OK, let’s see what that means: no fossil fuels, no nuclear, undoubtedly no or little hydro.  What’s left?  Basically wind and solar.  Sure enough, there’s this:

We will act boldly to move our energy system away from fossil fuels, toward energy efficiency and sustainable energy sources like wind, solar, and geothermal because we have a moral responsibility to leave our kids a planet that is healthy and habitable. 

And don’t get the idea that Bernie is alone in these fantasies.  In the same March speech where she said “we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business,” Hillary also added that her energy policy would “bring economic opportunity—using clean, renewable energy as the key—into coal country.”     

Can anybody around here do basic arithmetic?  These ideas can’t possibly add up unless the government subsidies necessary to induce the development of wind and solar power are treated as completely costless free money.  Government as the infinite source of costless free money — actually that’s the essence of progressivism, so I don’t know why I should have expected anything else from these guys.

Over at the Manhattan Institute, Robert Bryce is out with a new report titled “What Happens To An Economy When Forced To Use Renewable Energy?”   Of course, the answer to the question is that so-called “renewable energy” is much more expensive than the fossil fuel alternatives, and the extra costs necessarily have to get piled on the population somewhere or other — in higher electricity prices, in higher taxes, in lost jobs or economic opportunities, or something else.  The world “leaders” (if we want to call them that) in so burdening their populations are the big countries of Europe, so we can assess the consequences of these policies by comparing the experience of those countries since they started down this road to our own experience.  Really, it’s an unmitigated disaster, particularly in the economic burdens imposed on the lower-income portion of the population.  To take just a few examples from Bryce’s report:

  • Since the EU adopted its Emissions Trading Scheme in 2005, electricity prices in Europe have increased at about double the rate of increase in the U.S. — 63% in Europe vs. 32% in the U.S.
  • But the increases have been far more dramatic in the countries that have intervened the most in their energy markets:  “During 2008–12, Germany’s residential electricity rates increased by 78 percent, Spain’s rose by 111 percent, and the U.K.’s soared by 133 percent.”    
  • “In 2016 alone, German households will be forced to spend $29 billion on renewable electricity with a market value of $4 billion—more than $700 per household.”
  • “Germany’s energy minister has warned that the continuation of current policies risks the ‘deindustrialization’ of the country’s economy.”
  • Spain until recently was famous for the most aggressive promotion of wind and solar of all European countries.  How has that worked out?  “[T]he country’s electric utilities have accumulated a $32 billion deficit that must now be repaid, by adding surcharges of about 55 percent to customers’ bills. High energy costs are only adding to Spain’s economic woes. During 2004–14, Spain’s GDP grew by just 0.6 percent per year, on average, and the country’s unemployment rate now stands at about 21 percent.”

Meanwhile, at the Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions, John Droz today links to an archived 2014 post by a guy named John Weber titled “Prove This Wrong — Wind Makes Zero Sense.”  If you think that wind energy is infinitely clean and free, this post is filled with lots of data and many pictures that show the extent to which the production of wind energy relies on a massive underlying fossil-fuel infrastructure.  The post kicks off from a 2009 proposal from Stanford Engineering Professor Mark Jacobson to provide 50% of the world’s electricity by 2030 by the simple strategy of building lots of wind turbines.  According to Jacobson (who thinks it is a good idea), it would take 3.8 million of the turbines at 5 MWe each to reach the 50% level.  Current humongous wind turbines are only about 2.5 MWe each, so it would take more like 7.6 million of the smaller ones.  Bernie thinks that all power (not just half) should be provided this way, so make that 15.2 million!  Then put aside for the moment that wind turbines only work the far-less-than-half the time when the wind blows at the right speed.  Also put aside the big transmission losses from moving the electricity from where the wind blows to where the electricity is used.  Anyway, Weber’s post just focuses on the large and really unavoidable use of fossil fuel energy in building all these wind turbines.

When you see these things from a distance in the countryside, it’s hard to realize how truly gigantic they are.  Weber gives the following statistics for just one 2.5 MWe wind turbine:  tower height – 100 meters (328 feet); total height to top of blade – 485 feet; total weight – 2000 tons (!), mostly of steel and concrete.  (Source: Kansas Energy Information Network here.)  Here’s a picture of the base of a 2.5 MWe turbine under construction, with some men in the picture to give a sense of the scale.  That’s about 45 tons of steel re-bar:


That base is soon to be filled with a pour of about 1200 tons of concrete.  Then you attach the 328 foot tower.  The tower comes in two sections.  Here’s a picture of the smaller (approx. 120 foot) section arriving on a 208 foot long truck:


To state the obvious,  the whole idea of wind turbines is a non-starter without the enormous underlying fossil-fuel-powered infrastructure to make and deliver the steel, concrete and other materials.  Here is a 2014 post from the Energy Collective acknowledging the same point.

Then there’s air travel — has anyone figured out a way to do that with wind power?  Ocean shipping?  Theoretically, with enough batteries, you could do all-electric cars with wind power.  You can buy a Tesla for around $75,000 today.  But don’t worry, the government has plenty of free money lying around to subsidize that down until the price is competitive with the evil fossil-fuel powered vehicles.

Retired German Climate Scientist: “No Man-Made Signal Found” …”Climate Protection A Dangerous Ideology”

By P Gosselin on 6. May 2016

The website of the German Employers Association (DAV) has posted a comprehensive interview by Holger Douglas with physicist and climate scientist Prof. Dr. Horst-Joachim Lüdecke, concerning the role of CO2 on the world’s climate.


Photo: Professor Horst-Joachim Lüdecke

Lüdecke, who has authored numerous climate science publications in climate science journals, is sure that the role of CO2 on climate is grossly overstated and riddled with alarmist hype.

Polar bear population “growing”

On polar bears, Lüdecke says there is “no trace” of the animal disappearing due to climate change and that the polar bear population has in fact been climbing. Moreover, the polar bear has been around for “hundreds of thousands of years“.

Climate sensitivity much weaker than assumed

On the subject of the greenhouse effect and radiation outwards into space, Lüdecke reminds that the climate system involves countless, poorly understood complexities, such as cloud cover and water vapor. In the interview he tells:

Water vapor is a very powerful greenhouse gas, and acts to enhance the warming effect. We call this feedback, as the warming is magnified more by it then it is alone by the radiation effect. But the other assumption claims: The opposite is correct! More water vapor in the air leads to more clouds that cool.”

On which effect is true, Lüdecke tells the DAV:

The theory of a feedback is not confirmed by measurements. According to the theory, the altitudes over the tropics at about 5 to 7 kilometers are supposed to be showing a clearly measurable heating zone that is referred to as the ‘Hot Spot’. No one has found it. Everything points to the pure radiation effect being weaker and not enhanced.”

No human fingerprint

The retired, independent physicist then tells the DAV that “man’s influence on the climate still cannot be filtered from the climate noise even today” and that today’s climate and weather changes are no different than what was observed hundreds of years ago, citing the IPCC itself:

There is not a single bit of scientific justification to claim: Here we are seeing unusual climate developments that can be only attributed to humans.”

Lüdecke suspects that the cyclic nature of climate natural climate change is caused mainly by the sun’s activity, naming the De Vries/Suess 200-year cycle and the 1500-year Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle as examples.

Easy Plugin for AdSense V8.63 [midtext: 0 urCount: 0 urMax: 0]

Easy Plugin for AdSense V8.63

He also confirms the recent “18-20 year” global warming pause and reminds us that in geological terms, the Earth today in fact finds itself in a ice age period, which is typically defined as one that sees the poles frozen over – as is the case today.

On proxies the retired climate scientist says that care has to be exercised in interpreting the data they yield. The DAQV asks whether there is a relationship between temperature and CO2 concentration. Lüdecke replies:

No, there’s nothing to see there.”

CO2 concentration in fact historically low

Lüdecke also points out that today’s atmospheric CO2 levels are in fact close to historical lows, and that elevated concentration bring a number of advantages to the ecosystems, foremost a greener planet with better plant growth.

Also, man’s CO2 emissions pale against those from the oceans and natural environment.

Ocean acidification “an alarmist myth”

On whether the threat of ocean acidification exists, Lüdecke dumps cold water on that claim:

No, ocean acidification is another myth of the alarmists. Every chemists you talk to on ocean acidification being a result of increasing atmospheric CO2 will roll his eyes. […]

Also the supposed sensitivity of corals to CO2 in sea water is an alarmist myth.”

“Dangerous, undemocratic ideology”

At the very end of the interview, Lüdecke comments on climate protection as a movement:

Here I allow myself to state very clearly: Climate protection has nothing to do with protecting nature. Climate protection is a dangerous, undemocratic ideology.”

In the next post, we will look at what prof. Lüdecke says in the rest of the interview, concerning climate models and the energy trend in Europe.