The Malicious Intent Behind Climate Alarmism

The most important argument against climate alarmism centers around the proposed solutions.

“Solar is only during the day, solar only works best in places where it’s warm.

There’s no battery technology that’s even close to allowing us to take all of our energy from renewables and be able to use battery storage in order to deal not only with the 24-hour cycle but also with long periods of time where it’s cloudy and you don’t have sun or you don’t have wind

Power is about reliability. We need to get something that works reliably.”

– Bill Gates

Financial Times

We live in a society which is completely dependent on fossil fuels and/or nuclear energy. Our heat, water, power, transportation, manufacturing, food production and distribution systems; communication, medical, financial and every other critical system depend on an “always on” supply of energy.

As an example, at the turn of the last century, there was tremendous fear that the Y2K bug would make computers non-functional and collapse society.  An intermittent computer network due to a lack of reliable energy would have the same effect. Medical and financial services would be non-functional.

Most Americans have never gone without essential commodities, and take them for granted.  And many, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, seem to have no understanding of the catastrophic consequences of running short of energy. People of her generation have never had to do without food, warmth, light or communications. They can’t function if they don’t have a strong phone signal, and have no concept of what a shortage of food, transportation or energy would be like.

The US has been experiencing record cold this winter.  What would the people of Illinois have done without continuously available heat, light and communications during the record cold snap of -38 degrees two weeks ago?  I flew over the Midwest on January 6, 2018 during a similar cold snap. The air was dead calm and wind turbines were useless.  People were completely dependent on fossil fuels and nuclear energy for their survival.

The reason winter is cold, is because of a lack of solar energy.  The sun is low in the sky, days are short, and it is cloudy much of the time.  Yet climate alarmists want people to be dependent on solar energy for their survival.  They imagine that there is some storage technology which can store huge amounts of energy for long periods of time when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing. But as Bill Gates pointed out, that technology doesn’t exist.

I have degrees in science and engineering, and have worked for most of the last 45 years as both. The job of scientists is to come up with ideas. By contrast, the primary job of engineers is to make things that work. If a bridge or a microprocessor, doesn’t work – very bad things will happen. Bad engineering is fatal to humans, companies and civilizations.

We need to have engineers making the technology decisions, not academic scientists and politicians – who have never had to deliver anything which works, and don’t have any understanding or experience with the processes required to make things work. Most academics and politicians have no clue what is going on behind the scenes of a technologically functional society.

An analogy would be climate forecasters vs weather forecasters. If a climate forecaster is wrong, few people remember or care in 30 years.  But if a weather forecaster is wrong, everyone knows and there are immediate consequences.

If the people of New York City (who elected Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) believe that we don’t need fossil fuels, why don’t they prove it to the world by eliminating fossil fuels usage in their own city?  They can end skepticism of their plan by eliminating gasoline, jet fuel and natural gas sales in their city. They should ban all electricity usage from sources other than solar, wind and nuclear. They should ban sale of all products manufactured or transported using fossil fuels.

Why didn’t Michael Bloomberg do this while he was mayor? The reason is simple – it is impossible. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s New Green Deal is impossible, and people in countries like China and India understand that.  That is why they are building more than 1,000 new coal fired power plants.

The US could disappear off the face of the Earth, and it would have minimal impact on atmospheric CO2 levels.  China produces more than twice as much CO2 as the US, and under the deal they made with President Obama, they will continue to increase their CO2 emissions until the year 2030.

FACT SHEET: U.S.-China Joint Announcement on Climate Change and Clean Energy Cooperation |

US emissions have been declining for a decade due to fracking, while Chinese emissions increased rapidly.

Climate Goals Pledged by China and the U.S. – The New York Times

The UN has been making the same claim that we only have twelve years to save the planet from global warming, for the past 30 years.

A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked

The claim is nonsense, the proposed solutions are unworkable, the US has minimal control over the level of atmospheric CO2, and the only viable conclusion is that the powerful people behind the scenes of the New Green Deal have extremely malicious intent. They refuse to allow any debate, censor all skepticism, and run academics out who resist climate alarmism.

We need to have a robust discussion about our energy future centered around engineers – not decisions based on hysteria by politicians and academics who don’t know the first thing about climate or energy.  The American people need to be educated, not fed propaganda and have their information sources censored. Our survival depends on an adequate supply of energy, not mindless hysteria and fear over an essential trace gas. Without carbon dioxide, life itself can not exist.

Without a reliable supply of energy, modern civilization can’t exist.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to The Malicious Intent Behind Climate Alarmism

  1. Stork Chen says:

    Good post. But isn’t this more stupidity than malice?

    • tonyheller says:

      The only credible explanation I can see for the people behind it – is malice.

      • Ilma says:

        I would agree. Politicians are ‘decision takers’ and believe themselves to be intelligent, so the decisions they make are deliberate, with premeditated thought.

    • arn says:

      Permanent and systematically organized stupidity does not exist.

      As soon as it exists you can be sure it is organised criminal fraud.

      (it works the same way as the deep states permanent wars,overthrows and bombing of other countries.
      They do it on purpose,lie all the time and after the job is done and they had been caught lying they pretend to be stupid)

      Stupidity&good intentions are the psychopath best tool.

      When people think you are smart or have evil intentions they will kill you,
      but as soon as they think that you are stupid/naive and had good intentions they will forgive you.

      • -B- says:

        My rule of thumb is to examine who benefits from a so-called stupid decision. Did the people making and supporting that decision gain from it? Then it wasn’t stupidity.

      • Jason Calley says:

        Hey arn! “Stupidity&good intentions are the psychopath best tool. When people think you are smart or have evil intentions they will kill you,
        but as soon as they think that you are stupid/naive and had good intentions they will forgive you.”

        Brilliant and wonderfully stated.

        A pharmacist may mis-fill a prescription. It’s possible, errors happen, no one is perfect. But if he mis-fills your prescription time after time, and even uses rat poison instead of aspirin, then trust me, it was not a mistake! He is just trying to poison you…

    • Topi Turunen says:

      You are probably correct. The writer doesn’t seem to have malicious intent in this. Only the inability to use logic and reason, combined with a lack of basic knowledge of science.

  2. Hans Conser says:

    Great post, you get to the heart of the matter in detail.

    • arn says:

      Tony reached a new level in the past month,as he can now combine many different things with ease.

      Downside maybe that such long posts may shy away some as they may a little bit too overwhelming for newbies as there is a lot information to chew at once.

  3. Bob Cherba says:

    Amen, Tony Heller.

    I’m an old, retired engineer who spent 33 years producing and transmitting electrical power. But even those indoctrinated in today’s liberal government schools should be able to see that the sun only shines about 50% of the time, and wind in most areas is highly variable. In addition, we all use a variety of battery-powered devices and should have a user’s knowledge of the limits of batteries.

    Unfortunately, the old quote attributed to a number of people, that “the masses are asses” is really true. Renewable energy is not the answer if you really want to keep the lights on, and the Greeen New Deal is pie-in-the-sky stupid — and dangerous.

  4. Paul Schuster says:

    As a retired engineer with a long career in making things work, I find your arguments
    compelling. We need an open, rational discussion on the future of energy and the impact of energy production and use on climate. We must have open discussions BEFORE we allow hysteria destroy our economy and perhaps our Nation.

  5. Johansen says:

    Just simply enforce the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, along with all the layers of project permitting and EIR’s, and let the market take care of the issue. These are statutes that were put in place by elected representatives. Enforce private property rights, including those connected with pollution. Just simply enforce them and let Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand take care of the problem. We would always have plentiful, cheap power, and the taxpayer would never need to fund it thru confiscation and theft.

    • -B- says:

      Under property rights the amount of allowable pollution is zero or as close to zero as practicable. Now one can pollute under property rights but it must be contained on one’s own property. Since containment is expensive and often impossible we end up at zero. The pollution problem was caused by a deviation from property rights and why places without property rights continue to have horrific pollution.

    • dave1billion says:

      I’ve reviewed environmental permit applications and have assisted in writing permits as part of a government agency.

      The Clean Air Act (CAA) has great regulations and has been the driving force to implement treatment technologies to clean up real pollutants from stack gas emissions. Sulfates (SOx) , nitrogen oxides (NOx) , particulates, mercury and other harmful metals are scrubbed from the stack gases to levels that have been determined to be safe.

      Clean Water Act (CWA) regulations keeps the pollutants scrubbed from stack gases from being released into our surface waters.

      The problem with the CAA and the CWA is that new regulations are promulgated by the Executive Branch. They have the force of law without the legislative process.

      The left knows the power of regulatory agencies. While the original CAA and CWA were put into place by elected representatives, subsequent “Rules” are not.

      We hear talk of CO2 sequestration and new control technologies that will allow power plants to emit zero CO2. These technologies do not exist. But they gave the EPA cover when they issued the CAA greenhouse gas regulations.

      The previous administration added CO2 and other greenhouse gases as regulated pollutants. These regulations are causing older coal-fired power plants that have been acting in good faith for decades, complying with regulations and controlling real pollutants, to close.

      This precedent will certainly be built upon and expanded by future administrations.

      If coal power plants that emit high levels of CO2 are bad, then it doesn’t take a huge leap to apply that same logic to lower CO2 emitting natural gas plants as well. Anything other than zero risk is unacceptable. And immoral.

  6. Dan says:

    “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez” is her name. Feel free to delete/not post if/when corrected.

  7. -B- says:

    “We need to have engineers making the technology decisions”

    No we don’t. We need the centralization decision making go away not change who decides. Having engineers decide (and I am one) only moves the point of failure to another class of institutionalized intellectuals. It won’t be the engineers who make things go that will get these technocrat positions making the decisions. Rather it will be the good at school engineers. The ones who got the degree, know how to climb institutionally, but couldn’t design their way out of a wet paper bag.

    Like today’s scientists these sort of engineers will follow the funding and political winds that give them a comfortable lifestyle.

    We need the discipline of the market, of decentralization, of competition that brutally eliminates what does not work. Here the engineers who make things go will win out. There will be no centralized decisions but rather what works will rise to the top and what does not will go away.

  8. GW Smith says:

    If there is no crisis there is no need for government intervention. Politicians need crises to justify their jobs.

    • rah says:

      I would say that politicians need crisis to cover for the fact that they’re NOT doing their jobs.

    • Jason Calley says:

      “Politicians need crises to justify their jobs.”

      Yes, but what do we do when the politicians ARE the crisis? How do we peacefully resolve a politically induced crisis that includes legislative, executive and judicial functions? By elections? What if they control the elections as well?

      This may get ugly…

  9. Chris Morris says:

    Isn’t there a saying around that” we are ever only a 12 hour power cut away from anarchy”

  10. John Ritcher says:

    What a load of bull

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.