RISIBLE Renewables: 30 Years and $Trillions in Subsidies – Wind & Solar’s Total Output Less than 1% of World Energy Demand

“The truth is that after decades of beefy government subsidies [$Trillions] wind power still meets just 0.46 percent of earth’s total energy demands, according to data from the International Energy Agency (IEA).

“One must also remember that such massive investments in solar panels would inevitably contribute to resource scarcity: modern electronics require many of the same minerals as do solar panels. Increased competition for a finite supply of minerals would raise the prices of our electronic goods, as well as the price of electricity.

“Given these facts, we can reasonably conclude that the green energy industry is little more than a corporate welfare scheme marketed under the guise of noble intentions.”

UNRELIABLES = The climate-theory-obsessed Western world’s economic suicide note.


A decade from now, as grids collapse and businesses and households are driven into penury, because they can no longer afford their rocketing power bills, the current generation will have plenty of time to lament (albeit, sitting freezing or boiling in the dark).

South Australians, with a deluded and dangerous Labor Premier, utterly obsessed with wind power, are acutely aware of the price that has to be paid for attempting to run on sunshine and breezes.

Those still clinging to the hope that all will be well again, one day, could be forgiven for believing that throwing all to the wind and the sun is paying dividends, right now.

For more than 30 years the wind industry has been telling us that the wind is ‘free’ and getting cheaper all the time. However, as retail power prices rocketed in places like Denmark, Germany and South Australia; as routine load shedding…

View original post 1,018 more words


Green Call for the US Military to “Instruct” Civilians to Address Climate Change

“the most promising avenue to convince conservative American voters and to generate genuinely serious action in the United States against climate change would be to firmly establish the link between global warming and critical issues of national security.”

THE only “threat to national security” is draconian climate policy in the form of economy-destroying carbon taxes and green schemes and scams like windmills and solar panels that create energy poverty, sending jobs and real particulate pollution to “****hole” countries where slave labour and appalling environmental regulations rule.

ALSO worth remembering that during the 1970’s “global cooling” scare, the CIA warned that (man-made) “global cooling” would bring – “Drought, Starvation, Social Unrest And Political Upheaval”.

SAME “national security threats”, polar opposite temps 🤦‍♂️

YOU cannot make this stuff up!

Watts Up With That?

U.S. Soldiers with the 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division stand at attention after receiving awards from Army Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, the commander of U.S. Central Command, at Forward Operating Base Apache, Zabul province, Afghanistan, Nov. 29, 2013. Austin visited the base to meet with Service members and celebrate the Thanksgiving holiday with them.

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Having failed to break the US political deadlock, greens are now looking to the US military to intervene in domestic politics, to save us all from the carbon demon.

The Only Force That Can Beat Climate Change Is the U.S. Army

America’s military is the only institution that can break the partisan deadlock on the worst threat the nation faces.


The precise extent of human-induced climate change is unclear, but the basic science is unequivocal, as is the…

View original post 856 more words

CLIMATE Skeptics Have Valid Reasons To Question Manmade Global Warming


A MUST read op/ed written by Craig Rucker, Executive Director of CFACT and CFACT President David Rothbard.

THIS excellent piece focuses on an important part of the climate debate often overlooked – the heat absorption ability of the carbon dioxide molecule as its concentration increases in the atmosphere.

THE article received “coast to coast” attention via a media usually dismissive of sceptical arguments to the supposed “climate crisis”…

RUCKER’s forward received via email …

“Newspapers coast to coast”


This CFACT Op Ed appeared in the newspapers above and more!

Media bias against climate realism is rampant – especially on the national level. Some major publications, like the Los Angeles Times, have actually positioned themselves in opposition to free speech by imposing bans on opinions running counter to the Al Gore narrative.

Fortunately that is not the case with many local media outlets.

I’d like to call your attention, for a couple reasons, to a recent op/ed I co-wrote with CFACT President David Rothbard.

First, as we’ve discussed so often before, the contents of our article reveal that the hysterical case for global warming doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. There are good reasons, scientifically speaking, why those who are skeptical of climate alarmism have their doubts.

Secondly, and most encouragingly, our op/ed hasn’t been circular filed – as it might have been by the establishment media. In fact, it appeared in a host of local newspapers from one end of the United States to the other!

Climate skeptics have valid reasons to question manmade warming

by and

Many people are actively worried about global warming. And it frustrates them that skeptics and “deniers” refuse to acknowledge the “science” of such an urgent, manmade problem.

But there may be valid reasons to dispute the theory that man is responsible for climate change. And to demonstrate why the issue isn’t so clearcut, here’s a basic climate question to ponder:

As the level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere increases, does its ability to absorb heat increase, decrease or remain the same?

Most people will assume the answer is “increase.” After all, CO2 is a “greenhouse” gas. Adding more of it to the atmosphere should mean more heat being “trapped.”

The correct answer, however, is decrease.

How do we know this? Because the U.N.’s very own, Al Gore-friendly Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has acknowledged in its reports that CO2 loses the ability to absorb heat as its concentration increases. The IPCC explains that CO2 follows a “logarithmic dependence,” which means that it takes ever-doubling amounts of CO2 to keep adding the same amount of heat absorption in the atmosphere. In fact, CO2 absorbs only a certain narrow spectrum of infrared radiation, and the IPCC recognizes that the middle of this band is already “saturated.”

People who fret about manmade warming may find it hard to believe that CO2 actually loses “heat-trapping” ability. But they should know that even the very climate-concerned IPCC admits to such limitations. They still argue that we need to fear manmade warming, however. And their reason is simply that they believe any additional heat absorbed by CO2 will be greatly amplified by water vapor feedback.

This begs the question … are they right? The answer is “No.”

Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas of the atmosphere — and responsible for most of the warming that keeps the Earth habitable. In order to make their case, the IPCC theorizes that any additional warming from CO2 will lead to more water vapor in the atmosphere. And this water vapor will trap more heat, raising temperatures further. It is this “feedback loop” that is used to justify their predictions of catastrophic, future warming.

It’s an interesting concept, but it contains an inherent problem. Water vapor added to the atmosphere inevitably transitions to clouds. And cumulus clouds not only reflect solar radiation back into space but also produce rain. And rainfall not only cools surface temperatures but also scrubs CO2 out of the atmosphere. This is why water vapor feedback remains heavily debated in the scientific community, and even the IPCC admits that “an uncertainty range arises from our limited knowledge of clouds and their interactions with radiation.”

One thing we can all agree on, though, is that the Earth has warmed over the past 150 years, and by roughly 0.85 degrees Celsius. But the cause of this warming may well be the significant increase in solar activity during that time. In 2016, Norwegian scientists Harald Yndestad and Jan-Erik Solheim reported that solar output during the 20th century reached the highest levels in 4,000 years. And also in 2016, at least 132 peer-reviewed scientific papers suggested a solar influence on climate.

The IPCC rejects claims of solar variability, though. They argue that changes in solar “irradiance” (brightness) are relatively small. But recent research from scientists like Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark demonstrates that variations in the sun’s output also affect the solar magnetic field and solar wind — which directly influence ionization in the troposphere and cloud formation.

As the IPCC observed in its first assessment report in 1990, global climate in recent millennia “has fluctuated over a range of up to 2 degrees Celsius on time scales of centuries or more.” It’s very possible that the heightened solar activity of the past century has driven recent global warming. As such, there are valid reasons to question the theory of manmade climate change, and to urge greater study of the issue.

Climate skeptics have valid reasons to question manmade warming | CFACT


CO2 Related :

CO2 – “The Stuff of Life” – Greening The Planet :