Political Climate
Mar 19, 2018
Repeal and Not Replace the Clean Power Plan (CPP)

Full page link

This press release (below) gives everyone access to the information needed to support or join the CHECC fight to repeal and not replace the Clean Power Plan and rescind and reconsider the fatally flawed CO2 Endangerment Finding that is the basis of the flood of onerous regulations proposed or adopted by the EPA under the Obama Administration. But with all the other fighting going on in America, why should one care about this issue. After all, Climate Science is settled science, right?

As wild winter weather rages across the hemisphere easily explainable by natural factors including the quietest sun in perhaps two centuries, politicians, alarmist scientists and the media are busy trying to convince you that every newsworthy extreme weather event is unprecedented and our fault.

They claim that we are destroying our planet’s climate and our children’s futures by selfishly driving SUVs and burning fossil fuels. That CO2 is somehow supercharging storms and making other extremes more likely. Policymakers are pushing us to replace fossil fuel now in abundance for costly, unreliable and not-ready-for-prime-time renewables.  How did the developed world arrive at this point?


The real driver for the radical environmental movement started half a century ago. The Club of Rome was an organization formed in 1968 consisting of heads of state, UN bureaucrats, high-level politicians and government officials, diplomats, scientists, economists and business leaders from around the globe. It raised considerable public attention in 1972 with its report The Limits to Growth. The club’s mission was “to act as a global catalyst for change through the identification and analysis of the crucial problems facing humanity”.  Many were attracted to this movement by perceived concerns over population growth.  These quotes, many from very familiar world leaders may shock you.

The Council of the Club of Rome in 1991 in the book The First Global Revolution laid out a blueprint for the 21st Century which focused on centralized one world government and a new world order with a redistribution of wealth. They thought creating a global threat was needed as motivation for nations to cede their sovereignty to a centralized global government. That is when global warming was invented.

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming...would fit the bill...It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or...one invented for the purpose.”

The UN took on the global warming cause in a series of carefully crafted and controlled reports. The UN has openly admitted their ultimate goals were not environmental. UN Climate Chief Christiana Figueres stated bluntly, “Our aim is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to change the global economic system...” UN IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer admitted “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy, it is not”. It is actually about how “we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”

In the Paris Accord in 2015, western taxpayers are targeted and our wealth would be redistributed internationally while our economies are being cut down to size. 

Making people see the real threat is a challenge because the trillions of dollars selling the threat created so many believers in industry and our populace, especially in our younger generations. Quietly in recent decades, our schools have become indoctrination factories. Most colleges have abandoned teaching students how to think for teaching them what to think. The result is more snowflakes than the worst possible nor’easter. The scientific method is dead - morphing into “when data does not agree with your hypothesis, the data not your hypothesis or theory must be wrong and properly adjusted.”

As these students enter the government and industry they push unwise policies and those that become teachers and researchers further corrupt the education system in line with their beliefs. It is a cancer growing within. The professional societies have become unprofessional extensions of a corrupted academia.


People ask so called Global Warming Deniers why do we care. We care because we can see the great harm inflicted in places where the globalization and radical green energy policies were first implemented as in the EU. It includes countries that were once under the thumb of communism and welcomed their freedom now being told to again bow down to centralized control. However, nations that have rushed to adopt the green agenda are paying energy prices up to 5 times higher than currently payed in the U.S.

This hurts the people who can least afford it. Worldwide, cold kills 20 times more than heat (Gasparrini, 2015). 38% of British households are cutting back essential purchases like food, to pay high and rising energy bills. Another 59% of homes are worried about how they will pay energy bills when the Paris accord is enforced. In the UK 12 million people are said to be in energy poverty. Many pensioners have to choose between heating and eating. 58% more people now die in the 4 winter months than the other 8 months in Britain.  Brexit was in part a rebellion against the pains inflicted by the onerous green energy policies imposed by centralized bureaucrats who pay no attention to local needs or the consequences of their decision-making. They quote Consensus Science views and cite Climate Alarmist claims. But now, finally, the pushback is spreading, even in the U.S.

CHECC’s goals are to educate our government officials, industry management and the public on why they should not let radical environment policies prevail.  To show them how the consensus science presented is wrong, even fraudulent. We hope to ensure that Americans recognize the huge benefits of low energy costs and reduced regulations and yes even increased CO2 emissions and open their eyes to the enormous further damage that would come from a return to Obama era policies.

The CHECC Press Release below provides access to the findings supporting these goals. These findings were developed over a ten year period by scientists and lawyers each working on a Pro bono basis.



The Concerned Household Electricity Consumers Council in its Comment Calls on President Trump and EPA to Repeal and Not Replace the Clean Power Plan(CPP). CHECC CPP ANPRM Replacement Comment Overview FINAL 022718 PDF

Key Comment Conclusions*:

* CO2 is a Beneficial Gas, not a Pollutant. As a result, the Social Cost of Carbon is Negative since CO2 is so very critical to plant growth and therefore human life.
* The 2009 Endangerment Finding must be reconsidered and rescinded/vacated. Thus, the CPP would not be replaced.
* All future Federal, State and private sector decisions regarding the Nation’s electric power grid must focus solely on minimizing consumer electricity prices as well as maximizing Grid Reliability and Resilience. No consumer electricity price increases should be permitted by regulators that result from increased Renewables/Energy Storage Grid penetration.
* The Current Reconsideration of future vehicle MPG Standards must treat CO2 reduction as a cost, not a benefit, so that only consumer preferences matter, not climate change issues. Currently, with low gasoline price expectations, most consumers prefer trucks & SUVs.

*Based on the Concerned Household Electricity Consumers Council (CHECC) Comment in response to EPA’s ANPRM CPP Replacement
CHECC CPP ANPRM Replacement Comment FINAL to EPA 022618 (1) Filed February 26, 2018

March 24, 2018

The Concerned Household Electricity Consumers Council (CHECC) announces that on February 26, 2018 it filed a Comment in response to EPA’s Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making (ANPRM) Clean Power Plan (CPP) Replacement. (see CHECC CPP ANPRM Replacement Comment FINAL to EPA 022618 (1) )

This Comment provided EPA and the Trump Administration with Legal, Climate Science and Energy Economic analysis findings, each robustly supporting the conclusion that EPA should Repeal and Not Replace the Clean Power Plan.


Based on the Legal Analysis: The CPP should not be replaced with anything at all until a lawful, scientifically robust, highly influential scientific assessment (HISA)-compliant positive endangerment finding has been made. The 2009 EF analysis process was fundamentally flawed requiring that it must be rescinded and reconsidered.

Based on the Climate Science Analysis: The scientific basis for the 2009 Endangerment Analysis has been invalidated - in fact, by two separate and distinct analyses. Hence, a GHG endangerment reconsideration is highly unlikely to yield a new endangerment finding. And, thus CPP replacement would have no legal basis and then should not be replaced.

Based on the Energy Economic Analysis: The current Federal, State and private sector policies that are now increasing the fraction of electricity generation from Intermittent Renewables must be stopped/reversed in order to avoid/mitigate very severe micro and macroeconomic impacts and National Security ramifications involving skyrocketing electricity prices as well as dramatically reduced power grid reliability and resilience. The climate science findings suggest that taking such action will have no impact on the climate.

Legal Findings

The legal analysis contained in the Comment is written to satisfy lawyers conversant in “Administrative Law,” but the bottom line is that the 2009 Endangerment Finding, upon which all current CO2 regulation is predicated, was rammed through EPA and the courts and shown in the Comment to have not been carried out consistent with statute law.

The 2009 Endangerment Finding did not comply with the requirements for highly influential scientific assessments (HISA), and Obama’s endangerment finding supporting the CPP is demonstrated to be grossly deficient. In short, the CO2 Endangerment Finding must be reconsidered because the 2009 finding was not made consistent with easy to understand statute law - a point made to EPA by its Inspector General but ignored by EPA and both the D.C. and Supreme Courts.

The only lawful way to regulate GHG emissions is to prepare a proper, HISA-compliant positive endangerment finding. Until that has been completed, and a lawfully conducted and scientifically robust positive finding returned, the CPP should not be replaced with any regulation at all.

Climate Science Findings

New research findings now make it all but certain that CO2 is not a pollutant but rather a beneficial gas that should not be regulated. This is because at this point, there is no statistically valid proof that past increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations have caused what have been officially reported as rising, or even record setting, temperatures.

Moreover, new research findings demonstrate that adjustments by government agencies to the Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data render that data totally inconsistent with many other published and credible temperature data sets and therefore totally useless for any policy analysis purpose.

Adjustments over time to previously reported official data that imparted an ever-steeper upward trend in the data by removing the natural cyclical temperature patterns previously present in the data.  These adjustments have deprived the GAST data from NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU of the credibility required for policymaking or climate modeling. This is particularly true when such data are relied on to drive trillions of dollars in expenditures.

Finally, it is therefore inescapable that: if the official GAST data from NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU are invalid, then both the ‘basic physical understanding’ of climate and the associated climate models will also be invalid - resulting in tens of billions in wasted climate research funding.

The CHECC Comment also referenced two recent letters to the EPA Administrator from over 85 highly credentialed scientists. They stated as follows: “We the undersigned are individuals who have technical skills and knowledge relevant to climate science and the GHG Endangerment Finding. We each are convinced that the 2009 GHG Endangerment Finding is fundamentally flawed and that an honest, unbiased reconsideration is in order.”

The Comment’s science findings section also presents rebuttals of ten typical climate change alarmists’ claims. The authors of these rebuttals are all recognized experts in the relevant scientific fields. The rebuttals demonstrate the falsity of all ten of the claims merely by citing the most credible empirical data on the topic. The ten now rebutted alarmist claims are as follows:

* Heat Waves are increasing at an alarming rate and heat kills.
* Global warming is causing more hurricanes and stronger hurricanes.
* Global warming is causing more and stronger tornadoes.
* Global warming is increasing the magnitude and frequency of droughts and floods.
* Global Warming has increased U.S. Wildfires.
* Global warming is causing snow to disappear.
* Global warming is resulting in rising sea levels as seen in both tide gauge and satellite technology.
* Arctic, Antarctic and Greenland ice loss is accelerating due to global warming.
* Rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations are causing ocean acidification, which is catastrophically harming marine life.
* Carbon pollution is a health hazard.

This parade of horrible calamities that the 2009 Endangerment Finding predicts and that a vast program of regulation seeks to prevent have been comprehensively and conclusively refuted by empirical data. The 2009 Endangerment Finding should be rescinded and the Clean Power Plan replaced with nothing at all.

Energy Economic Findings

The Energy Economic Argument for rescinding the 2009 Endangerment Finding is that the CPP should not be replaced with anything because increasing the Fraction of Electricity Generation from Intermittent Renewables causes Enormous Consumer Electricity Price Increases and Serious Negative Macroeconomic Impacts. Real world examples in the Comment demonstrate that jurisdictions that have succeeded in increasing the percent of electricity from renewables validate the proposition that the more their power grid relied on renewables, the higher the electricity price - with price increases accelerating as the percent of electricity from renewables gets higher than 20% or so.

These real world case studies are corroborated by a September 2017 study by IHS Markit, titled Ensuring Resilient and Efficient Electricity Generation: The Value of the Current Diverse U.S. Power Supply Portfolio which analyzed the economic effects of state and federal energy policies that are driving electric utilities away from coal, nuclear and hydroelectric and towards renewables and natural gas. Such policies are forecast by IHS Markit to lead to a tripling of the current roughly 7% reliance on wind, solar and other intermittent resources, with natural gas-fired resources supplying the majority of generation. (This assumption now appears optimistic for NG penetration; that is, current trends would favor higher renewable penetration.)

The Study’s Findings are that current policy driven market distortions will lead to the: U.S. power grid becoming less cost-effective, less reliable and less resilient, ... Id. at p. 4 (Emphasis added). The study forecasts that these policies will cause a 27% increase in the retail price of electricity.

The following economic impacts of these policies were forecast:

- The 27% retail power price increase associated with the less efficient diversity case causes a decline of real US GDP of 0.8%, equal to $158 billion (2016 chain-weighted dollars).
- Labor market impacts of the less efficient diversity case involve a reduction of 1 million jobs.
- A less efficient diversity case reduces real disposable income per household by about $845 (2016 dollars) annually, equal to 0.76% of the 2016 average household disposable income.” Id. at p. 5. (Emphasis added).

It should be noted that the Study’s projected 27% increase in average retail power prices is predicated on the wind and solar renewables share rising by three-fold from 7% to “only” about 21%. The case studies discussed in the Comment make very clear the enormous increases in power prices that would result as policy makers attempt to move the renewables grid penetration higher than that. Moreover, the study found that policies that promote increased use of wind and solar would likely result in little to no reduction in the level of electric sector CO2 emissions.

Based on these Energy Economic findings, the CPP should not be replaced with anything because increasing the fraction of electricity generation from Intermittent Renewables will cause (1) enormous consumer electricity price increases, (2) the Grid to become even less reliable and less resilient, and (3) even more serious negative micro and macroeconomic impacts - but would have zero impact on the climate. Based on the Comment’s reported science findings, this would be true whether or not the CPP Replacement managed to significantly reduce U.S. CO2 emissions from any and all sources. 

Feb 20, 2018
Electricity Consumers File New Study in Their Call for EPA to Reopen its Endangerment Finding

Generally speaking, the scientific community has been highly politicized and young people are being indoctrinated by way of their schooling at all levels. Bad science is now the rule in our universities and professional societies (see the latest special edition by Jeff Rosenfeld, long the editor and gatekeeper of BAMS which includes easily refuted ‘junk science’.  Climate Alarmists, with the all too willing help from the mainstream media, play ambulance chasers making wild claims that every weather event of significance is the result of our human use of fossil fuels. Meanwhile, our teams have shown that we can explain all the changes in global temperatures with natural factors, and that we can equally use the natural factors to successfully forecast upcoming seasons - something which the dynamical CO2-driven models have shown they are incapable of reliably doing.

How bad is this situation? The abomination called the NCA report, led by UCS environmental ‘scientist’ lightweights, even claims it is now possible to find human attribution without detection. In other words, even when nothing really unusual seems to be happening, human influence is there! Like Senator Stabenow of Michigan who says she senses global warming and climate change every time she flies - in an airplane we hope!

Unfortunately, climate alarmism is embedded in the deep state mentality. Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, Republican from Indiana in written testimony very recently warned of the potential for “abrupt climate change,” Coats’ testimony said the past 115 years have been the warmest period in the history of modern civilization. He also asserted, based on intelligence information, that climatic changes could result in far-reaching global disruption.  Not to be outgunned, a new report by the allegedly non-partisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) addressing “evolving assessments” of human’s contribution to climate change concludes that there now is high confidence that human influence is the dominant cause, issuing a rebuke to climate skeptics in Congress and in the Trump administration.

The reason so many of the scientists who have worked for years in their specialty areas to understand how and why weather and climate cycles happen are so concerned about this climate alarmism is because we can explain using rigorous scientific methods all of the changes in temperature and weather w/o GHGs. We see data being manipulated to fit theory instead of applying the scientific method and rethinking theory when data shows it is wrong

That is why the group of specialists cited in the Press Release below was formed and all of the time and effort provided PRO BONO by scientists and lawyers. Our work demonstrates that President Trump’s initial instincts were correct. This has been a cruel hoax. However, as Paul Driessen writes here “With trillions of dollars in research money, power, prestige, renewable energy subsidies, wealth redistribution schemes, and dreams of international governance on the line, the $1.5-trillion-per-year Climate Industrial Complex is not taking the situation lightly. Climate fear-mongering is in full swing.” Notwithstanding this effort, our specialist teams’ work continues to show with real data that climate change is neither catastrophic or man-made.

PRESS RELEASE: February 20, 2018


1.  Just Released, new research findings demonstrate that Ten Frequent Climate Alarmists’ Claims have each been Rebutted by true experts in each Field by simply citing the most relevant and credible empirical data.

2.  The new results invalidate 10 very frequent Alarmist Claims in recent years, and thereby also invalidate the so-called “lines of evidence” on which EPA claimed to base its 2009 CO2 Endangerment Finding.

3.  If the Endangerment Finding is not vacated, whether the current administration likes it or not, it is certain that electric utility, automotive and many other industries will face ongoing EPA CO2 regulation.

4.  This scientifically illiterate basis for regulation will raise U.S. energy prices thereby reducing economic growth, jobs and national security.

February 20, 2018

On February 9, 2018, The Concerned Household Electricity Consumers Council (CHECC) submitted a fifth Supplement to their Petition to provide additional new highly relevant and credible information. (See: EF CPP Fifth Supplement to Petition for Recon FINAL020918 ) It relates to variables other than temperature describing the Earth’s Climate System. With each of EPA’s three Lines of Evidence purporting to support their 2009 Endangerment Finding already shown in the CHECC petition and its first 2 Supplements to be invalid, EPA has no proof whatsoever that CO2 has had a statistically significant impact on global temperatures.

The Council’s original Petition (here and First Supplement to Petition (here ) demonstrated that the Endangerment Finding is nothing more than assumptions that have each been disproved by the most relevant empirical evidence from the real world. The original Petition was substantially based on a major peer-reviewed 2016 scientific paper by James Wallace, John Christy and Joseph D’Aleo (Wallace 2016) that analyzed the best available temperature data sets and “failed to find that the steadily rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 13 critically important tropical and global temperature time series data sets analyzed.” The full text of Wallace 2016 may be found here .

First Supplement to Petition was substantially based on a new April 2017 peer reviewed scientific paper, also from the same authors (Wallace 2017A). Wallace 2017A can be found here Wallace 2017A concluded that once impacts of natural factors such as solar, volcanic and ENSO activity are accounted for, there is no “natural factor adjusted” warming remaining to be attributed to rising atmospheric CO2 levels.

The Second Supplement to the Petition relied on a third new major peer reviewed scientific paper from James Wallace, Joseph D’Aleo and Craig Idso, published in June 2017 (Wallace 2017B). Wallace 2017B analyzes the GAST data issued by U.S. agencies NASA and NOAA, as well as British group Hadley CRU. (Wallace 2017B can be found here.  In this research report past changes in the previously reported historical data are quantified. It was found that each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history. And, this result was nearly always accomplished by each entity systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern. This was true for all three entities providing GAST data measurement, NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU.

The Second Supplement to Petition states: Adjustments that impart an ever-steeper upward trend in the data by removing the natural cyclical temperature patterns present in the data deprive the GAST products from NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU of the credibility required for policymaking or climate modeling, particularly when they are relied on to drive trillions of dollars in expenditures.

The invalidation of the adjusted GAST data knocked yet another essential pillar out from under the lines of evidence that are the claimed foundation of the Endangerment Finding. As the Second Supplement to Petition stated: It is therefore inescapable that if the official GAST data from NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU are invalid, then both the “basic physical understanding” of climate and the climate models will also be invalid.

The scientific invalidity of the Endangerment Finding becomes more blindingly obvious and undeniable with each day’s accumulation of reliable empirical data and, the willingness of more scientists to come forward with such new evidence (here. Perhaps recognizing this fact, Climate Alarmists have over time gone from focusing on Global Warming, to Climate Change to simply fear of Carbon. Thus, this research sought to determine the credibility of Ten (10) very frequently cited Climate Alarmists Claims.

Below are Rebuttals to each of these ten typical climate alarmists’ claims. The rebuttal authors are all recognized experts on their topic and each rebuttal demonstrates the claim fallacy by merely citing the most credible empirical data. For a in depth summary of the alarmist claim rebuttal and linkage to the full reports see here.

Claim #1: Heat Waves are increasing at an alarming rate and heat kills
For Rebuttal and Author Credentials See:  EF_RRT_AC - Heat Waves

Claim #2: Global warming is causing more hurricanes and stronger hurricanes
For Rebuttal and Author Credentials See:  EF_RRT_AC - Hurricanes

Claim #3: Global warming is causing more and stronger tornadoes
For Rebuttal and Author Credentials See: EF_RRT_CA - Tornadoes

Claim #4: Global warming is increasing the magnitude and frequency of droughts and floods.
For Rebuttal and Author Credentials See: EF_RRT_AC - Droughts and Floods

Claim #5: Global Warming has increased U.S. Wildfires
For Rebuttal and Author Credentials See: EF_RRT_AC - Wildfires

Claim #6: Global warming is causing snow to disappear
For Rebuttal and Author Credentials See:  EF_RRT_CA - Snow

Claim #7: Global warming is resulting in rising sea levels as seen in both tide gauge and satellite technology
For Rebuttal and Author Credentials See: EF_RRT_CA - Sea Level

Claim #8:  Arctic, Antarctic and Greenland ice loss is accelerating due to global warming
For Rebuttal and Author Credentials See: EF_RRT_AC - Arctic, Antarctic, Greenland 123117

Claim #9: Rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations are causing ocean acidification, which is catastrophically harming marine life
For Rebuttal and Author Credentials See: EF_RRT_CA - Ocean pH

Claim #10: Carbon pollution is a health hazard
For Rebuttal and Author Credentials See: EF_RRT_AC - Health


The invalidation of the three lines of evidence upon which EPA attributes global warming to human GHG emissions breaks the causal link between human GHG emissions and global warming. This in turn necessarily breaks the causal chain between human GHG emissions and the alleged knock-on effects of global warming, such as loss of Arctic ice, increased sea level, and increased heat waves, floods, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc.

Nevertheless, these alleged downstream effects are constantly cited to whip up alarm and create demands for ever tighter regulation of GHG emissions involving all fossil fuels, not just coal. EPA explicitly relied on predicted increases in such events to justify the Endangerment Finding. But there is no evidence to support such Alarmist Claims, and copious empirical evidence that refutes them. The enormous cost and essentially limitless scope of the government’s regulatory authority over GHG emissions cannot lawfully rest upon a collection of scary stories that are conclusively disproven by readily available empirical data.

The scientific invalidity of the Endangerment Finding becomes more blindingly obvious and undeniable with each day’s accumulation of reliable empirical data. It is time for an honest and rigorous scientific re-evaluation of the 2009 CO2 Endangerment Finding. The nation has been taken down a tragically foolish path of pointless GHG/CO2 regulations and wasteful mal-investments to “solve” a problem which does not actually exist. Our leaders must summon the courage to acknowledge the truth and act accordingly.

The legal criteria for reconsidering the Endangerment Finding are clearly present in this case. The scientific foundation of the Endangerment Finding has been invalidated. The parade of horrible calamities that the Endangerment Finding predicts and that a vast program of regulation seeks to prevent have been comprehensively and conclusively refuted by empirical data. The Petition for Reconsideration should be granted.

The Council brought its Petition because the Obama-era greenhouse gas regulations threaten, as President Obama himself conceded, to make the price of electricity “skyrocket.” But clearly CO2 regulation does not just raise electricity prices, it raises all fossil fuel prices. America can have, and must have, the lowest possible energy costs in order to attain and maintain its energy, economic and national security.

Media Contacts:

Harry W. MacDougald
Caldwell Propst & DeLoach LLP
Two Ravinia Drive, Suite 1600
Atlanta, Georgia 30346
(404) 843-1956

Francis Menton
Law Office of Francis Menton
85 Broad Street, 18th floor
New York, New York 10004
(212) 627-1796

Feb 18, 2018
How To Change Minds On The Subject Of Climate Hysteria

By Francis Menton, Manhattan Contrarian

Regular readers here will know that one of the things I do in my semi-retirement is represent a group of scientists who are appalled by what masquerades under the name of “science” in popular discourse about climate change.  Our effort in various venues is to educate as to the ways in which the so-called “scientific consensus” of impending catastrophic global warming is not scientific at all, and is the opposite of science. 

It’s not just that “consensus” is irrelevant to real science, and can frequently be overturned.  It’s that there’s an entire suite of criteria by which the promotion of climate hysteria departs from science and the scientific method:  For example, where is the falsifiable hypothesis?  What is the null hypothesis?  What are that data that, if they emerged, would be conceded to falsify the falsifiable hypothesis?  In lieu of a hypothesis that can be falsified, we find frequent assertions that literally everything—including facts that are the direct opposite of each other—constitutes proof that global warming “is occurring” and will inevitably have catastrophic effects.  One day there is a claim that snow will be a thing of the past (it’s getting warmer!) and the next day a big snow storm is claimed as evidence of the damaging effects of global warming (we told you to expect more extreme weather!).  One day a drought is claimed as evidence of catastrophic effects of global warming, and the next day it’s a flood being claimed as evidence of the same.  Meanwhile, has there been any actual verification of a falsifiable hypothesis—and is it a verification that can be replicated by others?  And, why are critical data being cherry-picked and/or altered to support the “consensus”?

We all learned the fundamentals of the scientific method back in high school, or even junior high school.  Isn’t it obvious to everyone that the antics of climate change alarm promoters are unscientific and anti-scientific?

Unfortunately, as I frequently point out to my colleagues, on important political issues, very few human minds can be changed by mere reason and logic, no matter how ironclad that reason and logic may be.  We may think we are creatures of reason, but that’s only a veneer.  The famous quote is attributed to Jonathan Swift: 

“Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired.”

On the other hand, there are things that can persuade even those who are very difficult to persuade.  Consider, for example, how your views of intermittent “renewable” energy sources as a remedy for climate change might be affected by a tripling—or maybe a quintupling—of your electricity bill.  Then throw in a few power blackouts for good measure.  And finally, let the information seep through that emissions aren’t even going down!  Which brings us back to the case of Germany.

As I noted in this post back in November, as recently as 2015 there was no political party of any significance anywhere in Europe that stood against climate change hysteria and against the huge increases in wind and solar power generation claimed necessary to save us from climate disaster.  Work by Norwegian political scientist Sondre Batstrand, summarized here in the Guardian in October 2015, had concluded that “the US Republican Party stands alone in its rejection of the need to tackle climate change and efforts to become the party of climate supervillains.” In Germany, as recently as last year, no political party representing a dissenting position on any aspect of the climate “consensus” held a single seat in the Bundestag.  But Germany’s Energiewende ("energy transition"), instituted in 2010, had caused Germany’s consumer electricity prices to skyrocket since the prior national elections in 2013. 

Then, in the September 2017 elections, two parties thought to represent climate skepticism at least to some degree—the FDP (Free Democrats) and AfD (Alliance for Germany)—suddenly won some 24.6% of the seats in the Bundestag.  OK, but exactly how serious are these people in their climate skepticism?  We learn about that from an excellent post today at the site NoTricksZone, titled “Green energy opposition becoming formidable force in Germany.”

It appears that over the past couple of weeks, two young members of the Bundestag, one from the FDP and the other from AfD, made their first speeches in the parliament, and chose the subject of climate.  Videos of their speeches are included at the link, but I won’t embed them here, because they are in German and I assume that few readers could understand them.  However, Pierre Gosselin of NTZ clearly understands the language, and provides translations and paraphrases of some extended excerpts.

From Sandra Weeser of FDP:

In her speech Weeser points out that despite the rapidly growing green energy capacity being installed, the effort to reduce CO2 has failed, and what’s left is an unpredictable power grid that often produces energy when it is not needed (waste energy) and thus costing Germans hundreds of millions annually.  She also accuses the established politicians of ignoring citizens as they ruin Germany’s landscape with wind parks.

“Interestingly it is often Green party voters who we find themselves among wind park protesters. In their daily lives these people are recognizing that what is being sold as green electricity in fact has nothing to do with being green. They are rejecting the industrial turbines in forests."…

Weeser also dismisses claims by the Green Party that wind energy is “the most inexpensive” on the market, asking them directly: “If that is really true, then why do they need subsidies? Why are we paying 25 billion euros annually for their feed-in?”

From Dr. Rainer Kraft of AfD:

Kraft slams the government’s climate-protection approach of spending “15 euros to avoid 1 euro of damage” as a policy one would expect from “a fool.” Adding: “there just couldn’t be less scientific understanding than that.” Echoing Donald Trump’s ideas on international treaties, Kraft also sees them as being ruinous to German industry, and that the ultimate target of climate protection is to establish “an eco-socialist centrally-planned economy” and that climate protection is the “instrument” to bring it about.  He then labeled the Greens’ energy policy as “eco-populist voodoo.”

Gosselin concludes:

[E]xpect the traditional established parties to continue seeing the unheard of erosion among their disenchanted voter bases. Never has postwar Germany seen a political shift on such a massive scale… Though 25% may not sound impressive, it is amazing when one considers that only a decade ago there was virtually universal parliamentary support for green energies. Those days are over.  And now as the failure of the Energiewende becomes ever more glaring, reaching the political tipping point on the issue of the Energiewende is just a question of a few more years.

By the way, according to this post on Clean Energy Wire on January 5, Germany got the percent of its electricity from “renewables” all the way up to 36.1% in 2017, from about 32.3% in 2016.  Oh, but its total CO2 emissions actually increased.

[T]he country’s total emissions stagnated for the third year in a row, because more oil and gas were used in transport, heating and industry…

Unfortunately, changing minds in Germany has required the people to act as guinea pigs for a decade or so in the grand experiment in “eco-populist voodoo.” The same method will work equally well in the U.S.  Sadly, I appear to live in one of the places whose residents are among the designated guinea pigs.

Page 1 of 623 pages  1 2 3 >  Last »