by Judith Curry
Carly Fiorina shows how to address the left on climate change.
The National Review has an interesting article on Republican Presidential candidate Carly Fiorina’s views on climate change. Excerpts:
In the political battles over climate change, there are three distinct and relevant questions:
- First, does mankind have a material effect on the Earth’s climate?
- Second, if mankind does impact the climate, is that impact harmful?
- And third, if we assume that mankind is harming the environment, will any given American policy or collection of policies have a meaningful beneficial impact?
So far, the conservative movement has mainly pushed back on the “scientific consensus” related to the first question — the extent of human influence over the Earth’s climate. To see a textbook example, watch Ted Cruz’s recent interview with Katie Couric earlier this year, when he confronted her with the miserable recent history of environmentalist predictions. (JC note: Ted Cruz’s climate change statement was discussed on this previous post).
But is there a path to consensus in the third key political question, whether climate-change regulations will have any meaningful impact on the climate? Climate-change activists constantly say that “we have to start somewhere.” But what if in fact we’re starting nowhere? What if we’re asking Americans to sacrifice to no purpose? What if America can’t stop climate change?
That’s Carly Fiorina’s argument, and it may represent the best, and most easily defensible, path forward to consensus. Here she is, like Ted Cruz, making her case to Katie Couric.
JC note: Link to the original article to listen to Fiorina’s interview with Couric. She makes the following points: We need innovation rather than regulation – we need to make coal cleaner. We need to tell people the truth about tradeoffs and the fine print, about how wind power is slaughtering birds. Finds there to be many more serious threats than climate change – we need to keep climate change in perspective with other more serious issues facing us.
The short version of Fiorina’s argument is this: If the scientific consensus is that man-made climate change is real, there is also consensus that America, acting alone, cannot stop it. Indeed, the Chinese are only too happy to watch us constrict our economy as they capture the market in clean coal. California enacts regulations that will make no difference in global climate. The Obama administration enacts regulations that will make no difference in global climate. Yet Americans are asked to pay the price for — to take one example — climate regulations that, by 2030, would only save the world the equivalent of slightly over 13 days of Chinese emissions.
The Left doesn’t seriously dispute the notion that American regulations aren’t going to save the planet, but they justify the demand for American sacrifice by essentially ascribing a mystical power to our national policies — as if our decision to fall on our own sword will so move India and China and the rest of the developing world that they’ll essentially have their own “come to Jesus” movement in defiance of national interest and centuries of national political culture.
“America leads,” they proclaim. “The world laughs,” is the proper response. Nations, as the saying goes, do not have friends, only interests. Our geopolitical competitors will not sacrifice their strategic interests for the sake of combating global warming. Nor will developing nations sacrifice their economies, or their people’s lives, by restraining their own economic growth.
Americans have proven time and again that they’re willing to sacrifice — if convinced that their sacrifice has a purpose, that it accomplishes an objective. There’s certainly room for Cruz’s climate-change skepticism in the national debate, but there just may be more room for Fiorina’s economic, scientific, and geopolitical realism. The Left is asking America to sacrifice for nothing — for no true economic benefit, no true climate benefit, and no true or meaningful “global leadership.” That’s a bad deal even for those who believe in man-made climate change, yet that’s the “deal” the Left demands.
The debate on climate change needs to move to question #3, regarding whether the proposed policies will have any impact on the climate. Not just America’s contributions to reducing emissions, but the cumulative global INDCs. The answer is that it will not have any meaningful impact on the climate. Once this is accepted, then the climate change problem is open to reframing and pushing the ‘restart’ button.
As a political tactic, Carly Fiorina hits the sweet spot. She doesn’t challenge the scientific consensus, but rather focuses on the fact that if human caused climate change is real, we can’t stop it on the timescale of a few decades. Her emphasis on innovation rather than regulation is exactly on target; wind and solar just aren’t going to cut it.
Carly Fiorina hit a ‘home run’ in the first Republican debate and is starting to rise in the polls.
Carly Fiorina is very bright and has logic and common sense on her side in the climate change debate. Right now she is my pick for President for a host of reasons, not only her position on climate change. I would pay money to see her debate Hillary Clinton.
Nice article. This s what I hoped a political would one day say when I wrote this.
What I hoped a major politician would say.
Carly Fiorina sees what’s going on… in exchange for the loss of productivity and jobs and the misallocation of scarce resources, the Left can go to bed at night feeling good about saving the world as birds are being incinerated by solar power plants in the Mohave desert or turned to mincemeat in giant spinning wind turbines.
“We need innovation rather than regulation – we need to make coal cleaner.”
That’s not bad, but “we need to make coal cleaner, not necessarily for our expanded use, but to set standards for global use. ”
This is where the EPA screwed up. A fairly small fraction of older US coal fired power plants produce the majority of coal use related pollution and had the EPA focused on a more rational sequence of improvements instead of the “we will bankrupt them”, the EPA could have at least appeared to be a dedicated, somewhat apolitical entity.
I have a question. Let’s say the EPA is right, CO2 is bad. Let’s also assume the USA should declare it’s ready to cut emissions if others do their part. Did the USA government REALLY give an environment protection agency to dictate energy policy? Or is this more properly handled by the department of energy? I ask because I’ve dealt with environment agencies and ministries in several countries and they never had the know how to design energy policy. Is the USA congress really that dumb?
fernando, “Is the USA congress really that dumb?”
I would have to say, pretty much. The EPA set the Yucca mountain background radiation level so low that the NRC just shook their heads.
Congress is full of Pakleds
Good point Capt.
The Japanese are already at work making this happen.
Mark, I believe what we have is best described as a global cluster pluck.
It’s interesting to watch Fiorina’s interview with Couric. It looked to me like she had gotten Couric’s attention and maybe even got her thinking a bit. Contrast this with the way Couric reacted to ted Cruz in the other interview highlighted in the NRO article by David French.
Fiorina is right but a lot of us have been saying the same thing for years.
Meanwhile, the climate itself is demonstrating that we don’t have any measurable effect anyway.
The voters know the truth and are just biding their time until the next opportunity to vote.
It’s not just what Fiorina said, but the way she said it and the way she came across in the interview was remarkable.
The voters need someone like her to reinforce the truth and give them something to vote for.
I know she’s a long shot, but she’s jumped the queue in my book.
I could definitely support Fiorina. She’s for securing the border, and like Trump, has conducted business internationally. It’s a plus that she’s more low-key.
Securing the border really needs to be top priority. I’ve always been surprised to see how casually its treated by politicians from both parties.
The left is so far off beam with their frantic attempts to gain absolute power on the back of the climate alarmist farrago (after the blatant failure of leftist politics in every nation that ever tried it) that it just needs a few reasonable, rational, middle of the road politicians to point out the obvious in mild and temperate language for the entire leftist mindset to collapse in confusion.
I hope we see more, similarly pragmatic, politicians come to the fore in western societies as time goes by.
There is an open goal available to us against the residue of 60’s leftism just inviting well targeted realism.
I’ve spent my entire life watching the damage caused by such (usually featherbedded upper and middle class privileged) 60’s idiots and welcome their early political demise.
Weird to see a ‘black’ POTUS embracing such sterile nonsense but I suppose he had to go along with it in order to ingratiate himself with the prevailing powers that be and get elected in the first place.
Looks like he backed the wrong horse.
Still, he’ll get a good pension.
Strange, my comment is in moderation.
Could anyone say why ?
“I d i o t” is a word that trips the moderation meter. Bad luck.
I think there is room for the Cruz “stupid”. One can walk + chew gum.
Obviously, the hardline skep challenge won’t win over the likes of Couric. There is a solid wall of chatterati to make sure that the Climate Bubble remains inflated regardless of “whatsoever king may reign”. But one wonders what would happen if a candidate could break through to the unwashed electorate with some full-blown skepticism.
But I agree one may have to settle for crypto-skeps. Big Green is an 800 pound gorilla pretending to be Bambi. If it has to be starved rather than splattered, so be it.
EPA is DOA after the Colorado mine spill. Congress can’t wait to get the EPA chief’s resignation.
Wonder how many of Carly’s HP strategic plans were implemented under Meg’s leadership? Carly might have been 5-10 years ahead in her vision and the HP Board gave her the boot because of Wall Street quarterly earning mentality.
In any event, Carly has her head on straight, can read poker cards that are face down, and will be able to go toe to toe with Trump on running a business. The other republicans are light-weights when it comes to business and are clueless on climate and science.
Yep, the EPA is DOA so they are gonna tell us the river is ok now. If so why do we need an EPA?
Did The EPA Intentionally Poison Animas River To Secure SuperFund Money?
Let’s call it what it is: the Environmental Pollution Agency!
Amazing, why is this not all over the MSM? The EPA incompetence causes a huge ecological disaster AND it was predicted by a knowledgeable citizen prior to the event. The prediction was based on the simple math of water flow rates and pressure and a knowledge of local geology.
This desperate attempt to “find” a superfund site coupled with the gross incompetence of the EPA has poisoned the water for everyone downstream of the site. Imagine the self-righteous outrage we would be getting from Gina McCarthy and the Obama administration if this were caused by a private corporation.
And what do we get from the MSM? Oh ick, the water is yellow. Gross it looks like mustard. Up next in important news, Kanye hugs Caitlyn.
I am watching the local TV news while reading CE, right after I posted the above comment, they mentioned that toxic chemicals continue to flow downstream, no mention of the EPA causing the disaster, no mention that the EPA actions were so obviously dangerous that they were predicted by an informed citizen prior to the incident. They gave this story 10 seconds.
The next story, a cake company doesn’t want to participate in a gay wedding. They spent way more time on the gay cake non-story, than on the EPA causing an ecological disaster. We are doomed….
Interesting take on Fiorina’s corporate record and how it might relate to her ability as a president from Holman Jenkins in the Wall Street Journal:
Judy, I have been making the “innovation in the marketplace” argument, since I started working for an large scale innovative energy efficiency company that eventually went public in 2008. Even after I “retired” in 2009,” I have been singing from the same hymnal at NARUC and other energy conferences.
Ask China if a country can control and/or dictate markets!
Carly Fiorina shows the best common sense overall grasp of issues and strategic importance I have heard.
Roy Spencer adds the common sense complement on the climate change facts. e.g. Interview with on Varney.
I don’t agree with Dr. Curry’s first sentence. The term “the left” doesn’t apply anymore in the US since the two political parties have effectively merged. Assuming the single party has two wings, the GOP wing of the democrat party is the only entity on the planet that can stop the Democrat wing of the democrat party. But why would they want to stop a $2 billion a day cash cow? Everyone including the GOP E knows CO2 danger doesn’t exist and even if it did the US can’t stop it. The global climate finance ATM was set up in 1990 by George Bush #1. It placed climate danger funding in the Executive branch and 13+ fed. agencies which are out of reach of congress and voters.
+100 – and Obumbles.
“And third, if we assume that mankind is harming the environment, will any given American policy or collection of policies have a meaningful beneficial impact?”
That’s exactly what is wrong with their argument. They assume it is yes or no to an American policy in a vacuum. This is the exact reason everyone else is talking about international agreements, but that is completely missed as an option here. The logical third point is that this is a global problem and the solution is to look for international agreements to reduce emissions over the next few decades. Instead they are saying, we’re too small, there’s no solution we can even think of, so let’s just give up. The US planned reduction rate if implemented by other nations globally actually would avoid a significant amount of warming. Global reduction rates only have to average 2% of today’s emission rate per year, and the 2 C target is almost met. Plus costing it out shows that a robust mitigation plan is more effective than adaptation to rising temperatures continuing through the end of the century.
That’s not what she’s saying. She’s just saying there are other options in place of your socialist agenda.
I saw no solution from her, not even an inkling of one, or any idea about the process that is actually going on in other industrialized countries. It’s like blinders.
“It’s like blinders.”
Yes, do take them off.
A solution is not needed.
AGW can not be shown to be a “problem” that requires a solution.
JimD turns a blind eye to the fact that China and India will burn whatever they have to in order to prevent uprisings. I guess he considers solutions to the “CO2 “problem”” as he sits in his Lazy Boy sipping a dry Chardonnay.
You gave up too easily on China and India. They have larger corners to turn, but they can bend their emissions down too. Getting global emissions down by 2% per year is doable, but only with effort by everyone, which is why international agreements are so obviously needed at this stage.
And he turns the other blind eye. Nice work, yimmy.
Those countries can both do solar, hydro and nuclear, and you won’t even ask them to try for their part in a global agreement.
You have lost all sense if you believe total emissions from China and India will decline on a long term basis for the next few decades.
You have lost all sense if you believe total emissions from China and India will decline on a long term basis for the next few decades.
India no. China, however, has already turned and demographics ensure emissions will continue to fall for decades.
This should become obvious soon. so hopefully we can forget about government crusades and pushes to expensive inefficient renewables.
Plus, if Obama’s plan is implemented internationally, billions of people living in poverty (real poverty, not US poverty) will save $85 on their annual energy bill.
As if by magic.
I’m sure we can come to some sort of international agreement. We give up everything. They give up nothing. We pay them to do it.
We only gain energy independence and reduce energy costs, but you can count that as nothing.
We get pie in the sky.
Jim, I know I know, it’s such a great deal to decarbonize I’m shocked we haven’t done it already. You know what we need? Leaders! We need people that can lead through the decarbonization. Not talk us through it or fly all over the world telling us how and why we shouldn’t be flying all over the world, but someone actually living the dream. A village in northern Minnesota powered by wind and solar and all the vehicles could be electric. Maybe stick a factory there too so the people have gainful employment. I’m thinking a tie dye tee-shirt plant might be appropriate. Then after the first winter when it warms up in the spring we can send in the rescue vehicles and ask the survivors how it went. It will be inspirational and we will all want to be just like them.
All of those are better than a jobs program that has people digging up increasingly uncompetitive coal over the next few decades.
So no leaders? I guess we are doomed. Oh well, on the bright side at least we won’t be paying anyone to be doomed like we would if the JV team made another deal for us.
“I’m sure we can come to some sort of international agreement. We give up everything. They give up nothing. We pay them to do it.”
Funny…but sad. I wish we had The Three Stooges to satirize this! :)
You make that sound so easy, yimmy. I wonder why the
What happened. Anyway, you should send a note to Obumbles. His plan is useless. Are you as depressed, or more depressed than appell? It’s got to be very frustrating on your side, yimmy.
Clean coal is OK. That is what the EPA CPP is doing. She should support that at least. Otherwise, what does she mean when she says clean coal, if not coal cleaned up of its emissions? Maybe she likes the phrase, because you can support both sides with it, but doesn’t know what that entails for the dirty coal plants.
The emissions are the CO2 released by burning the coal cleanly. The EPA mandate is that coal plants have to be close to 70 percent efficient., which is completley out of reach of any Rankin cycle, and probably out of reach of a Kalina cycle. I’m working on a way to get there with a split-cycle Ericsson engine, but it’s going to take refractories and molten pistons because the combustion temperatures will be very, very high. On the bright side, if it works, your energy bill should drop in half while all the renewable firms go bankrupt.
The “EPA CPP” is doing a lot more, and a lot worse, than that.
Very good! But I would like to point out the Left doesn’t care about the facts. The only thing that matters to them is if information helps their narrative. To the Left there are no facts, only differences of opinion (unless information helps their narrative). David Horowitz has written numerous books on this and I would put his writings on everyone’s reading short list.
The discussion of hucksterism was actually in the previous post.
As my second Ex-Wife put it, “Facts, stupid facts, don’t bother me with the stupid facts.” Within a few months, I was out of this relationship back in 1988. Yes, I have emotional scars!
“Yet Americans are asked to pay the price for — to take one example — climate regulations that, by 2030, would only save the world the equivalent of slightly over 13 days of Chinese emissions.”
I wonder where this figure might have come from. I can’t find it anywhere else. Currently, the rate of total Chinese emissions is twice that of the U.S.A. (while it’s slightly less than half, per capita). This means that it is assumed that the proposed regulations would preempt only 26 days of U.S.A emissions by 2030. This is less that one half of one percent. Are the proposed regulations really expected to have such a small effect of U.S.A. emissions? Also, what’s special about 2030?
Hello! They are building coal plants at the rate of one per week!
“Hello! They are building coal plants at the rate of one per week!”
That doesn’t tell me where the figure comes from. Did Fiorina mean to compare the targeted reduction in U.S. emissions (about 32% below 2005 levels) to Chinese emissions in 2030 assuming that those would be increased more than twentyfold in the next 15 years? I am unsure how else to make sense of her comparison.
See the recent announcement of the Berkely Earth paper on pollution in China. Mucho coal. OTOH, the USA has been replacing coal with nat gas, so emissions are down. Ironically, the best thing for the atmosphere would be to move more manufacturing to the USA.
That still doesn’t explain where Fiorina’s number comes from. It seems wildly off the mark unless you believe China’s CO2 emissions will grow to 20 times the current level in just 15 years. (That would make them 10 times the current U.S.A. emissions, per capita).
Its good to have a rational political candidate in the hustings. Obama seemed to be when he was a candidate too but then something changed while he has been in office.
Peter, I thought that candidate Obama refrained from linking himself to specific stances, he essentially presented a blank slate on which people could perceive support for their preferred position. I welcomed his election at the time, as an indication of the strength of the US polity, but knew that many who voted for him would be disappointed when he didn’t adopt their pet agendas. Surprised though that he was re-elected, as he was already showing his many weaknesses. A bit like the ALP sneaking back in in 2010. Faustino
No credible alternative candidate left the voters no choice but to return Obama, not to mention the large numbers of voters relying on big gov handouts wouldn’t be keen on GOP.
==> “not to mention the large numbers of voters relying on big gov handouts wouldn’t be keen on GOP.”
You do realize that a great number of Republican voters depend on government “handouts,” don’t you?
And you do realize that corporate welfare is very attractive to many GOP supporters, don’t you?
Perhaps you can be excused for your erroneous thinking by virtue of not being American?
The little moderated dude with the unmentionable pseudonym is back. Those of us who pay taxes and large contributions into Soc Sec and Medicare programs don’t feel too bad about taking the entitlements we have paid for. That’s our money.
What we don’t like are the millions of loafers on the hideously increasing disability rolls, and those among the long-term unemployed who will take the money as long as it is offered, while they make dough under the table. And don’t get us started on the ladies who have 9 babies from 22 different daddies. Obama phones, other folks insurance premiums, we could go on and on.
The worst part is that all the lazy good for nothing grossly overpaid and pampered gubmint employees that are supposed to efficiently administer the entitlement programs are good at turning a blind eye to the rampant f—d.
You might find this interesting:
Try comparing that to Don’s rhetoric.
What do you think?
Romney was good. Gov of the bluest state, executive, massive contributions to charity but too modest to toot his horn. Sadly, he was a Harvey Milktoast in a street fight and Obama played to win. The 47% comment, recorded by Jimmy Carter’s grandson, didn’t help. He told the truth, but you can’t do that. He would have been a better POTUS than Barry. It ‘s going to take many years to dig out of his hole.
Hello Joshua nice to see you back again. You are right about my rather poor creds to talk about US politics. I can only refer you to http://www.cnbc.com/id/49481081 as something that would have been read by outsiders which may have given us the wrong impression.
I mentioned the J word so first post is in moderation. Here is another link that seems to indicate that perceptions of GOP policies on welfare payments were problematic for Mitt Romney in his election bid.
It might help to include the link this time. Apologies.
I had to google Obama phones as I had never heard of them. Free phones?! What’s that all about. Are they very expensive over there? Free TV? Free Cars? what next?
Does the US suddenly think its Sweden or something?
For those who don’t work and pay taxes, all kind of stuff is free here Tony. Obama phones, school lunches (and they say you can’t get a free lunch), sex change operations, crummy housing in an exciting war zone, methadone, you can sell your EBT card for cash and buy whatever street candy you prefer, guns, a hoopty. Generations of so-called beneficiaries are degraded, demoralized and doomed to the underclass life, but what can you do. I been through that. Grew up on welfare in a gubmint project in Detroit. If I hadn’t had the advantage of being tall, white and handsome odds are I would still be there.
I can see that you are handsome, but I will have to take the tall and white things on trust.
Our welfare state started in 1948 but is at last being reined back as the undeserving and the deserving both claim benefits.
When did your welfare benefits really start to escalate?
Whoever they choose will have same full slate of Republican viewpoints down the line, and, in the end, it is that slate, not the person, that makes them unelectable because of the many different ways they alienate so much of the population with their ideology.
Obama’s performance is not that surprising if a person did any research at all into his background. He had the most liberal voting record in the senate…..of anyone. He sat in reverend Wrights America hating church and he was good friends with Bill Ayers…..Weather Underground bomber.
As the ACA author clearly stated, the voters are stoopit. Not the left, they liked O., nor the right, they voted Rep. or not at all, but rather the indecisive who voted for a candidate they did not really understand. The libertarians didn’t help either.
Obama’s agenda was obvious from the outset but many wouldn’t believe it. Limousine liberals swayed by the romance of electing a “black” man President. Well, we got the Manchurian Candidate in more ways than one.
While Obama obfuscated and misled until he could run no more, Fiorina comes across as saying what she believes. I might be naive about this, but for now I am giving her the benefit of the doubt.
Massive toxic algae bloom reaches from California to Alaska
“CO2 is plant food.” It’s also algae food.
Carly Fiorina is the best candidate in the race, by far. I hope I get a chance to vote for her.
On the other hand, I would not vote for Trump, Clinton, Cruz, Sanders, Santorum, or Biden under any circumstances.
“On the other hand, I would not vote for Trump, Clinton, Cruz, Sanders, Santorum, or Biden under any circumstances.”
In which case you are voting for the Left’s candidate. It is a mistake to think that your not casting a vote does nothing. It helps elect the opposite candidate.
Carly’s got my vote (well, she would if I had one).
Ditto. Furthermore, my sincere hope is that, here in Canada, Harper has taken the time to watch how she handles just about everyone and everything – and learns some important lessons from her, long before our Federal election in mid-October.
I’ve watched several of her interviews now; and to my mind she represents that which has been so very lacking in more and more democratic election battles in the last 20 years or so: a return to … wait for it … common sense!
My wish for U.S. voters – particularly those who (for whatever reason) are convinced that it’s time for a woman President: A debate between Hillary Clinton and Carly Fiorina.
My prediction of the outcome: Fiorina wins by several solid and indisputable country miles!
In Ms. Fiorina interview she stated that “solar is great but solar requires a lot of water and there isn’t a lot of water where solar works well”.
I don’t understand her statement on solar.
The panels need to be washed in order to maintain efficiency, especially in dry areas.
“…panels need to be washed…”
True, even on Mars.
I discussed this when she first said it last week. In gallons per MWh provided their use of water is about one percent of their customers’ household water usage rate per unit energy consumed. It was a red herring. I can only think she was confused with fracking or something.
I’m not sure what she meant by that, water is the least of solar’s problems. Also, bird killing is not the biggest problem for wind. Both technologies have much bigger negatives.
Power lines are pretty bad for birds too, but we got by with them somehow.
Windmills require more power lines. We put them in rural areas.
I suppose it’s 20 gallons per megawatt hour. But a desert is a good place for solar. Nevertheless, it wasn’t her strongest point.
It was a big, fat lie in a public interview. Any retraction yet?
If I am in a desert, relatively it’s a lot of water. I’d appreciate a clarification from her.
Agreed Ragnaar. Its all relative because “a lot of water” means different things in different contexts I suppose.
Thanks to KenW and Stephen Segrest for clearing this up and showing very clearly that solar thermal systems have some water requirements that can be problematic.
Now we know that Jim D’s accusation of a “big, fat lie” was without merit. I’ll be waiting for a retraction and apology.
Good catch. Someone needs to get her straight on this. Solar has plenty of other short comings she can cite.
That was the only part that sounded “off” to me. I don’t know what she meant and I hope that part of her message gets clarified, dropped or replaced. But to the theories of what she may have meant (if not a pure mistake). I’ll add that maybe she was referring to hydro? As if you have a bunch of spare hydro the intermittency of solar is not so bad. If that were her point storage would be more accurate, but that might lead to discussions as to why batteries don’t work well and the back to lack of water resources for hydro storage. But overall excellent well said presentation that despite this glitch was far more intelligent than what we’ve been hearing,
Some solar does require lots of water. She was probably referring to this
These articles are from 2009 however. I haven’t seen anything on the topic lately.
Ken W — Thanks, I thought the N.Y. Times story was very good. But as you said, it was written 6 years ago.
MIT Review has a more recent story on this topic: http://www.technologyreview.com/news/523856/solar-thermal-technology-poses-challenges-for-drought-stricken-california/
From the MIT article, I get the impression that this problem was largely resolved by using “Dry Cooling” (e.g., last sentence of MIT article).
Stephen, the MIT article is a good explanation.
That’s the thing about any thermal power source – you need not only a heat source, you also have to have a sink to dissipate the heat. The easiest way is by evaporating water, but that is a problem in many of the places where the sun shines the most.
The problem is “solvable” with dry cooling, but, from the article:
“Dry cooling technology costs from two and a half to five times more than conventional evaporative cooling systems. And it doesn’t work well on hot days,”
I wouldn’t call it “resolved”….
Also the last sentence:
“While dry cooling costs far more than conventional water cooling, it accounts for a relatively small part of the total cost of a plant—about five percent of around$2 billion.”
The fact that the plant costs $2 billion(!!!) seems not a good argument FOR dry cooling.
I was curious about this. Apparently they do require water, especially in deserts where it is least available
Whether that is a material consideration though is another matter
+ 1 Carly
I’m a bit confused. Do you really think what she said was sensible? As far as I can tell, it’s simply a claim that even though there might be a problem, there’s little we can do about it. This doesn’t seem particularly foreward thinking and optimistic. It also seems to ignore that our emissions are cumulative. Mitigation isn’t based on stopping climate change in the next few decades (whatevere that might actually mean) but having an emission pathway that ultimately keeps our cumulative emissions below some level (whatever that might be). Given that cumulative emissions are what will determine our overall warming, starting to address this earlier – rather than later – might be seen as a sensible option.
“I’m a bit confused.”
Perpetually. And more than a bit.
Actually, she’s just saying let’s not do the things you want to do about it. She keeps pointing to innovation, and that means that if we constrain the solutions to be low-impact, people will come up with low-impact solutions.
It’s a lot more “foreward thinking and optimistic” than most of the “solutions” currently on the table.
Again illustrating that you’re someone that should really just be ignored. Mind reading isn’t actually possible. You do know that, don’t you?
attp, “Again illustrating that you’re someone that should really just be ignored. Mind reading isn’t actually possible. You do know that, don’t you?”
You need to work on that mind reading thing if you deal with US politics :)
Basically, the current plan is most likely not going to be effective and has potentially high costs. Things not considered initially are producing the greatest savings, natural gas by fracking where fracking was opposed and nuclear power efficiency increases where nuclear power has been opposed. These two items forced the democratic plans to become more flexible. More flexibility and less anti-industry rhetoric is probably a better way to.
Well, I broadly agree with that but that doesn’t really seem to be what she said. It seemed more to be a “there’s no point”, rather than “I have a better option”.
Actually, it’s usually possible to determine a great deal more about what people think from what they say than most people realize.
It’s pretty hard to hide your socialist agenda from anybody who actually reads what you say. Anybody who repeatedly describes a certain set of proposed solutions as “wanting to do nothing” makes their agenda clear.
attp, “Well, I broadly agree with that but that doesn’t really seem to be what she said. It seemed more to be a “there’s no point”, rather than “I have a better option”
Think of it more as there is likely no point and while I cannot provided an better option, the system so far has and can in the future. It is called honesty, She don’t know the answer, just a better way to hunt for it.
That’s pretty much how I interpreted it. Hence my suggestion that it isn’t a particular positive message, it doesn’t have an alternative, and is simply a claim that what is being done is entirely pointless and damaging. To be clear, I’m not arguing that what’s being done isn’t pointless and damaging, but not providing some kind of viable alternative doesn’t come across as particularly forward thinking.
> She don’t know the answer.
Someone, somewhere knows one:
You just can’t make this up.
I think the mistake that you and many others here at CE make (reinforced by Obummer) is assuming that CAGW is the most important existential problem facing mankind. Fiorina did an excellent job of putting CAGW in the context of the really serious problems facing mankind and concluded that it doesn’t make it anywhere near the top tier. She didn’t advocate “doing nothing”, she suggested that wrecking our economy to show American leadership to the World was senseless.
Mark, the mistake that you – and many others who respond to my comments – make is to assume that they know what my views are. Typically, they don’t.
“I’m a bit confused.”
attp, ” I’m not arguing that what’s being done isn’t pointless and damaging, but not providing some kind of viable alternative doesn’t come across as particularly forward thinking.”
well, we could have a forward thinking, confident and wrong, but right now about the only thing you can be confident of is what is being planned isn’t going to be all that effective without a or a few technological break throughs. Using the most efficient and reliable options available now isn’t a bad approach.
As it is the CPP right now recommends “goals” instead of hard targets and attempts to avoid the nuclear option without really restricting it. Generation 4 nuclear, THE ultimate storage method and truly affordable solar are all dreams The EPA even had to give fracking a clean bill of health prior to releasing the CPP. I believe the UK is still pretty much anti-fracking and on the fence with nuclear.
For a Republican, just pointing out that fracking and nuclear have greatly out performed the favored wind and solar without Democratic blessing is enough.
+100 for Carly. Not because of the water thing but because if any Republican is elected they will have to have the moral resoluteness of a Margaret Thatcher to survive and by survive I mean not appease, capitulate or otherwise collapse in the face of a Tsunami unleashed by the Left to smear them and destroy them the way the Left does with everyone it doesn’t like.
As a Libertarian I’d find myself voting for Rand Paul, but here, it’s not just a matter of ideas.
Fiorina wins my vote and my help in getting her selected as the candidate to face the Left (which on some days seems mean).
She has moral resoluteness.
She is incredibly bright, has mastered a lot of material, is fluid in how she presents it, has a sense of humor she can call upon (highly underrated in surviving Washington and the Left), and understands that the conflict is broader and more fundamental than just issues over the climate or energy or any particular thing. She understands and is unafraid to cast this struggle in terms of the values that each side represents and she is fearless in taking the fight to the Left and calling them on their massive lie, their massive amount of BS. As she has said, ‘No punches are to be pulled.’ Something that seemed to be a genetic affliction with Romney after the first debate with Obama. He just seemed to collapse. If it were a movie I’d think someone threatened his family.
What catapulted Fiorina after the first debate was no one particular idea that she expressed but her overall presentation of herself as having intelligence, wit, savvy, strength and force of personality that could be strong without being nasty, could present an idea in a calm and matter of fact way without being dull.
As an atheist I don’t agree with all of what Fiorina represents but she stands so tall as a competent human being that I can’t help myself to want to support her.
“assume that they know what my views are”
It’s a typical troll tactic to play “guess what my views are” on the internet.
I fully agree with Carly Fiorina’s argument but am less hopeful it will have traction in any legal appeals. The courts and in particular the Supreme Court clearly chooses to not take positions on debates about the science but only on interpretation of existing law. They accepted and ruled in favor of CO2 being a pollutant hazardous to health in Massachusetts vs. EPA, April 2, 2007 (5-4 decision) so it now is legal fact via case law. The court defers to the administration to implement the law (same as with the Affordable Care Act). For this reason I am not optimistic that the courts will buy arguments that plead the case on whether / how new rules improvement the environment and health rather leaving up to the administration to do as they want to in implementing the existing law. This type of framing and discussion is in educating the public to make changes in the laws under the next president and Congress. Having said that, it might be possible, if the cost / benefit is clearly wacko, that the swing vote (i.e., Kennedy) “could” vote against the CPP making a 5-4 decision to reject.
Unfortunately we will probably get another Bush vs. Clinton
“Her emphasis on innovation rather than regulation is exactly on target; wind and solar just aren’t going to cut it.” – JC
Thank god Judith, as a climate scientist, doesn’t play ‘power politics’ with her expertise and weigh in, in a completely evidence free manner, on policy.
We can make a cleaner world but we need energy to do it. Lots of it. At the moment the choice is Nuke or Coal.
“… wind and solar just aren’t going to cut it.” – JC
That’s just a simple fact.
I totally agree with Judith’s assessment. I like Carly Fiorina as a candidate. If Bernie runs, he loses. If Ms. Clinton runs she has almost half of the vote – many women will hold their noses and vote for her. If Ms. Fiorina runs I think she has a chance to win. She is smart and tough, I like her. The last seven years have been bruising.
I should add, Ms. Fiorina has executive experience and had a rough and tumble career in high-tech, which is a notorious boys club. Think brogrammers with inflated egos.
Easy to see why voters might like the lady. Watching Carlie debate and handle the MSM, I like the way she advances fast without bluster. And she just about always advances, even when being evasive (necessary against gotcha media).
When she talks of clean coal, better hope she means cleaner, more efficient coal handling and not carbon capture. Hombre, there’s a hell full of devils in that detail. Southern Co’s Kemper Plant is right up there with Woodchips-to-Drax and Flannery’s Geothermia as a money-gobbling green fetish for the ages. That particular stimulus baby has cost 6.1 billion so far – and bloating! All for 582 MW.
Here in Oz, our sorta conservative government is forming a “Green Army” to establish its green credentials. Lots of wholesome, freckly, vegemite-fed young Aussies doing dune restoration etc for the cameras. Truly embarrassing, but not as expensive or as potty as a country full of Kempers.
Maybe by “clean coal” Fiorina just means modern and high standard coal plants that don’t waste good coal. Fingers crossed.
Nonsense! That “6.1 billion so far” bought a lot more than just “582 MW.”
It’s going gangbusters…if you Just divide by the social whatever and subtract the offsets for whatever and then subtract the number you first thought of.
Politicians making pronouncements on innovation is like climate scientists quantifying uncertainty. Kind of missing the whole point. Let innovation be the province of bright, hungry, discontented, hormone-crazed dropouts in free garages in free countries. And let uncertainty be uncertain.
Maybe what the West needs now is a Coolidge or two. Won’t stop the Wilsons, Hoovers and Roosevelts doing their top-down wonder-boy thing…but it’ll give everyone a break for a while.
‘ Let uncertainty be uncertain.’ I like it! Say,
Care ter take over ‘Thought fer Terday’ moso?
I’m certain Tony and I can come ter a suitable
Show me the money.
Look we can’t supply the actual figures due
ter some unprecedented events and freedom
of information restrictions but we do have this
state of the art model spaghetti graph projection.
Will that do?
Some might say the thought for the day franchise has been the defining moment of their lives. Or is that declining?
Eveythin’ declines, tony, 2nd law of thermo-whatevah,
Spengler’s Decline of civilizashuns, the center cannot
*Things fall apart (.
She comes across as effortlessly sharp when speaking or giving interviews. Quantum level sharp-very impressive.
From across the pond I can only say that the majority of Republican hopefuls look pretty hopeless. I know nothing of Ms Fiorina other than a tv interview. She seems Ok, although in comparison with many of her rivals she seems almost magisterial. Time will tell..
This quote was interesting from two perspectives;
‘The Obama administration enacts regulations that will make no difference in global climate. Yet Americans are asked to pay the price for — to take one example — climate regulations that, by 2030, would only save the world the equivalent of slightly over 13 days of Chinese emissions.
The Left doesn’t seriously dispute the notion that American regulations aren’t going to save the planet, but they justify the demand for American sacrifice by essentially ascribing a mystical power to our national policies — as if our decision to fall on our own sword will so move India and China and the rest of the developing world that they’ll essentially have their own “come to Jesus” movement in defiance of national interest and centuries of national political culture.’
Firstly that is a striking figure, if correct. Its probably correct as denizens may remember my article from a few years ago which said much the sane thing, that our ability to reduce emissions and the impact sacrifices will have is very limited. I subsequently contacted a dozen leading climate scientists to ask their estimates . Some didn’t know, others admitted to a tiny fraction of a degree in temperature reduction if drastic action was taken.
The second interesting thing is the apparent belief in some circles that America is still seen as a world leader to be automatically followed. I don’t know when the decline set in, but its certainly accelerated during Obamas time, who seems largely disinterested ion global affairs. Its sad, as the Western World needs a strong confident and fair minded leader
So, the US making sacrifices isn’t going to result in the rest of the world falling in line, parts of which -such as the EU-are already way ahead of the US when it comes to policy and action. Whether we need to take drastic action is another question argued here daily.
The US apparently is incapable of debate–politically and intellectually. I do not know about Europe.
Isn’t debate what we are doing here?
No. We are blog commenting and we are not “the US”.
I always look for your comments as an island of rationale thought. In this case one should look at the positions, not sound bites of the republican candidates. Trump web site has no positions. Some of the others reflect local policies in Texas or Florida. During the general election they will move to wider policy positions but for now they cater to the selectors in the nomination process. It is a marathon and will winnow down the field as give and take dominate outside entertainment venues like Fox. Great Britain is falling into pieces as the Scots and Welsh split and northern Ireland protestants are overwhelmed by Irish Catholic birth rates. And London has turned into a third world capital. A fence would be nice on the southern border but simple promises that are kept will be key to the election. You have a useful English Channel and still don’t control immigration or EU destiny. The carbon and temperature battle is democrats trying to distract the populace from real problems and issues. Worked last two times.
The leadership question, IMO, is one where the AGW crowd really failed. There actually is (was?) a tremendous opportunity set the energy mix as the third world transitioned to free(er) markets and rapid economic growth. China didn’t have to go all coal, India doesn’t either and neither will the continent of Africa and much of South America. There is almost no fossil fuel infrastructure in many of these places, you could envision any alternative energy solution at all as long as it was reliable, plentiful, and inexpensive. Unfortunately, the AGW crowd pushed unreliable, absurdly expensive and limited solutions so we got coal.
The U.S. actually is leading the world on natural gas extraction technology and really could have with next gen nuclear. Europe is “leading” in the sense of showing China what not to do.
The Southern Co. is a very well run U.S. IOU. They have taken major risks on coal and nuclear technology innovation and here what’s happening right now:
Here’s a story on Southern’s new coal plant in Mississippi. With 20/20 hindsight, one can argue why the Federal Government didn’t take more of the financial risk of this new coal technology (as they do under EPACT with Southern’s Vogtle nuclear units):
From a perspective of learning curve, and economies of scale in exponential growth of new technology, these numbers are actually very good.
The problem is that the economics aren’t set up right. And trying to make older style technology simply so much more expensive that new prototypes and early, immature, technology can compete will just impact everybody’s power bill. Hard.
If the arrangement had been set up, from the beginning, that this plant could offset the emissions of several dozen older-style plants, with all plants requiring some sort of offset, the result would be conceived as very cost-effective, with only a very small effect on the rates of everybody with coal power getting offset.
Off course, the cost overruns are another issue. Simply put, an honest evaluation of the cost would have shown a much higher cost up-front. But if that evaluation had been made, the plant wouldn’t have been funded. I’ve only ever closely participated in IT cost estimates for big projects, but even there, I’ve seen the strong incentives for under-estimating during the project approval stage.
The flip side of that is the well known maxim that work expands to consume the available budget, whether it’s really needed or not. It takes a dictatorial project manager, and a dedicated and honest project management team, to protect needed contingencies in the budget.
IMO such things are unlikely to ever happen with a government project, except (rarely) during wartime. Even in large corporations, they’re rare. Non unknown, but rare.
Part of the sales pitch for Kemper’s carbon capture technology involves using the CO2 emissions for EOR (enhanced oil recovery in mature fields). Assuming this aspect of the plant’s operation goes into effect, every barrel of oil produced by the injection of CO2 will (likely) produce over 300 kg of new CO2. By definition, this is oil that would not otherwise have been produced.
When Fiorina went head-to-head with Chris Mathews, she was impressive.
Why ignore the second question? It is at least debatable that rising temperatures and/or CO2 levels will have an adverse impact on balance. Many of the papers touting potential negative impacts have been debunked; others are open to question; and a few brave souls have pointed out possible positive impacts (e.g., less virulent viruses). Is there an unbiased view of what a somewhat warmer world might be like? I haven’t seen one.
We need to address all three; the second question has not been addressed to any satisfactory extent. However, the quickest path for a politician is through #3
As I wrote in comments to David Appell’s original blog 15 years ago probably, back when he lived in the Northeast I think, there’s no science of climate change in the first place. It’s all made up. Because
1. You can’t solve the Navier Stokes equations. The models are whatever they modeller wanted, not physics.
2. You can;’t distinguish cycles from trends with data short compared to the cycle to be eliminated. A mathematical truth. The eigenvalues of the distinguishing matrix explode.
So there’s no adult peer review in climate science, and the whole thing is a self-supporting tempest in a public relations teapot, I’d add today.
What we don’t know is an infinite field, mostly consisting of imagined possible dangers. You have to set the false alarm rate to zero, owing to that infinity.
That is, ignore the stuff and get on with life.
Let me get this straight. The message is that we are causing dangerous climate change but there is nothing the US can do about it because the poorer countries do not care, and coal is dirty. Given that this is false I do not think it is a good message. It invites a host of bad policy responses, as false messages usually do.
In what way do you think it is false, David?
We are not causing dangerous climate change and coal fired power in US power plants is not dirty.
I’m impressed with your certainty!
UAH shows no GHG warming since records began in 1978. There is no evidence of increased illness near or downwind of coal fired power plants. Seems simple enough.
Another sweet-spot: economic growth.
Additional CO2 = P * ( E/P ) * ( CO2 / E )
where P = population and E = energy consumed
People tend to focus on the last term ( CO2 / E ) which is largely determined by fuel choice (CCS aside).
But reducing the other terms, P, and E/P have far broader benefits of reducing environmental footprint than just CO2 ( and, of course, there are many benefits of both CO2 and warming for the near and medium term ).
And the good news for Republicans? Both population change (P) and efficiency (E/P) improve with increased economic growth.
That’s why the low end RCP 2.6 scenario is the one with the highest rate of economic growth:
And it’s baked in the cake that economic development leads to increased efficiency and decreased population:
Thought you might be interested in this as it relates to the EPA pollution story
It relates to a letter. I don’t know the ins and outs of it and at present tend to stick to my original co*k up theory rather than any conspiracy.
Speaking of which, thanks for your partial defence of me over at the other place.
No, as far as I am aware I have never fully read a Steyn article as skimming over the headline content on occasion when posted here I generally find the North American oriented polemic to be off putting. The specific Mann/Steyn conflict has tended to go over my head as it has become so confused and seemingly everlasting. The ‘he said, they said’ format is difficult to follow if you haven’t been in it from the outset. I will no doubt follow the court case with interest.
Ironically I don’t dislike Mann and have defended him on occasions to my cost…. I didn’t go to the Mann talk in Bristol although I was only a couple of hundred yards away (meeting Anthony) as I didn’t want to be part of any perceived hijacking. In some ways I regret this as I would have liked to have met John Cook who was on the same bill.
back to the issue at hand. Any reaction to the Marohasy and JNova articles on Australian temperature trends adjustments?
That is a real story. Your defense of the Met temp adjustments seems based on personal relationship and likes rather than, what the heck is the observation adjustments meaning to the trends. The selection of ocean temperatures from canvas buckets, wood buckets, ship intakes over buoys and Argo make the slight trend in temps higher and Met went along in HadCru4.
See my reply on the latest thread and also to the one I made on the thread you originally posted the question on .
I rarely agree with a post as much as this one. She hits the mark on more than just climate too. Very smart lady.
And she has baggage.
” Analysts: Carly Fiorina long on vision, fell short on execution at HP”
The link is an example. I’m not taking a position here but do suggest that there is a track record providing an opportunity for vetting performance that should not be neglected.
In the world of fortune 500 CEO’s timing is pretty important. In the case of Fiorina and HP it can be argued her timing was pretty bad. Of course in politics perception is more important than reality and she needs to craft the perception as best possible
True. But here, is there an opportunity to go beyond the world of political perception which seems focused on electability and and ability to govern and lead? Or do we like/dislike what she saying now and act on it?
The Fiorina response to the “baggage” critics:
“A problem solver, with
the track record to prove it.
In 1999, Hewlett-Packard asked Carly to be their new Chief Executive Officer. Carly was the first woman to lead a Fortune 50 business.
Under Carly’s strong leadership, HP grew to become the 11th largest company in the United States.
Carly didn’t always make the most popular decisions at HP–but, time and time again, they would prove to be the right ones.
But even though her record as CEO speaks for itself, Carly faced headwinds from people who did not want to see HP change. They wanted to double-down on a flawed agenda that simply wasn’t sustainable against the new challenges of the 21st Century.
Our nation faces this very same problem today–where career politicians protect the current system that personally benefits them, but no longer works for the American people.”
Not to make excuses for Carly, but she’s not the only CEO that got fired trying to capture PC market share; Steve Jobs also got fired as Apple’s CEO earlier in his career. Dell also had a heck of a time as the industry became commoditized. HP spun off all businesses not related to computers and imaging in 1999 and appointed Carly as CEO just before the tech bubble burst. Tough environment. Most tech firms had market caps cut in half and much worse.
That aside, whoever goes toe-to-toe in a debate with Carly had better come extremely well prepared or face a severe whooping.
…there is a track record providing an opportunity for vetting performance that should not be neglected.
Spin is a quick response.(BSAU). Vetting is a potentially prolonged objective evaluation.
Reblogged this on citizenpoweralliance.
Why didn’t I think of that? That Carly sure has a good head on her shoulders.
It reminds me of when she was a little girl on the Titanic.
Her mother called to her, saying “Carly, come help your father and me bail out the boat before we drown!”. The precocious little Carly saw the Nash equilibrium right away, and answered “No, Mommy! What if none of the other passengers helps? Then I’d have to stop having tea with my imaginary friend – all for nothing!”
Carly won that exchange, and didn’t have to sacrifice any of her fun time. All the other passengers won too, for the same reason.
Trump says AGW theory is BS. I am with Trump, he will put a stop to all of this if elected.
Many policy issues a presidential candidate can address with a first 100 days in office agenda I don’t think that can be done with AGW because it looks like it will take another 5-6 administration before the extant of climate change as a problem even becomes known. While I favor Fiorina rationale of delaying significant emission targets until we get BRICs on board, I think waiting to see what Sensitivity trends look like can’t be off limits to discussion of how much we want to bet on it.
On the other hand, I think it’s irresponsible to not take any strategic action for the also plausible scenario where AGW is a significant, maybe even dominant factor in the 21st century. The wars to take the oil out of the ground were bad, wait until the ones we have to force people to keep it in the ground. Harsh trade-offs in under-preparedness like war is also something a GOP candidate should be willing to entertain in thinking out loud about AGW policy, which creates an opportunity for some consensus building with the left by upgrading AGW to bi-partisan consideration as a national risk management issue. Hey it can happen, left and right have come to agree on ISIS a national risk to manage.
Obama’s policy – assume with complete certainty that there is a huge problem, and make symbolic sacrifices but call it a solution – won’t be difficult to improve. Hopefully whoever gets there will have a little humility about the nature of predictions, and an honesty to not deny AGW as risk worthy of action.
A well balanced comment. +10
Except that, there is also the real possibility that AGW is a complete non existent problem. Increased levels of co2 may in fact be beneficial, and will in fact make the world greener, a consideration that continues to be ignored in virtually all discussions.
Pingback: Carly Fiorina hits the ‘sweet spot’ on climate change | Enjeux énergies et environnement
JC gets the point just right.
It is worth looking at the actual figures for emissions produced by CDIAC. In the early 1960s the United States accounted for just over 30% of global emissions. By 1990 when mitigation policies were first proposed that share had fallen to 21% and now it is down to 14%. In what used to be termed the Third World (where three-quarters of people live) the proportions have changed from 13% in the early 1960s, to 30% in 1990 and above 55% now. The principle reason for this switch is the high levels of emissions growth in many of these former third world countries. Even if the USA cuts its emissions by 100%, global emissions will still be higher in ten years than they are today. Even if all the former First World countries cuts their emissions by 100%, global emissions will still be higher in 2050 than they are today.
I compared the scale of the reductions claimed by the IPCC to prevent 2 or 3 degrees of warming with the global figures earlier this year.
The math is simple, billions of people have access to cheap reliable energy created by burning fossil fuels. They have an incredibly high standard of living and they don’t want to give it up.
Billions of other people do not have access to this energy. Their lives are difficult and short. They desperately want access to the life and energy that so many take for granted.
This simple fact is as essential to understanding the climate change problem as is the fact that CO2 is a green house gas.
This is a caricature of the real world. As I have tried to explain, a lot of those with little energy consumption 50 years ago now have levels comparable to many Western countries. China and South Korea are two prominent examples. On the other hand for much of Africa has seen little improvement. So globally the disparities are shrinking, as are emissions.
Ah well you see, Carly, that’s why we need World Government.
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
The left and right are so far apart that it is impossible for both to be correct about the science.
The right says that the scientists are in a conspiracy of lies with the government.
Hence if you are on the right you must be convinced that the left is lying through their teeth about the science
If you are a visitor to planet Earth you must find this all very amusing.
How that course on sweeping generalisations going?
You are not showing well in your late night comments, doc. I wonder who is in charge of enforcing your bedtime.
Pingback: Judith Curry’s Text Messages Hacked, Deniergate Begins | Tony Heller (aka Steven Goddard), Exposed
Dead right. And Australia implementing policies to save the planet will do far less bu strangle Australia’s economy.
USA can lead the world. But no by ratcheting up regulations and taxes. They can lead by reducing regulations and taxes thus encouraging entrepreneurs, unleashing competition and innovation.
Deregulate, not increase regulation!
Pingback: The US Presidential campaign and ‘climate change’ « DON AITKIN
Pingback: What If America Can’t Stop Climate Change? | Climate Change Sanity
Pingback: Absolving Judith Curry from Her Political Sins | Tony Heller (aka Steven Goddard), Exposed
Pingback: Global climate agreements could be counterproductive | Climate Etc.
Pingback: Global climate agreements could be counterproductive | Enjeux énergies et environnement