IPCC: The Religion and the Racket of Climate Change

Let’s perform a quick exercise. Consider the following quotes:

“code red for humanity”
“dangerously close to spiraling out of control”
“the alarm bells are deafening”
“deadly heat waves”
“gargantuan hurricanes”
“unleash disastrous weather”
“people could die just from going outside”
“the world is running out of time”
“Earth could broil”

Now answer the following multiple-choice question. The direct quotes above are from:
(a) The script for a heavily marketed disaster film/horror story
(b) The sermon for an end-of-times religious cult
(c) An article written by energy/environment journalists of a respected global news outlet
(d) All of the above

If you answered (d), there is good news and bad news.

The good news is you are correct. The quotes are from a “news” story issued by Reuters that was timed to amplify the AR6 2021 report from that bureaucratic nest known as the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The article replaces objective journalism with a blend of Hollywood script and modern-day Book of Revelations.

The bad news is that if you are applying to college or interviewing for a job, you are advised to shroud your intelligence and instead feign a veneer of politically correct groupthink. That’s because today when it comes to climate change, the objective mind is subjected to the pincer movement of amped up rhetoric from the church’s high priests and the persecution of the dissenting free thinker.

“Climate Science Integrity” Becomes an Oxymoron

Crucial to progress in science is the willingness of the scientific community to self-audit and to be clinically objective. Self-audit drives not only progress, but also informs of the ethical compass of the scientific community. In the arena of climate science, the religion has subsumed objectivity and the ethical compass is broken.

The integrity of the IPCC and its climate models are massively important to billions of human beings. The results of these dubious endeavors and highly questionable results are not being used for purely academic pursuits; they are being used to drive public policy decisions that impact countless lives. The logic is linear and chilling: flawed model inputs produce mutated predictions, mutated predictions advise wrong-headed policies, and wrong-headed policies erode the human condition.

Setting sound public policy requires the ability to predict outcomes with reasonable accuracy. When models are wired to manufacture desired outcomes or reflect subjective beliefs, a fundamental flaw is created. When the models used to forecast and their creators demonstrate either gross incompetence or an unethical bias, then their views of the future and resulting policy recommendations should be ignored.

Modeling Like its 1999 to Predict 2100 Weather

While the world’s best meteorologists armed with the most sophisticated technology can’t accurately pinpoint the location of a hurricane in a few days without applying a wide cone of uncertainty, the priests in the church of climate state with arrogant certainty how much warmer the planet will be decades in the future, to the tenth of a degree. Such obvious naiveite should be ridiculed by the scientific community, but it won’t be.

And it gets worse when you dig into the details inside these black box climate models.

For decades, the UN’s IPCC and the models it utilized assume for key scenarios that coal demand and consumption would grow drastically. In fact, for years the IPCC models assumed coal would become the top energy source for cars – surpassing oil and electric vehicles.

The infamous RCP8.5 scenario from earlier IPCC reports, which sets the stage for many of these IPCC scenarios and global warming predictions, assumes a 600% increase in global coal consumption per capita by 2100. Such an assumption is ridiculous, considering realities such as the natural gas shale revolution and energy efficiency innovations. Worse yet, the world has demonstrated the absurdity of a 600% increase in coal consumption, with coal demand peaking and, in developed nations like the US, declining precipitously over the past 15 years.

And IPCC’s recent AR6 report embraced a “shared socio-economic pathways” (that’s what technocrats now call scenarios) case that assumes even higher fossil fuel emissions than the prior RCP8.5 scenario. This laughable new scenario, labeled SSP5-8.5, has no basis in the reality of current energy markets and predicts future CO2 emissions from energy that blow past the prior IPCC scenario of RCP8.5, as well as projections from the IEA, BP, and Exxon.

The IPCC refuses to provide relative probabilities for each of its scenarios. But guess which case IPCC references the most when discussing climate change consequences? That’s right, the one that is the fiction bordering on the fantasy: SSP5-8.5.

Why would such an obvious flawed assumption on coal consumption be allowed to propagate through these IPCC scenarios year after year and report after report? Because without a massive increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration from burning more and more coal, the model won’t spit out a desired spike in future global temperatures. No boiling planet, no imminent Armageddon (Code Red!) and salvation via a call to action (Climate Action Now!). The religion is exposed, and the racket vanishes.

Unpacking the Climate Change Issue

Now, I’ve written extensively on the issue of climate change, taking the path of data-grounded, science-based reality (https://nickdeiuliis.com/news/a-rational-persons-guide-to-climate-change/). So, before you shout ‘denier’ and stone me with lumps of coal, consider I’ve gone on record acknowledging that climate change has been a reality for millions of years and that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has increased since the advent of the Industrial Revolution from human activity. Both are undeniable facts.

There are three other undeniable facts, however.

First, those rising concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere are still trace amounts. All the CO2 emitted from industrial human activity over the past couple of hundred years took CO2 from just over 0.02% to roughly 0.04% of the atmosphere.

Using parts-per-million instead of percent and quoting a “doubling” of atmospheric CO2 (from 200 ppm to 400 ppm) may sound more ominous and impressive. But it is the same as 0.02% to 0.04%: still trace levels, and still inconsequential in the grand, complex scheme of global climate.

Second, the ability, accuracy, and precision of climate models and the so-called scientists who construct them have been horrendous.

Perhaps gross inaccuracy with predicting climate twenty years from now is not surprising, considering meteorologists can’t predict next week’s weather with certainty. At a minimum, these climate scientists (a term some may argue is self-contradicting) should be fired for incompetence and their models should be scrapped. The models, which are endlessly refined year after year, badly miss predictions and can’t even accurately predict prior temperatures when tested in a backward-looking fashion. That we continue to fund them with billions in taxpayer dollars and listen to them when developing public policy is societal self-inflicted ignorance.

Third, and most important, every activity and endeavor in society and the economy has a significant carbon footprint across its life cycle. That holds true for wind power, solar power, food consumption, public transportation, the hydrogen economy, and social media.

Which means CO2 levels will continue to rise no matter what we embrace: combustion engines or electric vehicles, solar or natural gas power, in person or remote work, manufacturing or the idea economy. The only way to attain a zero-carbon society is to shutter the economy and eradicate quality of life. There is no magic technology or whiz-bang invention that will change that fact. Any representation to the contrary is a fraud on science.

The Religion and the Racket

Bureaucrats in government (and global institutions like the UN), academics engaged in so-called climate research, and media prostituting for clicks and social media follows have spent years eroding the science and constructing in its place a belief-based religion. Pledge your allegiance to the church of climate or be cast out and ostracized by your colleagues, neighbors, friends, and family.

The religion is then used to initiate the racket: justifying and procuring endless funding and attention, where the high priests engage in a lucrative scheme that yields expanding funding, ballooning staffs, new research labs, a wider audience, and, most important of all, influence on public policy and personal decision making (aka power).

Unfortunately, while this elite climate syndicate enjoys the fruits of their racket measured in billions of dollars, it ends up being quite the non-virtuous circle for the rest of us who must pay the monetary bill and the societal price. We are being subjected to an endless loop of elitist digital media-preachers telling us what to do and where to send our money so that we may be saved (the spirit of Jim Bakker’s 700 Club rises again).

That’s how you end up with elite journalists, government officials, and academics from well-respected organizations spewing baseless hysteria like the trashy quotes above. The authors should be ashamed, for what they created is not objective and is not representative of ethical journalism. Instead, it is blatant marketing and advocacy for a complex issue they know little about. The organization they work for should reconsider its self-prescribed label of “news provider.”

The legitimate Code Red for humanity is that the very stakeholders society relies upon to protect it from harmful schemes—government, academia, and media—are the perpetrators of this scheme.

To learn more about the IPCC models and their flaws, give a read to How Climate Scenarios Lost Touch With Reality by Roger Pielke Jr. and Justin Richie

Deiuliis Addresses 2021 PIOGA Spring Meeting

On Wednesday, May 19, Nick Deiuliis served as the Pennsylvania Independent Oil & Gas Association’s (PIOGA) keynote speaker for its annual spring meeting.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette covered the meeting and Nick’s remarks, writing, “They [attendees] knew what to expect when CNX Resources’ CEO Nick DeIuliis took the podium for his keynote address. He would be the one to speak for them, unapologetically…A self-styled advocate for capitalism, the middle class and for developing nations — which he says will be hurt most by a move away from fossil fuels — Mr. DeIuliis predictably went after the ‘elites’ and ‘academia’ in his speech and said the pursuit of renewable energy gives power to the Chinese Communist Party…”

Pennsylvania town saved by fracking fears Biden will kill its prosperity

CANONSBURG, PA. — Thirty years ago, Jason Capps was a young man with ambition, but when he looked around this town near Pittsburgh, where he grew up, all he saw were opportunities slipping away. The coal mines where his father worked were dying; the glass, steel and manufacturing industries were on their last legs.

In 1987, when Capps graduated from high school, the unemployment rate was at a staggering 12 percent.

“My ability to carve out a future here was limited at best, impossible at worst,” he said. “So I left.”

Capps, 51, became a chef and traveled the country honing his skills. But then an unexpected rebirth happened here in Western Pennsylvania with the discovery of the Marcellus Shale, an ancient rock bed that offers an abundant source of natural gas.

Eventually, Capps moved back to his hometown and, in 2006, he founded Bella Sera — a successful event space resembling a grand Tuscan villa — which he still owns and operates.

PCN “On the Issues” Interview – Feb 11, 2021

Nick joined the Pennsylvania Cable Network (PCN) for an “On the Issues” interview on Feb. 11, 2021. Nick discussed a range of issues, including the economic impact of the natural gas industry, natural gas pricing, the environmental benefits of greater natural gas utilization, federal and state energy policy, and much more.

A Rational Person’s Guide to Climate Change

The great Tom Wolfe astutely defined a cult as a religion with no political power. Wolfe’s observation resonates today when it comes to climate change. What was once a cult has now become the official religion of academia, government bureaucracy, rent-seeking corporations, and the Left. Just like Galileo who dared to challenge the Catholic Church’s official scientific consensus of the sun revolving around the Earth, those brave enough to question aspects of the climate change credo are immediately labeled as deniers, akin to heretics in the temple, risking banishment.

The primary challenge with rationally assessing the topic of climate change is that a very complex set of discrete issues has been boiled down to a neat, simple, universal, and erroneous view of political convenience. For a rational person to seriously reason through climate change issues, one must unpackage the singular, simple rhetoric into component pieces that, once properly assessed and sequenced, can build views anchored in science, data, and fact.

Query #1: Is climate change occurring?

Undoubtedly, the answer is ‘yes.’ Climate change has been a reality since Earth had a climate. Warming periods, cooling periods, Ice Ages, and widespread droughts have been occurring for millions of years and before humans appeared on the scene. Global climate change and trends in regional climates have been, and will remain, a reality.

Query #2: Can future climate change and its effects be accurately modeled?

Attempts to accurately predict climate have been abject failures. If the poor success rates of climate modelers were posted by a surgeon, attorney, or professional sports coach, all would be fired for incompetence. The failure is not from lack of effort or poor scientific acumen, although Climategate exposed how some in the racket of subsidy and government largesse are more than willing to play fast and loose with the scientific method.

The reason models have proven unreliable is they are attempting to simulate and predict the most complex fluid flow system ever: global climate.

The most advanced tools and techniques in meteorology struggle to accurately predict a hurricane path three days out, whether it is going to snow next week, and if the upcoming summer will be unusually hot or mild. What makes one think we would be able to accurately predict global temperatures fifty years out?

Anyone who states models can accurately predict future climate metrics (temperature, storm severity, etc.) is either uninformed or has a hidden agenda.

Query #3: Is human activity increasing the global carbon dioxide level?

Like our first question, the answer here is clearly, ‘yes.’ We know with certainty that since mankind harnessed the power of the carbon atom, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels increased from about 200 parts-per-million (ppm) to about 400 ppm. Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere will continue to grow as nations and economies further develop. Coincidentally, we should celebrate the rise in carbon dioxide levels because it brought higher life expectancies, lower infant mortality rates, and improved individual rights for billions of people. Carbon has driven, and continues to drive, quality of life on the third rock from the sun.

Query #4: Are increased carbon dioxide concentrations materially impacting the climate and global temperature?

This is the question that is least understood by the public and is most suspect to distortion and abuse by the leaders of the religion. The key phrase here is ‘parts per million,’ or ppm. People don’t understand the context of 200 ppm doubling to 400 ppm, because they have been instructed for decades to exclusively focus on the 200 and the 400, and to ignore the ‘ppm.’ A helpful analogy will illustrate the flaw in ignoring the ‘ppm’ part.

Imagine a Pennsylvania college football stadium that holds 100,000 fans on gameday when Penn State is playing Ohio State (sadly, it’s hard to picture that in the age of pandemic). A 200-ppm level of Ohio State fans (carbon dioxide) in the crowd of 100,000 (atmosphere) would be equivalent to 20 fans wearing Ohio State jerseys versus 99,980 wearing Penn State jerseys. If the concentration of Ohio State fans in the crowd doubled to 400 ppm, it would mean the number of fans wearing Ohio State gear went from 20 to 40, and the number of fans wearing Nittany Lion gear declined from 99,980 to 99,960. Clearly, the nature of that crowd did not change in any material sense, despite the concentration of Ohio State fans doubling.

A doubling of trace amounts of atmospheric carbon dioxide, measured in the parts per million and over hundreds of years since the Industrial Revolution, is not going to materially change climate or global temperature. Instead, it is going to have a very small, perhaps unmeasurable, impact on climate. Climate change is a reality. But simple math shows increases in trace levels of carbon dioxide, from 0.02% (200 ppm) to 0.04% (400 ppm) of the atmosphere, due to human industry and energy consumption are not the major, rate-setting driver.

Query #5: Are wind and solar renewable forms of energy?

It’s an article of faith in the climate change religion that renewable energy exists, it is the global savior from climate change, and it is best exemplified by windmills and solar panels. Such beliefs defy science and reality. Laws of thermodynamics instruct us that there is no form of truly renewable energy. Worse yet, windmills and solar panels as forms of electricity generation at scale represent massive carbon footprints that likely exceed the carbon footprint of natural gas-derived electricity. Life-cycle visualization of what it takes for renewables to provide electricity at scale helps illustrate the reality.

If, say, western Pennsylvania needed to add 650 MW of baseload electricity generation, doing so with windmills would have a massive life-cycle carbon footprint.

  • Nearly 300 large turbines/towers would be needed for a capacity of 650 MW (compared to a compact combined cycle array for natural gas).
  • The materials needed to construct the wind turbines must be mined and processed, likely in places like Mongolia where the resources are located, using carbon to do so while massively scarring the surface where the deposits are.
  • The components must be constructed, likely in places like China, in factories powered by carbon. The components then need shipped here, using carbon to power the trains, vessels, trucks, and planes.
  • Windmills in places like Pennsylvania only work on ridge lines, meaning wide swaths of trees must be felled to clear pads and right of ways for transmission lines, resulting in visible scars on scenic areas and another big contribution to carbon footprint.
  • Concrete must be poured for pads and miles of new transmission lines must be run to link the hundreds of turbines to the grid, consuming yet more carbon.

Finally, you need backup generation for when the wind is not blowing, which is most likely going to be carbon-based natural gas or coal. To top it off, much of this cycle needs repeated in about seven years when the turbines need replaced due to age (turbine disposal has its own carbon footprint).

A legitimate scoring of the life-cycle carbon ledger for wind shows it can suffer a much larger carbon footprint than natural gas-fired generation. The same conclusion would hold for solar, perhaps worse in places like Pennsylvania since the sun doesn’t shine as much as the wind blows.

Be wary of those who tout renewable energy and how the carbon footprints of wind and solar are zero, or close to it. Most likely they are angling for subsidies or political favor. They are not speaking from a position of scientific authority.

Query #6: Is climate change the biggest threat facing us today?

Climate change, whether caused by rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere or not, is always going to pose a risk to human health. Hurricanes destroy and drought kills. Mother Nature for millennia has proven to be a force to be reckoned with. But climate change is not even close to the top threats to our quality of life today.

Disease, as the past year of pandemic has demonstrated, is a much bigger threat to humans. Violent crime, particularly in large cities, is a bigger risk to urbanites than what the polar ice caps are doing. Corrupt government, the rise of socialism, and a broken public education system should worry Americans more than rising sea levels. Young adults in the developed world face a bigger safety risk from driving than climate change while young adults in the developing world are more at risk from contaminated water than carbon dioxide. Whatever twists and turns the climate may take over the years, have confidence that technology will allow humans to adapt to it.

Final query: What to think?

There are discrete issues that converge into the climate change discussion. The unpackaging of the cult/religion credo reveals logic and truth. Climate change has always and will always occur. Models forecasting the complexity of future climate have proven to be inaccurate.

Human activity since the Industrial Revolution has doubled carbon dioxide atmospheric concentration and may continue to increase it. However, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a trace amount, and its doubling over the past couple hundred years has not materially altered the climate.

There is no such thing as truly renewable energy. Wind and solar power are incredibly carbon intensive forms of electricity generation when an honest life-cycle assessment is performed. Although climate always will have the potential to harm or kill, there are much larger and more looming threats to the human condition at our doorstep today.

The Latin origin of the word ‘science’ derives from ‘knowledge.’ History’s greatest scientists did not trust other scientists; the scientific method and human progress rely on healthy skepticism of the scientific consensus. Don’t fear being labeled a denier, called a skeptic, or challenging the scientific/political consensus. Think of Galileo, Einstein, and Curie.