Climate Crowd Ignores a Scientific Fraud

That white stuff is water vapor (aka steam).That white stuff is water vapor (aka steam).Green activists, some masquerading as attorneys general of New York and California, want to prosecute Exxon as a climate heretic. Its sin? Saying impeccably true things about climate science: The range of uncertainty is high. Climate models are not the climate, and show themselves to be unreliable guides to future warming. There is a cost-benefit test that policy must pass, and it doesn’t.

The AG case is a spinoff of “investigative” journalism by the Los Angeles Times and Inside Climate News, which we now learn was directly underwritten by climate activists at the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and Rockefeller Family Fund.

“It’s about helping the larger public understand the urgencies of finding climate solutions. It’s not really about Exxon,” explained a Rockefeller official about a January meeting to coordinate the legal and journalistic attack.

The journalists involved in this travesty, we’re sorry to say, are of the dumber sort—confused about what science is. But their clottedness comes at a poignant moment.

Honest greens have always said nuclear power is indispensable for achieving big carbon reduction. James Hansen, the former NASA scientist who has been chaining himself to fences since the first Bush administration, was in Illinois last week lobbying against closure of a nuclear plant. Ditto activist Michael Shellenberger. We might also include Bill McKibben, the Bernie Sanders of the climate movement and shouter of Exxon accusations, who told journalist William Tucker four years ago, “If I came out in favor of nuclear, it would split this movement in half.”

Nuclear (unlike solar) is one low-carbon energy technology that has zero chance without strong government support, yet is left out of renewables mandates. It’s the one non-carbon energy source that has actually been shrinking, losing ground to coal and natural gas.

What keeps nuclear costs high? Why do so many opponents misread the Fukushima meltdown, where 18,000 deaths were due to the earthquake and tsunami, none to radiation exposure, and none are expected from radiation exposure? Why has the U.S. experience of spiraling nuclear construction costs not been matched in South Korea, where normal learning has reduced the cost of construction?

Read rest…

Comments (3)

  • Avatar



    Over 40, 000 fuel poverty deaths per year in Europe stemming from foolish and unnecessary global warming related policies .

    The “United AG’s for Clean Energy” are using their government positions to act as lobbyists for the same type of stupid subsidy seeking smurfs like the flame out at Solyndra which sucked up government grants and loan guarantees till the lights were turned out .

    Nuclear is a highly reliable and safe form of power. The greens show their complete hierocracy by being anti nuclear .
    Ultimately it will be heavily relied on and
    could reduce the tens of thousands of premature deaths from fuel poverty . Of course the real greenies don’t say it but
    if fuel poverty deaths reduce the population
    that is right in their wheel house .
    Where in the employment contracts of these State AG’s does it allow government paid employees to act as lobbyists ? Who are they actually representing ? What shares do they own in “clean energy” companies ? How did they hook up with Al Gore ?

  • Avatar



    the title
    is it because the
    climate crowd is

    who defines what
    clean energy

  • Avatar

    Leon tesla


    When someone can offer a viable nuclear waste sequestration plan, one requiring stability and security over millennial time scales, then, perhaps, we can discuss this intelligently.

    And no, nuclear is not carbon-free. Concrete production is one of the most carbon-intensive processes around. De-commissioning is also tremendously energy intensive.

Comments are closed