From MasterResource

By Robert Bradley Jr. — May 6, 2025

“The challenge with rising renewables: As power systems rely more on asynchronous generation, frequency changes can occur much faster, increasing the risk of grid instability.” (- Dave Edwards_

Dave Edwards post begins: “As an engineer I like to understand how systems operate, this is useful for fault diagnosis, especially when a system fails and a Root Cause is needed, though maybe more than one contributing factor. So let’s Talk “Inertia” 🙋‍♂️Everyone’s Saying It, But Who Really Understands It 🤷‍♂️”

The floor is his:

“Inertia” is getting a lot of airtime in power system discussions lately, but what is it, really, and why is it so critical for grid stability on an electrical power generation system.

More importantly, which generation technologies actually provide useful inertia⁉️

Image created using Chapt GPT 4o

❓What is inertia?

Think of inertia a bit like us seasoned engineers on LinkedIn: “It’s the ability of an object (engineer) to resist change.”

For rotating objects (like generator rotors), this is called rotational inertia or moment of inertia.

👉 Two key factors influence it:

• Mass
• Mass distribution (i.e., the object’s shape)

Example: A solid disk and a ring with the same mass and radius have different moments of inertia.

• Solid disk: Mass is closer to the center = lower inertia

• Ring: Mass is farther from the axis = higher inertia, result, the ring is harder to start or stop spinning.

👉 Why does this matter in power systems? The spinning parts of generators store kinetic energy, which helps stabilise grid frequency during sudden events, like a generator or interconnector tripping offline.

👉 What actually provides useful inertia? Synchronous generators (coal, gas, hydro, nuclear):

• Spin in sync with grid frequency (e.g UK: 50Hz, US: 60Hz)
• Have large rotating masses, provide physical inertia.
• Help slow down frequency changes, giving time for systems to react, either demand or generation.

Asynchronous generation (most wind turbines, all solar PV):

• Magnetically decoupled from grid.
• Has little or no rotating mass.
• Provide minimal to no physical inertia.

💡The challenge with rising renewables: As power systems rely more on asynchronous generation, frequency changes can occur much faster, increasing the risk of grid instability.

To counter this, we need –

• 🔋 Fast battery response
• ⚙️ Synthetic inertia
• 🧠 Grid-forming inverters
• ⚡️ Synchronous Compensators

or just plain old conventional generation like nuclear or gas.

👉 Bottom line:

As we increase renewable penetration, understanding and managing inertia becomes critical.

It’s not just a buzzword, it’s foundational to keeping the lights on 💡

Hopefully if you didn’t know, you now know what inertia is in the context of the grid and why important for grid stability.

TONY THOMAS

MAY 06 2025

Download PDF

This is the second of three essays on the parallel education universe of leftist Cool.org within Australian schools (Part I is here). Today I’ll discuss Cool’s agitprop for sending kids out on campaigns, plus its determination to brand Net Zero follies as “misinformation” .

Cool doesn’t just feed kids its climate factoids, it wants kids to preach the green gospel to schoolmates, parents and the community. One lesson is illustrated with an Afro-haired girl of colour aged about 11 and using a bullhorn. It could be a metaphor, more probably it’s literal.

A template tells teachers to dish out “Campaign Role Badges”[1], including Energy Explorer, Creative Captain, Message Master and Team Leader.  This leader presents the group’s finished campaign to the class, ensuring Young Pioneers-style conformity to the ideology (As a Communist kid myself in Perth, I wore the  East Germans’ Young Pioneer neckerchief).

One lesson for 10- to 11-year-old’s is headed, Designing a Media Campaign to Promote Clean Energy Facts.  Teachers’ job: “Share some of the following examples of accurate clean energy campaigns with your class. Where possible, encourage students to assess how their campaign could counter misinformation in the clean energy sector.”

Then there’s ‘Climate Action pays off.’ Key message:

“This campaign advocates for a faster, fair and well-planned rollout of clean energy technologies to lower the cost of living, future-proof the Australian economy, and create more employment opportunities. Target audience: working and retired Australians.”

♦ Energising Australia [renewables in remote regions]: For people living in urban areas to visualise the scale of production and cracking pace at which the renewable energy industry in Australia is growing.

♦ UN Climate Action Super Heroes.   Key message: This campaign seeks to empower children to be leaders for change and believe in the impact they can have on the planet.

Other kids are activated to do a “myth-busting” campaign against “deniers”. Cool’s teachers tell kids of ages 10 to 12 to design their own “media campaign to promote clean energy facts.” This is meant to be engaging and accurate, while attacking any sceptic “misinformation” such as devastation of forests to instal wind farms, and Chinese use of slave labour and contaminated mining for solar panel and battery minerals.

Call to action: Students will present their clean energy digital campaigns to their peers, communicating their intent, creative choices, and effective use of digital tools to portray their message. Students will evaluate their campaigns both critically and creatively via communicative and reflective peer feedback before making changes to improve their overall campaign.

Cool’s supplementary unit, How to Fundraise  instructs kids about collecting cash and online payments from outsiders. The lesson makes no mention of kids’ vulnerability to strangers, or receipts, book-keeping and permissions. I hope every child stays safe, and is honest with their stash of acquired cash. This cash-raising

…can contribute to meaningful and sustainable change. It may be that you need to campaign to shop owners, car users, kids and teachers at your school or people at your local council…this could include writing letters or an article for a local newspaper.

As if any newspaper would print kids’ effusions!

Keep up the pressure…Change can take time and people often need to be reminded several times before they really engage with an issue…Campaigns have and continue to play a crucial role  in driving change, raising awareness, promoting causes and achieving [Cool’s] societal goals.” (My emphases throughout).

  In Years 9-10, the kids’ campaigns go like this:

Students will analyse Australia’s policies that have led to clean energy adoption by participating in group research and developing a communication plan for a chosen clean energy policy.

 Success criteria: Students can design an advocacy campaign to support or improve a clean energy policy (and) analyse the effectiveness of real-world examples of clean energy policies.

I don’t think kids  are actually capable of cost-benefit analyses of electric vehicle compulsions, windfarm subsidies, and concealed carbon taxes — about which politicians hotly argue and  rival thinktanks obfuscate. Nor have kids the advanced skills to apply IPCC formulae to work out the reduction of  global  warming if all such Australian policies were a total success (the answer is zero detectable impact).Cool’s authors seem terrified that kids might locate and adopt climate-sceptical views, so they are carefully steered away from the best sceptic websites like joannenova.com.au and WUWT,  which Cool labels as  not credible, i.e. kids might find them unduly persuasive. They are instead pointed to Cool’s favoured “community experts on clean energy”, including the Guardian and vested interests in clean energy subsidies like the Clean Energy Council.

A unit under the header Reflection says,

Climate change denial is on the rise among teenagers. What role do you think schools have in addressing this issue? What should schools be doing?

Cool bewails that  much climate messaging to classes is counter-productive:

A Cool+ unit for teachers’ edification is titled,   Students, Schools and Eco-Anxiety: Teaching and Learning for Eco-Optimism. In it, Cool bewails that the classroom messaging is not getting traction:

 While many countries, schooling systems and schools state [their] commitment to climate change education, the outcomes have been found to be not only poor but also counter-productive in terms of students’ actions and dispositions. This course will provide insight into the findings from a global review of climate change education with a focus on eco-anxiety an unanticipated consequence. It will also provide strategies for addressing this in schools and classrooms and provide examples of how this phenomenon is being minimised in different locations in the world.

Hence Cool gives kids entire lessons excoriating “Climate Denial” – Cool is either oblivious or supportive of the echo to Holocaust Denial.[2] It defines “Denial” as rejecting the notions that climate change exists (a straw man, given sceptics’ affection for geology) and that “Humans are causing the climate to change” despite alleged overwhelming scientific evidence (sceptics dispute only the severity,  as in purported “catastrophic” warming, and emphasise the benefits such as CO2 having greened the plant).

The Cool lesson for Year 10 continues,

In some cases, climate deniers actively spread disinformation about climate change to suit a personal or political agenda. This can have profound effects on how we address the challenges posed by climate change.

In the “Climate Literacy: Climate Change Denial And Disinformation” lesson,

Students explore climate denialism and the myths often presented about climate change. They explore the facts that bust these myths, look at the implications of climate denialism on meeting the challenges of climate change, and create a communication piece to address climate disinformation.

Cool’s contortions to side-step sceptic material verge on the bizarre. Cool quotes as misinformation the 2022 Nobel laureate John Clauser, who worked at Columbia University, claiming the global warming hullaballoo is a hoax by the West’s elite. Kids do not learn till the eighth paragraph that Clausen won his Nobel for physics. And the source article quoted is a piece from “Azernews”, “Azerbaijan’s first English language newspaper published since 1997.” How and why Cool chose an Azerbaijan newspaper for the sourcing is a mystery.Students are re-drilled in Cool’s Ten Commandments  like “Myth 3: Renewable energy is expensive” and “Myth 4:   Solar and wind can’t work because they are dependent on the Weather.” I rather liked “Myth 10: It’s too late – nothing can be done about it” because with China, India, USA, Russia and most of the third world going all-out for fossil fuel, the West’s net zero quest is a dead duck.

While Cool and teachers boast they are deploying real-world campaign material, I have come across no mention of growing Chinese or Indian emissions growth anywhere in all the Cool climate units I have accessed. China’s emissions trajectory as it builds one or two coal-fired electricity plants a week renders the entire West’s net-zero quest pointless. Even Cool’s nine-year-olds could grasp this fact, were Cool ever to mention it. 

Cool emphasises “pre-bunking”, i.e. hitting kids with supposed energy facts before any sceptical attitudes can form.  To “pre-bunk” sceptics, kids are told to agree or disagree with feel-good statements like

♦ Renewable Energy Set to Power One-Third of Global Electricity by 2025 [as if]

♦ Solar and Wind: The Only Hope For Our Energy Future [as if]

♦ Clean Energy Investments Continue to Grow Worldwide [but are swamped by coal and gas energy growth]

♦ Fossil Fuels Doomed as Renewables Take Over [as if]

♦ Australia on Track for 50% Renewable Energy by 2025 [what!?], and

♦ Renewable energy: A bright future?

Cool’s list includes only two dissenting views — of an ‘Aunt Sally’ kind — namely

♦ “Green Energy: Too Expensive and Unreliable for Real-World Use”, and

♦ Clean Energy Transition Threatens Millions of Jobs [as if sceptics would deploy a term like “Clean Energy Transition”]

Fact-checking Cool is like playing whack-a-mole. For example, Cool invites an indignant reaction from kids about “US meteorologists harassed for reporting on climate crisis.” Cool’s case study actually concerns a TV weatherman, Chris Gloninger  in Massachusetts, who has a Bachelor meteorological qualification. He quit after abusive pushback including death threats because he was regularly injecting climate hype into his daily weather reports.[3] Little do Cool’s kids realise that the practice of TV weatherpeople hyping climate change stems from a top-down policy introduced a few years back by Covering Climate Now, a 500-strong cabal of climate-hyping media organisations that include AFP, Reuters and  The Guardian, to swing TV weather reporters into climate propaganda roles.

And Cool gets kids to play a “Cranky Uncle” game invented by “scientist” (actually psychologist) John Cook to fight scepticism. Cook’s history includes  the forced retraction of a co-authored peer-reviewed paper. There was a particularly bizarre episode during Cook’s keynote research on “denialism” when Queensland University colleagues in his back-office maybe photoshopped, and certainly stored in their on-line library, fake pics of  him and themselves  in Nazi and Himmler regalia at stormtrooper rallies rendered as analogous to climate conferences.

Cool refers kids to a news piece in the leftist Guardian, saying that it “focuses on the political party, The Greens, and their call to Murdoch executives before the Senate inquiry into greenwashing.” The Greens’ attack job accuses Murdoch papers of insufficient disclosure that some fossil-fuel advocacy was paid advertorials. The Press Council dealt with this complaint on April 16 and found the papers had no case to answer. I doubt Cool will ever amend its anti-Murdoch propaganda to take this Press Council rebuttal into account. As the matter stands, Cool, The Guardian and the Greens Party are peddling misinformation to kids.

Cool labels even mild criticism of renewables by its supporters as “Misinformation”. This includes the fact  that the mining of rare minerals, and manufacturing of renewables gear, can involve heavy and energy-intensive pollution along with human rights violations. Similarly, Cool labels as “Misinformation”  arguments about wind farms disrupting thousands of hectares of farm or forest land, solar farms harming biodiversity, and battery backup being uneconomic, not to mention the risk of lithium fires and lifecycle pollution.

Cool has no scruples about peddling its own misinformation, constantly claiming that solar and wind create “cheap” energy, and that renewables’ intermittency drawback is either solved or soon will be. Dogmatic and contestable statements abound, with Cool catechisms for kids including

 Claim: Electric vehicles are too expensive for average families

Truth: This doesn’t consider long-term savings and decreasing costs.

Claim: The electricity for EVs comes mostly from fossil fuels

Truth: This ignores the increasing share of renewables in the energy mix.

Claim: Solar panels produce significant waste

Truth: This doesn’t mention that fossil fuel energy generates far more waste.

Claim: Climate change is a natural cycle and not caused by humans

Truth: This contradicts overwhelming scientific evidence.Children are supposed to flag emotive phrases, and reject them in favour of “neutral, evidence-based language used for facts.” It cites the following phrases as “facts” about renewables:

♦ “The initial cost of solar panels can be high” but “they save money over time through reduced energy bills”

♦ “Experts agree that [panels] produce clean energy without polluting the air”

♦ “Wind power has been proven to create jobs and boost local economies” [subsidised renewables jobs actually destroy unsubsidised jobs in the real economy].

♦ “Advancements in technology have made (renewables) more efficient than ever” [ for as long as the wind blows and the sun shines].

♦ “Data shows that transitioning to renewable energy is essential for a sustainable future” [What data? Cool’s course writers have no idea about science writing].

One lesson quizzes kids on trustworthy news sources. My guess is that the Cool’s “correct” answers include government websites, the UN, the ABC, the Nine stable, Guardian, academics and school principals. A villainous source provided for kids to hiss at is “Donald Trump”.

One Cool polemic against “disinformation” backfires because Cool authors have neither funnybone nor ability to grasp any argument outside their green silo.  In a video for class use, a team from the US climate sceptic group CFACT, led by satirical blogger Marc Morano, take their boat to an offshore wind-turbine development. Greenpeace-like, they use bullhorns to  chant “Save the Whales” to the rig.  CFACT  is satirising Greenpeace and other whale-lovers for ignoring these giant offshore edifices. Morano and friends shout, “Why are you killing the planet to save it? It makes no sense. This is insanity! Please stop.”

But Cool doesn’t’ get it and warns kids: “Disinformation: This video depicts boat protest footage of a group claiming that wind farms harm whales.”

As I’ve written many times, the Coalition leadership since Tony Abbott have shown no interest in curbing leftist indoctrination in schools, achieved through the bureaucracy and outsiders like  Cool and its ally, billionaire Mike Cannon-Brookes. As Liberal poll workers agreed when I voted at the weekend, Scott Morrison emasculated his party when he signed it on to Net Zero mania. 

Tony’s latest book from Connor Court is Anthem of the Unwoke – Yep! The other lot’s gone bonkers. $34.95

[1] Some links might not work owing to Cool’s paywalling

[2] Climate Literacy: Climate Change Denial And Disinformation.

[3] “With the help of respected industry experts, community advocates, and politicians, [Gloninger’s] series explained the science of climate mitigation and adaptation, provided examples of how climate change is affecting people at the local level, and showcased some of the advancements being made in clean and renewable energy.”

By Terry L. Headley

As the world increasingly shifts toward renewable energy, there is a growing risk that nations could fall into the “renewable energy trap.” This trap is the result of embracing an energy transition without fully understanding its economic, environmental, and geopolitical consequences. While renewable energy sources like wind, solar, and hydropower have been hailed as the future of global energy, nations rushing toward these technologies without a strategic plan may face grave economic and security challenges. The truth is that blind adherence to renewable energy, in its current form at least, is not the panacea many believe it to be. In fact, it could prove to be a short, green path to economic ruin for both developed and developing nations alike.

The False Promises of Renewables: Hidden Costs and Risks

The promise of renewable energy often comes with an aura of infallibility—clean, green, and limitless. However, this narrative overlooks the hidden costs of transitioning to renewable energy systems, many of which are disguised through misleading claims and incomplete accounting. For example, Germany’s “Energiewende” (Energy Transition) provides a cautionary tale of how well-intentioned policies can lead to unintended consequences.

Germany, once hailed as a leader in the renewable energy revolution, has spent over a decade investing heavily in wind and solar energy. Despite spending billions of euros, Germany has seen little reduction in its greenhouse gas emissions, and the financial burden on consumers has been significant. In 2020, Germany had the highest electricity prices in Europe, largely due to the subsidies and support provided to renewable energy companies. The country’s energy bills for consumers have surged, in part because of the costs associated with maintaining backup fossil fuel plants to ensure grid stability when wind and solar energy are insufficient.

Furthermore, Germany’s renewable energy push has led to a paradoxical reliance on coal. As has been said so many times before, when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining, Germany has been forced to turn back to coal-fired power plants to meet demand. Ironically, this has undermined the very environmental goals the country sought to achieve. Despite Germany’s heavy investment in renewables, it has seen a rise in coal usage due to the intermittent nature of its renewable energy sources, highlighting one of the most significant flaws of a renewable-dominant grid: reliance on fossil fuels to fill in the gaps.

Why?

Because Germany must maintain at least as much baseload coal generation in reserve as it has in renewable energy generation to make sure it has electricity available at all times. The reality is that Germans are paying for the same electricity two or three times.

Rising Energy Costs and the Threat of Energy Poverty

The financial burden of renewable energy policies extends beyond Germany, affecting millions of households across the globe. One of the most significant, yet often overlooked, consequences of the renewable energy transition is the rising cost of electricity. The shift toward renewables has caused electricity prices to increase to the point where energy poverty is becoming a real issue in many countries.

Energy poverty refers to the inability of households to afford sufficient energy for heating, cooling, and powering their homes. The International Energy Agency (IEA) defines energy poverty as the lack of access to affordable and reliable energy. As the costs of renewable energy policies continue to rise, more and more households find themselves at risk of falling into energy poverty.

In the United Kingdom, for example, the government’s push for renewable energy has resulted in substantial increases in electricity prices. A report by the UK’s National Grid showed that between 2008 and 2020, the average annual energy bill for a UK household rose by 30%, with a significant portion of the increase attributed to the country’s renewable energy investments. The UK government has heavily subsidized wind and solar energy projects, but those subsidies are paid for by consumers through higher electricity bills. The result has been a situation where millions of British households struggle to keep up with the rising costs of energy.

In California, energy poverty is also on the rise as the state aggressively pursues renewable energy goals. While California has invested heavily in solar power, it has failed to address the intermittent nature of renewable energy. During periods of peak demand, when solar and wind energy are insufficient, the state is forced to turn to natural gas and imported electricity, which drives up costs. California has one of the highest electricity prices in the United States, and many low-income families are feeling the impact. According to the California Public Utilities Commission, more than 1.3 million households in the state were at risk of energy poverty in 2020. Despite the state’s focus on clean energy, many residents are unable to afford their electricity bills, forcing them to choose between paying for energy or other necessities like food and medicine.

In South Australia, another example of the renewable energy trap is evident. South Australia has aggressively pursued renewable energy policies, becoming one of the leading adopters of wind and solar power in the world. However, this shift has led to significant spikes in electricity prices. The state has faced price volatility and blackouts due to the intermittent nature of renewable energy. In 2017, South Australia experienced a widespread blackout after a storm damaged the transmission network, and the state has since struggled to maintain grid stability. The increased reliance on renewables has led to soaring electricity prices, and many households are now unable to afford basic energy needs. According to the Australian Energy Regulator, electricity prices in South Australia have risen by 50% in the past decade, and many low-income families are feeling the squeeze.

The Geopolitical Trap: Energy Dependency, Raw Materials and National Security

The renewable energy transition also raises important geopolitical concerns, particularly in the area of raw materials. Renewable energy technologies are heavily reliant on rare earth metals, lithium, cobalt, and nickel for the production of batteries, solar panels, and wind turbines. These materials are predominantly sourced from countries with less stable political environments or are monopolized by a few nations, such as China.

This creates a new form of energy dependency. For instance, the global supply chain for lithium and cobalt is largely controlled by China, raising questions about national security and the potential for price manipulation or trade disruptions. Countries that rush toward renewables without developing diversified supply chains may find themselves dependent on a handful of foreign nations for critical materials—echoing the geopolitical vulnerability that oil-dependent countries have faced for decades. This new energy dependence could undermine the goal of energy independence that many nations seek.

Moreover, the mining process for these materials is far from clean or environmentally friendly. In countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo, where much of the world’s cobalt is sourced, mining operations are linked to severe environmental degradation and human rights abuses. The environmental damage associated with mining for lithium, cobalt, and rare earth metals often goes unreported in the “green” narrative surrounding renewable energy. In many cases, the extraction of these materials results in significant water contamination, deforestation, and harmful air emissions.

The Hidden Costs: Economic Burdens and Social Inequality

Another significant issue with the renewable energy push is the way its real costs are hidden from the public. Governments often advertise the economic benefits of renewables without accounting for the financial burden on consumers. The transition to renewable energy technologies often requires substantial government subsidies, which are typically funded by taxpayers or passed onto consumers through higher utility rates. In the case of the European Union, the cost of renewable energy subsidies is often obscured by misleading accounting practices that fail to capture the true cost of maintaining grid stability.

Take California, a state that has aggressively pursued renewable energy initiatives. While solar and wind have gained in popularity, California’s reliance on intermittent renewables has led to skyrocketing energy prices and blackouts. The state has been forced to rely on natural gas plants as backup power sources, creating a contradictory energy system that still depends on fossil fuels. Additionally, the high costs of implementing renewable energy infrastructure have disproportionately affected low-income families, who are unable to afford higher utility bills.

The Crucial Role of Coal-Fired Baseload Electricity

As nations scramble to meet ambitious renewable energy goals, the role of coal-fired baseload electricity cannot be overlooked. Contrary to the widespread narrative that coal is a relic of the past, coal remains the most dependable, affordable, and scalable option for providing stable electricity in an increasingly energy-demanding world.

Baseload electricity refers to the minimum level of demand on an electrical grid over a span of time. Coal-fired power plants are uniquely capable of providing this baseload power reliably. Unlike wind and solar, which are intermittent and weather-dependent, coal-fired plants can produce electricity 24/7, irrespective of external conditions. This ensures a stable and predictable energy supply, crucial for both industrial needs and residential consumption.

Coal is also among the most affordable sources of electricity. The levelized cost of energy (LCOE)—the cost to produce electricity per megawatt-hour—is lower for coal-fired plants than for many renewable alternatives, especially when factoring in the full infrastructure and grid integration costs associated with wind and solar energy. In the U.S., for example, coal remains more cost-effective than natural gas and many renewables, particularly in regions like the Midwest, where the energy grid is more reliant on coal-fired plants.

Moreover, coal is abundant and domestically available in many countries, reducing dependence on foreign energy sources. This enhances energy security, particularly for nations that are trying to avoid the geopolitical risks associated with imported energy, including oil, natural gas, and the rare earth metals required for renewable technologies.

Conclusion: A Balanced Approach, Grounded in Reality is Essential

While renewable energy holds promise for a sustainable future, the world must proceed with caution. Nations cannot afford to fall into the renewable energy trap by embracing these technologies without considering the full spectrum of their impacts. Germany’s experience with its Energiewende shows that pushing too hard for renewables can create new environmental problems, economic burdens, and political risks. A balanced energy strategy that incorporates energy security, economic sustainability, and environmental responsibility is crucial.

Coal-fired baseload electricity remains an essential and reliable component of a balanced energy portfolio. It provides affordable, stable, and secure electricity, ensuring that nations do not risk energy poverty or grid instability as they transition to greener sources. The renewable energy revolution must be a step forward, not a leap into the unknown. By acknowledging the true costs of renewable energy and the irreplaceable role of coal, we can forge a more reliable and sustainable energy future for all.

Terry L. Headley is President, The Headley Company. 

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.

Abstract

The Apocalyptic climate narrative is a seriously misleading propaganda tool and a socially destructive guide for public policy. The narrative radically overstates the risks to humanity of continued global warming, which are manageable, not existential. It prescribes large-scale near-term suppression of fossil-fuel use, while failing to recognize the huge costs that such suppression would inflict on humans because fossil fuels are currently irreplaceable inputs for producing food (via ammonia-based fertilizer), steel, cement, and plastics. This paper details the flaws in the Apocalyptic narrative and articulates nine principles for sensible U.S. policies on energy and global warming.

In an era where fear sells faster than facts, a refreshing gust of sanity has arrived in the form of a new paper by Dr. Judith Curry and economist Harry DeAngelo. Titled “A Critique of the Apocalyptic Climate Narrative,” the paper dismantles, brick by shaky brick, the popular belief that humanity teeters on the edge of climate-induced extinction and that salvation lies in the urgent abandonment of fossil fuels.

Curry and DeAngelo open with a sober reminder: “Alarming narratives that have an aura of plausibility can be highly effective tools for shaping public opinion and public policies.” That, in a nutshell, is the story of climate politics over the last 30 years. A narrative has been spun, polished, and weaponized—not to inform public understanding, but to shepherd it toward economically and politically ruinous policies.

The paper doesn’t just question the urgency of decarbonization—it eviscerates it.

The Real Climate Record: More Prosperity, Not Doom

In what amounts to a firm statistical rebuke to doomsayers, Curry and DeAngelo highlight:

“Since the late 19th century, Earth’s average temperature has increased by about 1.3°C… During the same period… there has been little or no detectable change in most types of extreme weather events.”

Meanwhile, global population has surged, agricultural output has quadrupled, and lifespans have more than doubled. Cold-weather mortality—ten times deadlier than heat—has plunged, while Earth’s green leaf area has grown by 5% thanks to CO₂ fertilization.

If this is a crisis, one is tempted to ask: can we have more of it?

The Net-Zero Boondoggle

Dr. Curry’s critique is especially lethal when aimed at the fantasy land of net-zero. As the authors note:

“Today, the world gets 81% of its energy from fossil fuels… In absolute terms, global use of oil, natural gas, and coal have all increased.”

Billions are being poured into solar and wind—not to displace fossil fuels, but merely to add capacity on top of them. Emissions haven’t gone down; they’ve gone up. The Green New Deal? A Green New Dud.

The Myths of Imminent Catastrophe

The paper also tackles the pet specter of climate alarmists: tipping points.

“There is also low confidence in any conclusions surrounding possible tipping points owing to deep (Knightian) uncertainties in our understanding of the complex climate system.”

In plain terms, we don’t understand the system well enough to confidently predict catastrophic flips. Yet that hasn’t stopped the technocratic priesthood from demanding trillions in tithes.

Rational Energy Policy: First, Do No Harm

Instead of chasing the green dragon of net-zero, the authors propose common sense:

“We should not eliminate fossil fuels before we have technologically viable and cost-effective replacements for the critical inputs they provide in the production of food, steel, cement, plastics, and electricity.”

Their nine principles for rational energy policy—ranging from investment in innovation to a revival of nuclear power—deserve to be posted on the office door of every policymaker who still clings to the fantasy of controlling the climate through legislation.

The Bottom Line

“Is an undetectable reduction in the warming trend worth a huge sacrifice in the quality of life caused by an urgent move to net-zero? … There is no credible evidence of an existential threat from global warming.”

Dr. Curry’s work delivers the much-needed antidote to climate hysteria. Her message is clear: The supposed cure—immediate fossil fuel suppression—is far more dangerous than the disease.

As the paper concludes, “Attempts to suppress fossil-fuel use aggressively are socially destructive… [and] would impose significant avoidable costs on humanity.”

In a world overrun by ideological climate theater, Dr. Curry has handed us a playbill with a rare commodity: the truth.