Desflurane is a common anesthetic used in hospital operating rooms worldwide. It’s also a climate super pollutant. Now, several decades after the drug was first introduced, a growing number of US hospitals have stopped using the anesthetic because of its outsized environmental impact. On January 1, the European Union went a step further, prohibiting its use in all but medically necessary cases.

Desflurane is more than 7,000 times more effective at warming the planet over a 20-year period than carbon dioxide on a pound-for-pound basis. However, curbing its use alone won’t solve climate change. The anesthetic contributes only a small fraction of total global warming, which is driven by far larger volumes of carbon dioxide and methane emissions.

Still, emissions from the drug add up. Approximately 1,000 tons of the gas are vented from hospitals and other health care facilities worldwide each year. The emissions have a near-term climate impact equivalent to the annual greenhouse gas emissions from approximately 1.6 million automobiles. //

Instead of desflurane, the Yale New Haven Health System now relies primarily on sevoflurane, an anesthetic that is 10 times less potent as a greenhouse gas and approximately half as expensive. The health care system saved $1.2 million annually on anesthesia medications after making the switch, Sherman said. //

USAP physicians and others are also using less nitrous oxide or “laughing gas,” a mild anesthetic and potent greenhouse gas. Nitrous oxide is commonly distributed throughout hospitals via a centralized, leak-prone pipe network. Pipe networks in US hospitals can leak up to 99.8 percent of the gas before it reaches patients, according to a study published in 2024 in the British Journal of Anaesthesia. Using small, portable tanks can reduce losses by 98 percent. //

A paper published in the academic journal Anesthesia & Analgesia in July argued that the climate impact of desflurane emissions was not significant and suggested that more harm may come from withholding the drug from patients. //

j5i7 Seniorius Lurkius
5y
2
As a anesthesiologist, a few points:

• Desflurane does have distinct advantages compared to sevoflurane or isoflurane. It's is faster acting, and faster to wear off. However, clinically, this doesn't matter too much if you adapt to the anesthetic you are using. But it could get a patient out of an operating room a minute or two faster. The more obese a patient, the larger a difference it could make.
• Due to its vapor pressure, Desflurane requires a powered vaporizer that uses electricity on top of its significantly higher CO2 equivilent.
• Anesthesia machines use a circle breathing system. There is no way to strictly deliver anesthetic gases only when a patient is breathing in, but you can get very close.
  Anesthetic waste gases are generally vented through a roof vent in the hospital. There are technologies out there to recapture the anesthetics, but I don't believe any are commercially common.
• A lot of nitrous is lost due to leaks in the pipes. Generally nitrous isn't that useful in anesthesia for adults, but it does have its place in pediatrics.
• You can do anesthesia without any gases and just using medications that go through an IV. These are slightly more expensive, but better from a climate perspective. However, there are medical reasons to choose inhaled gases verses IV anesthetics.
• Finally, commonly used anesthetic gases are NOT flammable. However, oxygen is a great oxidizing agent...

But as is often the case when it comes to apocalyptic warnings related to climate change, real-world data doesn’t support the narrative.

In reality, the insurance industry, which provides coverage related to hurricanes, fires and other extreme events, is enjoying a streak of record profits. //

In the second half of 2025, things got even better, thanks in large part to hurricanes missing the United States for the first time in a decade.

S&P Market Intelligence announced of third quarter results, “For US P/C insurers, it just doesn’t get any better than this . . . the US property/casualty insurance industry had its best quarter in at least a quarter of a century—and maybe longer.”

The industry’s bountiful financial results of 2025 follow its most profitable year in at least a decade in 2024, according to the NAIC. //

Starting about a decade ago, the industry’s regulators began raising alarm about the possible effects of changes in climate on banking and finance. //

As far as the actual effects of changes in climate on expected annual losses in the insurance industry, Verisk, a catastrophe modeling firm long pre-dating the “climate risk” industry, estimates an annual impact of just 1%.

Insurance companies have spent many decades estimating risk. Perhaps regulators should allow them to come to their own conclusions, rather than insisting they use dodgy science and charge customers even more.

Modern climate politics treats humanity like an invasive species.

We’re told we consume too much, build too much, develop too much, and emit too much. The message is clear: human beings are the problem, and the earth must be protected from us.

But that is not Christianity.

It’s not even close.

For 3,000 years, the Judeo-Christian worldview taught something radically different—that humans are image-bearers designed to create, cultivate, innovate, and build. The very first job description in Scripture is found in Genesis 1:28:

“Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over every living thing.”

To modern ears, “subdue” and “dominion” sound imperial. To ancient readers, they meant responsibility, stewardship, cultivation, and development. The earth was not a fragile deity to tiptoe around; it was a raw, untamed gift meant to be worked, shaped, and stewarded for human flourishing.

And here’s where the climate debate goes off the rails.

If you believe Genesis, then energy is not a moral liability—it is the means by which humans fulfill their mandate. Energy is how you lift the poor, feed nations, sustain families, run hospitals, build infrastructure, and create the conditions for long-term stability and—ironically—environmental improvement.

Yet the climate movement has turned this mandate upside down. It demands sacrifice, limitation, and deprivation in the name of “saving the planet.” The message to the world’s poor is simple: stay poor a little longer so the West can feel environmentally virtuous. //

If you want to solve poverty, you don’t throttle energy. You expand it. You diversify it. You make it abundant and affordable. The cleanest nations on earth became clean because they became rich first. Wealth creates environmental capacity. Poverty destroys it.

The Christian view is simple: the earth was given to humanity to cultivate, not fear. The resources here are meant to be used responsibly, not locked away because climate bureaucrats believe modern prosperity is a moral sin.

The climate debate will never make sense until we recover the foundational truth Genesis established: human beings were meant to build. Meant to advance. Meant to subdue the earth—not as tyrants, but as stewards.

The earth is not a god to appease.

It is a garden to cultivate.

If you want the environment to thrive, let people thrive first.

Climate alarmists don’t just get the science wrong but also demonize the engine of wealth that has brought billions out of grinding poverty; and this “climate colonialism” is “morally unconscionable,” a Christian leader says.

“What I believe we’re seeing in the demand from wealthy Western nations that we fight climate change by reducing our use of fossil fuels is that they are demanding that the poorest nations of the world forego the use of the most abundant, affordable, reliable energy sources that can lift them out of poverty and keep them out of poverty,” E. Calvin Beisner, president of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, told The Daily Signal.

“It is the West saying to the rest, ‘We made it out, you have to stay,'” he noted. “That is just morally unconscionable.”

Snow totals topped 25 inches in Northern Wisconsin and Michigan’s Upper Peninsula through Friday morning. Hurley, Michigan has tallied 31.3 inches of snow.

Gaylord, Michigan set a daily snowfall record on Thanksgiving with 13.1 inches, breaking the previous record of 10.1 inches set in 2023. //

Chicago is expected to see 8-12 inches of snow beginning Friday, which could rival its snowiest two-day total in November since records began in 1884, according to the Forecast Center.

The Issue: Bill Gates’ revision of his former stance on the urgency of fighting climate change.
Well, well, well — Microsoft founder and climate-change zealot Bill Gates has had a change of heart (“Gates: OK, sky not falling,” Oct. 29).

He knows he’s milked the climate-change cow for all its worth, and now he’s on to the next big money-maker: artificial intelligence.

He’s acutely aware of the tremendous need for electricity to power Microsoft’s development and deployment of AI.

He’s also aware that this energy won’t come from windmills and solar panels, but from gas, coal and nuclear power plants.

If necessity is the mother of invention, then greed is the father.

Way back in the 1870s — when global temperature were supposedly ideal — approximately 50 million people died globally related to extreme weather, particularly related to an extreme El Nino event of 1877-88.

The 1870s also saw the Great Midwest Wildfires of 1871 which killed as many as 2,400 people, the massive 1872 Baltic Sea flood, a 1875 midwestern locust swam of an estimated 12.5 trillion locusts, the 1878 China typhoon that killed as many as 100,000 people, and the U.S. experienced 6 landfalling major hurricanes in the 1870s, compared to just 3 in the 2010s.

It is not widely appreciated, but 2025 (still with two months to go), is currently on track for the lowest global death toll from extreme weather in all of human history. Part of that is good fortune to be sure — for instance, the Northern Hemisphere is well below average in terms of tropical cyclone activity.

Yesterday, in his periodic letter to the world, Bill Gates shared three truths about climate change — and shook up the climate discussion. While the longer term implications of his letter are uncertain, early signs are that Gates has injected a welcome dose of climate realism into the discussion.

Here are his three truths (and I encourage everyone to read his whole letter):

1. Climate change is a serious problem, but it will not be the end of civilization;
   1. Temperature is not the best way to measure our progress on climate;
   2. Health and prosperity are the best defense against climate change.

For most THB readers, these truths will be well understood, even common sense, and will seem neither shocking nor scandalous.

But for some steeped in climate advocacy grounded in visions of “existential threat” or a looming apocalypse, Gates’ truths have rocked their world.

Maxwell Meyer

@mualphaxi
·
Follow
Bill Gates has jumped ship on climate alarmism.

He says it’s not the end of the world, that temp isn’t the most important metric, and that money is being spent poorly (wow, really??)

This is a white flag from someone who fought hard for an insane set of ideas, and lost.
9:27 AM · Oct 28, 2025 //

Bill Gates has been a key enabler of the climate grift, although hardly the most powerful proponent of it. Despite his reputation as an innovator, he is and always has been more inclined to ride a wave than create one. If he is calling off the climate catastrophe talk, you can be sure that he is merely voicing what many people in his orbit are thinking.

There’s a doomsday view of climate change that goes like this:

In a few decades, cataclysmic climate change will decimate civilization. The evidence is all around us—just look at all the heat waves and storms caused by rising global temperatures. Nothing matters more than limiting the rise in temperature.

Fortunately for all of us, this view is wrong. Although climate change will have serious consequences—particularly for people in the poorest countries—it will not lead to humanity’s demise. People will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future. Emissions projections have gone down, and with the right policies and investments, innovation will allow us to drive emissions down much further.

Unfortunately, the doomsday outlook is causing much of the climate community to focus too much on near-term emissions goals, and it’s diverting resources from the most effective things we should be doing to improve life in a warming world.

It’s not too late to adopt a different view and adjust our strategies for dealing with climate change. Next month’s global climate summit in Brazil, known as COP30, is an excellent place to begin, especially because the summit’s Brazilian leadership is putting climate adaptation and human development high on the agenda.

https://www.gatesnotes.com/work/accelerate-energy-innovation/reader/three-tough-truths-about-climate?WT.mc_id=20251028100000_COP30_MED-MED //

The idiocy of climate alarmists has been obvious to anybody who paid attention for years, and it is infuriating that people like us have to fight against disastrous policies for years or decades before we are proven right. We don't even get thanks or credit for being right, and the idiots don't get punished for being perpetually wrong. As with COVID, it's forgive and forget for the elites.

Imagine if we had built a hundred more nuclear power plants, or two hundred, since the 1980s. But no, the fearmongers stopped us, and the result is that we have spent decades trying to restart an industry that we killed for no reason other than alarmism.

It's not until the damage is done, is obvious, and the bill is outrageously high that people move on. Germany, soon enough, will do an about-face on energy or simply wither away, but if and when they do, they will have to rebuild the nuclear plants they destroyed and work mightily to lure back any industries that might take the risk.

The damage was completely avoidable. We told them so. We jumped up and down. Showed the evidence. Took apart the models. Put things in context. Held conferences. Endured ridicule and censorship. //

So yes, we are winning this battle. But we will have to fight the dead-enders for years and rebuild what they have destroyed.

Dr. Richard Lindzen and Dr. William Happer cover the sound reasons for climate science skepticism, the politicization of research funding, and the limitations of current climate models. //

Happer and Lindzen discuss how government funding mechanisms and political narratives shape climate research priorities. They argue that scientists who challenge mainstream views risk career marginalization and loss of funding. Rogan’s audience was treated to a robust review on how ideology and media framing have amplified what Happer calls a “CO₂ cult,” and how vital it is to question the reliability of predictive climate models. //

rhhardin | October 24, 2025 at 7:22 am
It was clear that science had nothing to say about global warming right from the hockey stick curve long ago, for two reasons that intersected with what was known about other things:

1. You can’t solve the Navier Stokes equations, which govern fluid flow. In 2D, flows go to larger and larger scales, and there’s no problem with numerical calculations. In 3D, flows go to shorter and shorter scales, and no numerical calculation can do the physics because the grid size is always too coarse no matter how fine it is. (The mechanism is that in 3D, vortices can kink and break up, which they cannot do in 2D. Those fine scale flows resulting feed back on larger scale flows by way of constituting a change in viscosity – transport of x momentum in the y direction etc. – on the large scale flows. Actually a tensor, not a scalar)
   So every calculation includes a term “effective viscosity” which does not appear in the Navier Stokes equation, and at that point stops doing physics. So no calculation is possible.

Weather forecasts are good for two or three days, which is how long it takes large scale vortices to kink. After that they’re no good.

2. You can’t say any historical change in temperature isn’t part of a long cycle and not a trend. A long cycle can’t be man-caused, a trend might be. The mathematical mechanism is that the linear system you have to solve to distinguish long cycles from trends develops eigenvectors of about 10 to the 30th power, which instantly multiplies any noise in the measurements and swamps the effort to distinguish. You need data that’s not shorter than they cycles that you want to eliminate, called the uncertainty principle in math (and quantum mechanics which has the same math but not other relation).

So there are no models and no data in support of man-caused global warming, in principle. //

DaveGinOly in reply to rhhardin. | October 24, 2025 at 11:58 am
The models themselves can’t provide any predictive authority. Even the UN cautions that the results spit out by models aren’t predictions. The trouble with models is that they are built by modelers who have preconceptions of how the climate works and changes over time. If a researcher thinks CO2 has an effect (there are good arguments that it doesn’t, for instance the geologic record shows the CO2 rises in response to warming, and not the other way around, there is also some – I think – very convincing science that CO2 causes warming up to a certain concentration, after which adding more CO2 has no effect), then he builds a model in which the virtual climate reacts to its virtual CO2 levels. If you had a theory that said the climate responds to the number of houses that are painted yellow, you’d build a model that had such a feedback mechanism in it. And, sure enough, if you increase the number of virtual yellow houses in the model, the virtual climate would respond. But that wouldn’t mean it isn’t utter nonsense.

Models can only show how a natural system might work. They represent theories and therefore prove nothing. Real-world observations are necessary to validate the theory. Even if the climate models are accurate, nobody has demonstrated, with real-world observations, that the actual climate behaves like their models.

Also note that there are literally dozens of climate models. Nearly every research group creates their own. This should inform us that no climate researchers have any faith in the climate models of any other researcher. What does that say about the reliability of the models?

“Science…requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What are relevant are reproducible results.”
Dr. Michael Crichton
Speaking at the California Institute of Technology, 2023. //

Ironclaw in reply to rhhardin. | October 24, 2025 at 12:32 pm
I understood that political science is the only science involved with climate when they started going back and “correcting” measurements made nearly a century ago.

1. Countries are back-pedaling away from their climate commitments as fast as they can. Ten years after the Paris Agreement on reducing emissions—which as, David Wallace-Wells notes, had been treated by the U.N.’s Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, “as though its significance approached, if not exceeded, that of the U.N. charter itself”—leaders of major countries can’t even be bothered to show up at the U.N.’s annual climate change conferences. For the upcoming November conference in Brazil (COP30), the overwhelming majority of countries have not submitted formal decarbonization plans and, of those that have, most are not compatible with the ambitious goals laid out by the Paris Agreement.

2. The U.S. is not back-pedaling, but sprinting, away from its climate commitments. The Trump administration pulled out of the Paris Agreement and has eviscerated Biden-era climate policy, including the elimination of subsidies for wind, solar and electric vehicles. There has been a thunderous lack of protest to these moves other than press releases from climate NGOs and garment-rending jeremiads from the usual suspects like Bill McKibben.

3. Despite decades of well-funded programs, mandates and targets, global progress on eliminating fossil fuels has been extremely slow. Today, 81 percent of world primary energy consumption still comes from fossil fuels and only 15 percent from renewables, less than half of which comes from wind and solar. The renewables share is higher for electricity generation, 32 percent, but electricity only accounts for 21 percent of global energy consumption. //

The euphoria of the 2015 Paris Agreement has run into the harsh realities of a global energy system based largely around fossil fuels that is very, very hard to change quickly. Nor should we wish to do so given the likely associated costs. As Vaclav Smil points out:

[W]e are a fossil-fueled civilization whose technical and scientific advances, quality of life and prosperity rest on the combustion of huge quantities of fossil carbon, and we cannot simply walk away from this critical determinant of our fortunes in a few decades, never mind years. Complete decarbonization of the global economy by 2050 is now conceivable only at the cost of unthinkable global economic retreat…

And as he tartly observes re the 2050 deadline:

People toss out these deadlines without any reflection on the scale and the complexity of the problem…What’s the point of setting goals which cannot be achieved? People call it aspirational. I call it delusional.

This reality has begun to sink in for political leaders around the world. Not only is net-zero by 2050 not going to happen but their constituents have a remarkable lack of interest in seeing this goal attained. In the United States, voters view climate change as a third tier issue, vastly prioritize the cost and reliability of energy over its effect on the climate and, if action on climate change it to be taken, are primarily concerned with the effect of such actions on consumer costs and economic growth. Making fast progress toward net-zero barely registers. //

Roger Pielke Jr.’s “iron law of climate policy”—that when policies focused on economic concerns confront policies focused on emissions reductions, it is economic concerns that will win out every time—remains undefeated. //

How We Can Make Nuclear Cheap Again Paperback – March 30, 2025

by Jack Devanney (Author)

This book has a joyful message. We can simultaneously solve the Gordian Knot of our time: the closely coupled problems of energy poverty and global warming. The solution is cheap nuclear power, and we can have cheap nuclear if we want it.

Here's the Good News:

1) Our fear of radiation is vastly overblown. A providential Nature has provided us with DNA repair mechanisms that can easily handle dose rates 100's of times above normal background. Dose rates that exceed the repair capabilities of our bodies will almost never be encountered by the public in even a very large release.

2) Thanks to its insane energy density and the resulting tiny resource requirement, nuclear power is inherently cheap, less than 3 cents per kWh cheap. Indeed nascent nuclear in the 1960's did-cost less than 3 cents/kWh in today's money. Nuclear power should consume far less of the planet's precious resources than any other source of electricity, while producing nearly no pollution and very little CO2.

Nuclear's problems are man-made. Nuclear power never escaped from its government sponsored and controlled birth. In the process, it developed a regulatory regime explicitly mandated to increase costs to the point where nuclear power is barely economic, while at the same time convincing everyone that low dose rate radiation is perilous.

But what is man-made can be man-unmade. All that's required is an acceptance of these two providential realities, a change in attitude, a metanoia. With this change, the way forward becomes obvious, and not that difficult to implement.

This little book explains why (1) and (2) are true, and then traces nuclear power's decline into a prohibitively expensive mess. Finally, it offers a way out, a system for regulating nuclear which will force the providers of nuclear power to compete with each other and new entrants on a level playing field, in which case the inherent cheapness of fission power combined with technological advances will push the cost of nuclear electricity down to its should-cost.

Nuclear would undercut fossil fuel almost every where. Fossil would be relegated to a bit of peaking and backup for unplanned outages. Intermittents would be limited to a few niche markets. This would all be automatic. No need for subsidies or mandates. The poor would be immensely richer. Electrification of transportation and industry would explode. Desalinization would take off. Synthetic fuels could become viable. Skies would be clean. All this electricity would require little land and produce almost no CO2. The planet would be cooler. Could there be a more joyful message?

In less than a few centuries, 250 groundbreaking hydrocarbon processing and refining techniques were discovered. Their impact continues today, benefiting the 8 billion people living on Earth.

Today, over 6,000 products derived from petroleum enrich our lives. They have reduced infant mortality, doubled global life expectancy from around 40 to over 80 years, and made it possible to travel anywhere in the world by plane, train, ship, or car — drastically reducing weather-related deaths to nearly zero. These were all unimaginable in societies before 1800. //

Today, “Net Zero” policymakers setting “green” policies are oblivious to the reality that so-called “renewables” ONLY generate electricity but CANNOT make anything. In addition, everything that NEEDS Electricity, like iPhones and computers, is made with petrochemicals manufactured from crude oil, coal, or natural gas.

Electricity came after oil, as all electrical generation methods, including hydro, coal, natural gas, nuclear, wind, and solar, are built with products, components, and equipment made from oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil. //

If we go back 200 years to the 1800s, we find a decarbonized society, i.e., a very different era and a society without products, transportation fuels, and electricity. Fossil-fuel products weren’t widespread, thus lifestyles were less prosperous, health conditions were precarious, and life expectancy was short.

A renewed shift toward decarbonization and zero-emission lifestyles severely restricts the use of fossil fuels, like coal and oil, and could bring us back to a world of more than 200 years ago. That might mean billions suffering again from disease, malnutrition, and weather-related fatalities.

Moving toward decarbonization risks depriving, or delaying access to, the standards of living and products that wealthy, healthy nations take for granted. Today, around 700 million people, which is roughly 9% of humanity, live below the international poverty line. In other words, halting fossil fuel production and use would reverse many centuries of progress.

Over the last 200 years, after the discovery of the products and transportation fuels that could be manufactured out of crude oil, the world’s population has increased from 1 billion to 8 billion. It was more than 6,000 “products” from oil that supported the tremendous growth in population. //

Wind turbines and solar panels can ONLY generate ELECTRICITY.
All the products and transportation fuels demanded by society, all the infrastructures, and the economy are made from fossil fuels.

Geoengineering can also be unbelievably stupid. The British government is planning to fund high-altitude geoengineering to block sunlight. This is a pet project of some very rich people who consider themselves geniuses, and it is a real thing – I have directly heard their discussions on similar projects from people who can pay for them. It is based on the interesting conviction that while all previous episodes of global warming were due to some natural phenomena, the current one is solely due to the work of man, and that somehow dimming sunlight by setting up a reflective layer in the upper atmosphere is therefore a good thing (i.e. not interfering with nature, but saving it…).

There is irony here. We now have 9 billion people on earth, and have defied all previous predictions of Malthusian catastrophe and starvation, partly because vegetation (i.e., our crops) grows faster and uses water more efficiently than it did 50 or 100 years ago. The reason for this is higher carbon dioxide (CO2). Plants need mainly CO2, sunlight, and water to grow. Whether CO2 is the main cause of global warming is irrelevant here. It is a reasonable theory, but anthropogenic emissions do not explain past warming periods. CO2 has doubled from previously very low levels, but it was much lower in the Middle Ages when the Norse grew crops in Greenland.

So, whether or not sun-blocking will reduce global temperatures, it will certainly reduce sunlight and plant growth. This will reduce harvests, both in yield and in some places in frequency. Mass starvation will be much more likely – all apparently for the greater good. It may even be better for investors in failing fake meat companies and other factory foods, which may explain some interest in sun dimming. A clever commercial approach, but likely to be fairly widely fatal. While the British government is embracing this, it is almost certainly happening already, at least experimentally. There are no rules, just stupidity. //

So, perhaps we should concentrate on the industrial and political stupidity that is endangering us all through stuff that is proven and readily demonstrable. Labeling nature or air travel as evidence of evil will gain likes on social media, but also help the cause of those who would own and control our atmosphere and food supply.

• Nobody knows how much warming will occur in the next century. The computer models vary by 400 percent, de facto proof that nobody knows. But if I had to guess—the only thing anyone is doing, really—I would guess the increase will be 0.812436 degrees C. There is no evidence that my guess about the state of the world one hundred years from now is any better or worse than anyone else’s. (We can’t “assess” the future, nor can we “predict” it. These are euphemisms. We can only guess. An informed guess is just a guess.)

• I suspect that part of the observed surface warming will ultimately be attributable to human activity. I suspect that the principal human effect will come from land use, and that the atmospheric component will be minor.
  Before making expensive policy decisions on the basis of climate models, I think it is reasonable to require that those models predict future temperatures accurately for a period of ten years. Twenty would be better.

• I think for anyone to believe in impending resource scarcity, after two hundred years of such false alarms, is kind of weird. I don’t know whether such a belief today is best ascribed to ignorance of history, sclerotic dogmatism, unhealthy love of Malthus, or simple pigheadedness, but it is evidently a hardy perennial in human calculation.

• There are many reasons to shift away from fossil fuels, and we will do so in the next century without legislation, financial incentives, carbon-conservation programs, or the interminable yammering of fearmongers. So far as I know, nobody had to ban horse transport in the early twentieth century. //

• The current near-hysterical preoccupation with safety is at best a waste of resources and a crimp on the human spirit, and at worst an invitation to totalitarianism. Public education is desperately needed.

• I conclude that most environmental “principles” (such as sustainable development or the precautionary principle) have the effect of preserving the economic advantages of the West and thus constitute modern imperialism toward the developing world. It is a nice way of saying, “We got ours and we don’t want you to get yours, because you’ll cause too much pollution.”

• The “precautionary principle,” properly applied, forbids the precautionary principle. It is self-contradictory. The precautionary principle therefore cannot be spoken of in terms that are too harsh.

Let's just say that there are some pockets being filled, and they are not yours or mine. Kerry called climate change a gold mine for investors, and he sure has been right.

It turns out, pushing unrealistic green energy schemes onto low- and middle-income people at the expense of a safer fuel source was not only bad science, it was dangerous propaganda.

"There is no foundation to the climate scare... it's all based on models that don't work."

Carbon dioxide is an essential nutrient.

"I am firmly of the belief that the future will show that this whole hysteria over climate change was a complete fabrication."

– Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace.

"Game over. We are dealing with a fraud".

Geologist Prof. Ian Plimer obliterates the climate agenda in under two minutes.

"No one has ever shown that human emissions of CO₂ drive global warming… And if it could be shown, then you would have to show that the 97% of