By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
James Hansen is often accused of causing so much publicity in the U.S. Senate with his infamous 1988 prediction of runaway global warming that IPeCaC was hastily formed later that year to save the planet.
His prediction ran until 2020. How did Fantasy Land then compare with more than two decades of sober, observed reality? The graph, which was set to zero so that the anomaly observed by HadCRUT4 in 1988 lies between Hansen’s three scenarios, shows that the observed warming came closest to Hansen’s scenario C.
The assumption underlying Scenario C, however, is that, according to Hansen’s testimony in the Senate, everyone would be so scared that what is now referred to as “net zero” would be achieved by the year 2000. Well it wasn’t. And it won’t be until 2050 either. The main reason can be seen in the collapse of the Texas power grid.
The Lone Star State, who should have had more common sense, decided that they once laid out the state with windmills (14th century technology not to solve a 21st century problem) and solar panels (made by slave labor in carpeting) had China) could reduce its heat network capacity that can be shipped.
However, as any grid manager will tell you, you cannot do this. Last but not least, the reason the unreliable are so cripplingly expensive is the need to maintain the entire network already in place, no matter how many unreliable are screwed onto it. Thus, the unreliable incur not only carryover costs but also excess dead weight capacity of the network, not to mention the costly instability caused by prioritizing unreliable over thermal in meeting demand.
Texas only took 4 gigawatts of reliable devices offline. But then, when all the unreliable failed during peak load in freezing weather, there wasn’t enough shippable power to keep the grid alive.
Hansen’s business-as-usual scenario A is now generally recognized as an unfounded and absurd exaggeration, even among the Thermageddonites. It predicts two to three times as much warming as before. As the graph below shows, despite spending trillions of dollars in spending, CO2 emissions exceeded IPeCaC’s normal 1990 emissions scenario, so the world’s failure to warm up with something like Scenario A is not due to emissions reductions.
The global warming fraud was founded on exaggerations like Scenario A, and it will continue on such exaggerations – for now, but perhaps not for long.