The above op-ed appeared in our local newspaper, a weekly called Canyon Courier. To give an example of how deep down the groupthink around Climate Change has gone, this publication, which has a few thousand subscribers, refuses to print anything favorable towards “Climate Change Denial.” I know. I have tried.
Canyon Courier is part of a larger chain of small publications, meaning that its editor is strictly small-time, perhaps even a part-timer, though I do not know. I once offered a Letter to the Editor, months ago, and he was enthusiastic about it and said it would appear in the next issue. That meant I needed to subscribe, which I did. The letter never made it to print.
Subscribing to the Courier is not a bad thing, though it is focused on local sports, which mean nothing to us. It promotes local businesses, some articles of wider interest, op-eds which are mostly soft writing of the kind prompting kindness to strangers and the end of littering, and an occasional summary of sheriff reports given a comic twist. It will promote Climate Change, oddly an off-beat topic one would think they would avoid. But they have been heavy into it. I have tried to offer some balance, to no avail.
The above op-ed appeared and I read it. I thought little of it, but as I reflected, I realized that it was entirely about predictions of success of future endeavors in solar power which, of course, cannot possibly fail in any way. I had to stop and recall: When was the last time a climate nutter predicted anything of the future that actually came true? Never. I reread the above piece, and realized that it was overly optimistic, ignoring the true cost of solar power (along with its long tail, public subsidies). It wildly overstates efficiency. The worst part of solar is its irregularity, only working when the sun shines, and not when it is even just cloudy. Another defect is that produces direct current, which has to be injected into an alternating power grid in very small portions. Otherwise, the grid goes south on us.
Notice how he says “To the dismay of some environmental advocates, most utilities want natural gas as a backup.” But of course they do! What do we do when the sun doesn’t shine? In addition to being overly optimistic about efficiency of solar power, it is completely unrealistic. No natural gas backup in the Rocky Mountains, where it is known to get a bit cold in winter?
He also talks about a 100-megawatt four-hour discharge battery project as backup. Last winter, due to high winds, our power was shut off for three days – a precautionary measure taken in the wake of the Paradise, California tragedy. I talked with a person living higher up the hill from us, and he said his power was turned off for a week. Can you imagine the size of the battery facility needed to supply tens of thousands of customers battery power for even four hours? Picture all the sand it would take to build a sand castle on the beach. Then imagine one grain of sand. That’s how far short battery storage is of being a functional alternative in power outages.
So I submitted my own letter to the Canyon Courier. I know, it’s futile, but I enjoyed writing it. This blog will be the only place it sees light of day. I do not have my mind right, you see. (That is true, of course.)
Editor Scott Taylor, Canyon Courier
It is understood as my fingers hit the keyboard that what I write is unprintable, and not because I am obviously wrong. Rather, it is power from above that forbids publishing of anything contrary to the current psyop in force called “Climate Change”. Real science exists and has dismantled CC in whole and part, showing it to be improbable, if not impossible science. It is a product of deceit from on high coupled with one of the greatest drivers known in human organization, groupthink. (Unlimited tax and NGO funds do not harm this effort!) It is groupthink and a subconscious knowledge of power lurking behind the tapestry that controls most of the media, even down to the level of this tiny newspaper. Certain opinions are unpublishable. There is a price to pay, usually loss of livelihood. None dare.
The opinion piece by Allen Best, Chapters: As a coal mine closes solar comes on, (10/22/26) sailed through to print with ease, as it is known to be palatable. It was not closely scrutinized by anyone with with a working knowledge of the energy grid. As such, the wisdom behind dismantling of coal plants is easily allowed without understanding the importance of compressed energy sources like coal, natural gas, and oil, and the ultimate compression, uranium. The massive restructuring of coal burning from the 1970s forward (smokestack scrubbing) eliminated over 90% of pollutants. Exclusive reliance on solar panels in certain localities is presented by Best in an Alice in Wonderland fashion, blissfully unaware of the massive government subsidies (not counted in the “cheap” factor associated with its use), including the mechanical problems with introduction of direct current into an alternating current grid. The huge blackout on the Iberian Peninsula last year was result of this very factor. Then there is small matter of ongoing reliability … apparently beneath his sight line.
Fossil fuels have been a boon to humankind, a source of our comfort, wealth, and abundant food supply. Demonization of CO2 as a “pollutant”, a harmless fertilizer with very little ability to heat the atmosphere, is nothing but a stalking horse attack on fossil fuels, and thereby human wealth, comfort, and prosperity. It is misanthropy. The Best piece is nothing but predictions, none yet realized, submitted with wide-eyed gullibility. Climate alarmists have yet to make an accurate prediction of the future (they are not even skilled at describing the past and present). This article will take its place in the long line of failure.
Sincerely,
