Al Gore

In Bangalore,

Four million people now have to buy expensive water trucked in because their wells have gone dry.

What about the food crisis that scientists are predicting?

Is it realistic to ignore that as well in order to avoid doing anything to reduce fossil fuel emissions?

Now, why also do these so-called climate realists ignore all the good news about the miraculous decline in the cost of the alternatives to fossil fuel?

Is it

possibly because their business models are threatened.

If there is a cheaper, cleaner alternative that creates many more jobs, it might not be good for them the way they calculate it, but the rest of us have a stake in this.

This could be why they've been consistently wrong in their predictions in the past.

For example, ExxonMobil, in the Year of the Paris Agreement, had a prediction about solar capacity in 2040, 840 gigawatts.

Well, this year, we've already tripled the number that they predicted for 15 years from now.

In OPEC ...

OPEC, the same year, predicted electric vehicle sales would barely increase.

Well, they were wrong.

Same year, OPEC predicted that it was just unrealistic to think that solar power would ever be able to compete in cost with the burning of fossil fuels.

But now, it is by far the cheapest source of electricity in all of history.

Now, you know, a lot of other people have been surprised by how quickly these costs have come down.

University of Oxford studied 3,000 past projections, and the average predicted decline was 2.6 percent a year.

The reality was 15 percent per year.

And when you compound a number like that, it makes quite a difference.