For most of my life, at least for the last 35 years, we have accepted the climate change orthodoxy.

There was always debate, but the dominant narrative said, no, we have to radically change our economy

and move away from fossil fuels to renewable, and that was usually wind and solar.

I didn't think in my lifetime that I would see an end to that.

And then something's happened lately, artificial intelligence.

This seems to be the greatest technological breakthrough since the industrial evolution

takes huge amounts of electricity.

We don't have it.

We're going to have to build 100, one gigawatt plant.

That's the size of a large nuclear reactor. We're going to have

to build 100 per year, or the equivalent of clean coal or natural gas. And we will not get it

by subsidizing wind turbines and solar panels. Hello, this is Victor Davis-Hanson for the Daily Signal.

For most of my life, at least for the last 35 years, we have accepted the climate change orthodoxy. We used to be global warming and then when

things were not always warming, but they were cooling. They changed the name to climate change to

suggest whatever the temperature extreme was. It was all due to carbon emissions caused by, in general,

humans, but in particular, Westerners who were

polluting the planet with heat. That was the dominant narrative. I didn't think in my lifetime

that I would see an end to that dominance, even though there were inconsistencies. The planet

is 4 billion years old and man has only been here for 300,000 years,

and we only have accurate record keeping of temperature fluctuations for the last 150 years. And even

within that period, we have cyclical changes between decades of abnormal temperatures, whether too hot or too cold.

Before the Industrial Revolution, in some cases, by tree rings and ice in the Arctic sampling.

...