The week between Christmas and New Year’s is a peculiar time—a liminal space where the usual frenzy of modern life pauses, and reflection takes center stage. For many, it’s a time to step back, take stock, and plan for the year ahead. It’s a tradition that could do wonders for climate policy, where rushed decisions and dogmatic thinking often dominate the conversation. Maybe it’s time for climate policy to take a holiday.
The concept of a pause—a genuine break to reassess—is desperately needed in a field driven by alarmist narratives and speculative science. Policies built on climate models riddled with uncertainties are just as likely to cause harm as to achieve any good. Instead of doubling down on Net Zero mandates or renewable energy quotas, policymakers could use this downtime to ask: Are these policies truly benefiting humanity—or are they paving the way for unintended consequences?
A Pause to Reflect on Predictions
Climate policies are often justified by dire predictions that consistently fail to materialize. As we head into 2025, it’s worth recalling the many apocalyptic forecasts that have gone up in smoke. Take claims that Pacific islands would be underwater by now or that Arctic ice would have disappeared entirely. Instead, those islands remain habitable, and polar bears are still prowling the Arctic, or many other failures that can be seen on WUWT’s own Failed Prediction Timeline.
Policymakers rarely acknowledge these glaring inaccuracies. Instead, they double down, crafting policies based on models that overestimate warming and underestimate human adaptability. Shouldn’t this end-of-year break be the perfect opportunity to reassess these models and their real-world track record? If climate science can’t predict the future reliably, why are we treating it as a crystal ball?
This holiday pause could also be a time to question whether the harm caused by rushed climate policies outweighs their supposed benefits. Consider the lives disrupted by soaring energy costs, the industries crippled by overregulation, and the developing nations stalled in their quest for prosperity—all based on uncertain projections.
Energy Policy: A Season for Common Sense
Winter is a time when the consequences of misguided energy policies are felt most acutely. As families struggle to heat their homes amidst skyrocketing energy prices, it becomes clear that the push for unreliable wind and solar has left many vulnerable. Policymakers often dismiss these hardships as “necessary sacrifices,” but sacrifices for what, exactly? If the goal is to mitigate future harm, why ignore the very real harm happening now?
Imagine if policymakers spent a week in the shoes of an average family—choosing between heating their home and affording groceries—or a business owner facing closure due to unsustainable energy costs. Such firsthand experiences might prompt a more balanced approach: one that prioritizes reliable energy sources, such as natural gas or nuclear, over intermittent and expensive renewables.
Learning from 2024: The Year of Uncertain Policies
This past year, COP29 in Baku provided yet another showcase of global climate policy’s contradictions. As delegates flew in on private jets to lecture the world about emissions, Europe’s energy crisis continued to highlight the fragility of green energy systems. From Germany’s backpedaling on coal phaseouts to California’s rolling blackouts, 2024 was a banner year for illustrating the practical failures of policies grounded in uncertainty.
These examples underscore a fundamental problem: Climate policies often ignore the real-world trade-offs they impose. Leaders talk of “saving the planet,” but their actions reveal priorities that are out of touch with the needs of ordinary people. By taking a “holiday,” climate policymakers could reflect on whether their policies are doing more harm than good—especially for the world’s most vulnerable.
A New Year’s Resolution for Climate Policy
As we step into 2025, it’s time for climate policy to adopt some New Year’s resolutions. Here are a few ideas worth considering:
- Acknowledge Uncertainty: Recognize the significant gaps in climate models and predictions, and adjust policies to reflect this uncertainty.
- Stop Harming the Poor: Reassess how policies like carbon taxes and renewable mandates disproportionately impact low-income families and developing nations.
- Support Energy Innovation: Shift focus from restricting energy use to encouraging technological advancements in nuclear power, clean coal, and other practical solutions.
- End the Culture of Alarmism: Replace the constant drumbeat of catastrophe with a balanced discussion about risks and opportunities.
Conclusion
A pause for reflection doesn’t mean abandoning environmental stewardship. On the contrary, it’s about embracing a more thoughtful approach—one that weighs the costs and benefits of every policy. It’s time to move away from rushing toward uncertain goals and instead prioritize solutions that address today’s needs without mortgaging the future.
Should climate policy take a holiday? Absolutely. Because sometimes, the most productive thing you can do is stop, reflect, and reconsider. Let 2025 be the year we replace rash commitments with reasoned action—and, in doing so, create a better path forward for everyone.
Spot on.
“From Germany’s backpedaling on coal phaseouts to California’s rolling blackouts, 2024 was a banner year for illustrating the practical failures of policies grounded in uncertainty.”
The proponents of those policies were not uncertain at all about what they believed that was just not so.
So let’s call this short holiday period the Charles Rotter Pause and reflect on what alternative approaches might be employed against the “climate” movement.
Here’s one: Discard entirely the “forcing” + “feedback” framing of the expected climate system response to incremental GHGs. There is no “forcing” to be assumed, nor “feedback” to it, if the GHGs add no energy of their own to the land + ocean + atmosphere system. Let’s stop conceding this mistaken central claim that assumes a conclusion about where the energy involved in the incremental radiative effect ends up as final result.
A very happy New Year to all at WUWT and beyond.
So let’s call this short holiday period the Charles Rotter Pause and reflect on
what alternative approaches might be employed against the “climate” movement.
___________________________________________________________________________
BINGO
We know they are going to do:
“Pull back, reorganize, double down and figure out how
much damage they can do in the next three weeks.”
The first time I saw the term “forcing” used (units W/m2), I was totally baffled, had no idea what it means. Force is measured in Newtons! CO2 is not a source of irradiance.
Later I discovered that the term “feedback” has been borrowed from Bode feedback amplifier theory: they sketch feedback amplifier block diagrams, but they don’t use the resulting fundamental Bode equation and are in fact quite ignorant about it. In reality, “feedback” in climate science is handwaving, using goat entrails and navel gazing to figure out if something is a positive or negative “feedback”, and deduce conclusions from these word games.
W/m^2 is power density, not energy which is Joules (J = W sec).
There are many definitions of forcing function.
The one that seems closest to how it is used in climate models comes from computer science.
“A forcing function, in the context of Computer Science, refers to a term added to the residual of a coarse grid solution to influence the behavior of the system being analyzed.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/forcing-function
In other words it is an artificial construct.
Feedback. I have been pointing that out for a while. You are correct. Systems Engineering 101, Control Theory. Pleasure seeing someone referring to Bode.
Positive feedback by water vapor is “creative” and totally invalid.
Computer science, this makes sense.
Control theory is not an easy subject, nor is it intuitive.
Water vapor creates a positive feedback in the climate system Scientific fact, known for 100 years.
Rubbish !! You are regurgitating fake climate mantra. !
And as there is no signal from CO2, you cannot have a feedback anyway.
If you think there is a CO2 signal, then you need to produce evidence, start with the most basic level.. show us where it is.
1… Please provide empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
2… Please show the evidence of CO2 warming in the UAH atmospheric data.
Water vapor is part of a complex feedback system that contains both positive and negative elements. Whether the positive dominates or the negative can’t be told by theory and hasn’t been determined by observation.
As usual beetroot, your analysis is way, way to simple. Pretty much emblematic of climate science in general.
Water vapor, under the right conditions can be a positive feedback.
However, the assumption that relative humidity stays constant as temperature increases has been disproven.
If increased humidity results in increased rainfall, then water vapor itself can be a negative feedback.
If increased humidity results in increased cloud cover, then water vapor can be a negative feedback.
If increased temperature and increased over turning of the atmosphere as well as accelerated poleward atmospheric circulation, then water vapor can create a negative feedback.
You really need to stop with the simplistic nonsense and start studying the actual science. Assuming your pay masters will let you.
According to the IPCC 6th Assessment, water vapor is a strong positive feedback; ie, as the earth warms, increased evaporation leads to more water vapor in the atmosphere, which further traps heats and amplifies the warming effect, effectively doubling the warming due to atm CO2 increase.According to the IPCC’s 6th Assessment Report (AR6), the water vapor feedback is considered a strong positive feedback loop, meaning that as the Earth warms, increased evaporation leads to more water vapor in the atmosphere, which further traps heat and amplifies the warming effect; this is considered one of the most significant contributors to climate change based on current scientific understanding.
But there is no proof in the IPCC that it is.
It is pure conjecture based on erroneous physics and models.
If you had read the report, you would know that.
If you think there is, then show the exact part that give the proof.
Noted that you have FAILED yet again to produce any real evidence that CO2 does anything.. so “feedback” is meaningless.
No wonder Bnice gets science so badly wrong — she makes a fundamental error in thinking that there are proofs in science. Unfortunately, Bnice, proofs are for math; evidence is needed to confirm a scientific hypothesis and make it an accepted scientific theory.
Say Ms Beetroot, who has never produced a single bit of actual science in over 10 years…
Science requires evidence..
You have proven you have NONE. !
Watching you squirming is hilarious.
SLITHER AWAY AGAIN….
1… Please provide empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
2… Please show the evidence of CO2 warming in the UAH atmospheric data.
All beeton can do is regurgitate IPCC boilerplate handwaving about “feedbacks”.
And yet there has been decreasing cloud, and increasing absorbed solar radiation.
IPCC FAIL !!
Bode feedback amplifier theory….
circuit impedance changes amp output …..
don’t think we can cause the suns output to change!
😉
0
I never liked the use of the word “forcing” in climate “science”. Sounds like rape. Or, working for a scumbag boss.
Climate research is acceptable.
I have yet to have anyone point me to a college or university that offered a degree in “Climate Science.” If that ever happens, then one has to wonder how in 4 or 6 or 8 years a student can become PhD qualified in all of the multiple science and engineering disciplines needed to warrant being called a “Climate Scientist.” Certainly computer software modelers are divorced from that reality.
Until he (beeton and the IPCC and the thousands upon thousands of climate scientists he points to) can state the magnitude of the feedback block(s) and the magnitude of the gain block, this will all remain meaningless noise.
Speculation about signs, negative or positive, is completely pointless.
// I never liked the use of the word “forcing” …
Me neither. It reminds me of the word “pricing”. Things you really need, food, clothing, shelter etc., have a price. Large, fancy/expensive things you don’t really need have a “pricing”.
😐
The net radiation and conduction flow of energy between two point in the atmosphere depends on the temperature difference.
Convective and air movement flow of energy depends on the pressure/density difference.
Tiny changes in trace CO2 does not alter either the temperature gradient or the pressure/density gradient in the atmosphere….
… so it can’t alter the net radiative, conductive, convective or air movement of energy.
It’s difficult for WUWTers to have an ‘alternative climate policy; when they don’t have any consistent or coherent view or explanation for the behavior of the climate. So far, they’ve just been speaking in word salads because they have no analysis –in fact they dont even have an agreed upon definition of the problem!
So far beetroot is still speaking with an intellect of a drunk kamal.
Cannot counter a single thing said. !
Poor mini-troll has zero ability to analyse anything.
We don’t need any climate policy, because nothing is wrong with “The Climate™” ..
… and we have zero effect on “The Climate™“, anyway.
“The Climate™” is behaving exactly as “The Climate™” has always behaved.
Albeit a tad on the COLD side compared to the rest of the Holocene.
I’m waiting for beetroot to come up with an actual argument.
So far his positions have boiled down to, peer review is golden and may never be challenged, so long as it is being done by a scientist that he agrees with. For everyone else it’s worthless.
That and his tendency to declare any science that fails to support what he wants to believe is by definition defective, therefore it doesn’t need to be refuted.
BTW, it’s up to the people demanding to change the world, to actually prove that their claims are correct. It’s not up to come up with a coherent statement regarding the many ways that you are wrong. It’s up to you, to prove you are right. Something you have been singularly incapable of doing.
I’m willing to bet that beetroots response to this post will be to whine that nobody but him believes in science.
I believe that thousands of climate scientists that have created the extensive body of scientific knowledge about the behavior of the climate over the last 125 years know way more than Markie W— who actually gets it mostly wrong.
Beetroot has just said his tiny mind is operating purely on “faith” .. like a religion. Evidence is totally irrelevant to him.
Beetroot has basically zero scientific knowledge, so just “believes” what he thinks someone has said.
Basically everything beetroot thinks he knows about “The Climate™” is provably just mis-information… and wrong.
He cannot even produce any real science supporting the very basis of his religion.
The scientific knowledge of “the Climate™” says there is absolutely nothing unprecedented or untoward happening.
Science says CO2 is absolutely essential to the planet’s survival and is currently at rather low levels.
Science also says the temperature is barely a degree or so above the coldest period in 10,000 years.
Yes Bnice, of course. And I bet you believe in fairies, fantasies, and many such conspiracy theories. They’re much simpler than real science,
Again, totally unable to counter a single fact I stated above.
A mentally “limited” little troll. !
“And I bet you believe in fairies, fantasies,”
NO, I am not an AGW-cultist !
I will leave the fantasies and fairy-tails up to you… they are your life. !
“I’m waiting for beetroot to come up with an actual argument.”
Now that is really funny ! 🙂
The true meaning of “unprecedented”! 🙂
The argument that Beeton proposes is:
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”
It hasn’t changed since 1875
Where did I say anything like that?
Oh dear, ye of very little brain…. So funny !!
How about retire rather than put on holiday.
Bingo! Unfortunately, there won’t be either retiring or holiday for the climate emergency folks here in Wokeachusetts- they’ll resist until the state is bankrupt- which should happen soon now that the state is overrun with illegal aliens- and not of the ET type. (haven’t seen any drones here so far 🙂 )
Story Tip
https://21sci-tech.com/Subscriptions/Spring%202008%20ONLINE/CO2_chemical.pdf
CO2 levels measured in the early 1800s were as high or higher than measured today.
Very interesting.
What also is interesting is there is an apparent relationship between the phase of the moon and CO2 levels. There are possibilities one could speculate about the moon, but that is for another time.
Sure. Maybe there’s even a connection between Martians and World Series winners.
Whatever you “believe”, beetroot !
That doesn’t pass the smell test. Of course you can get vastly elevated CO2 measurements if you’re not careful to sample far enough away from sources.
We have something like 65 years of data from Mauna Loa Observatory that would have to be explained away. I’m not prepared to believe that it is the result of some conspiracy by somebody playing a very long game.
This irrational desire to claim that fossil fuel burning doesn’t affect atmospheric CO2 is really pathetic. CO2 is slowly rising by about half the rate we’re emitting. It is harmless and in fact beneficial.
Saying that CO2 is rising due to fossil fuel burning is totally unrelated to observing that temperatures are slowly getting a bit milder. Correlated (imperfectly) but with no proof of any causation.
Even when we assume for the sake of argument that there is causation, the empirical evidence shows that it would never be dangerous.
Trying to concoct evidence that CO2 isn’t rising or that it is somehow a natural phenomenon just discredits the misguided skeptics pushing these errors. It’s embarrassing.
So dozens of scientists in the 1800s were not careful. Your comment does not pass the smell test. If they had source problems, then why the CO2 decline in subsequent years? These scientists were every bit as careful as Foote and Tyndall and others. If you challenge them, then you must challenge them all.
Your insulting comment about trying to concoct anything is unwarranted. The scientists making those measurements were published in the journals of the day. Nothing concocted by me.
As to far enough away from sources:
On December 24th, Kilauea erupted. Kilauea is one of the more active volcanos on the planet. According to Google maps, Kilauea is 10 miles laterally and 15 miles down slope from the Mauna Loa Observatory before it moved.
Measurements at the Mauna Loa Observatory stopped after the 2022 eruption of the Mauna Loa volcano. The observatory was moved to Maunakea.
Mauna Loa Observatory also is at 11,341 feet altitude. No surrounding water temperature data can be located associated with the measurements (Henry’s Law) and the ground level air temperature range from 70 F to over 90 F, which is why the ocean temperature is needed.
Volcanos emit CO2. Vents likewise emit CO2. Other gasses, too.
The scientists at Mauna Loa were dedicated and their processes and procedures are impeccable. One minor note that is too often omitted is that they make a dry mol measurement and clearly state that the atmospheric concentration would be ~10% lower due to water vapor.
You are putting words in my mouth. I never made any claim about hydrocarbon and coal burned to generate electricity and power cars, planes, stoves, etc.
My point is, in the 1850 (when the first oil well was drilled in the USA) to 1880 CO2 was at its lowest point in the 19th century. A coincidence that this was the date selected to start the CO2 curve?
It is not what we know we don’t know that is the risk. It is what we do not know we don’t know that is the risk. There is a lot we do not know about how the earth energy system works. The is a lot we know, too. The science is not settled.
So, basically, I am countering that your rant is pathetic.
Now, if you want to have a discussion without insults, I am game.
SN4 I’m sorry that my comments insulted you. However, it is indefensible to claim that CO2 concentration in the bulk atmosphere away from significant sources hasn’t been rising steadily for the past 70 years at least.
Scientists who in the 1800s wanted to understand how much ambient CO2 was in the air in the cities where they were working may well have been measuring very accurately. But they were not intending to measure a property analogous to the MLO measurements. They were looking at local ambient conditions. CO2 takes time to diffuse into the bulk atmosphere. In a place with numerous point sources, it should be expected that there will be an elevated reading.
Your claim is a very weird conspiracy theory, found mostly on junk science websites -/ which apparently are your go to sources for all sorts of nonsense. Don’t you have any ability to discern what’s phony and what’s real?
It is obviously that beetroot visits many junk science web sites, and then bring the junk science or, in his case, ZERO science, here.
You live in a brain-washed deluded fantasy world, devoid of anything resembling actual science.
You are a science free zone.
Prove me wrong by producing some actual science to answer these two questions … (or continue to run around like a headless chook)
1… Please provide empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
2… Please state the exact amount of CO2 warming in the last 45 year, giving measured scientific evidence for your answer
..
I knew that.
Thanks.
Admittedly, I only did a quick read, but I didn’t find anything regarding where those measurements were being taken.
Isn’t CO2 meant to be a “well mixed” gas in the atmosphere 😉
In the bulk atmosphere sure. But it doesn’t diffuse from its source instantaneously.
Not only will local sources affect the local concentration but so will local sinks. Anomalously low readings will also occur for example in a cornfield on a sunny day with little wind.
It was entirely appropriate for Callendar to exclude both the elevated and depressed values from the average. It wasn’t arbitrary.
“exclude both the elevated and depressed values “
Except he didn’t . The vast majority of values he excluded were high values..
“It wasn’t arbitrary.”
Well duh !!.. He needed to show that CO2 started low.
The difficulty is assuming these policymakers and activists care about the poor or anything other than their ideologies. For the most part, they are well aware of the deficiencies in the narrative and its supporting ‘evidence’. They know they are making it up as they go along. The rest of the climate mob remains ignorant based on Sinclair’s Law–“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
.
The policymakers pushing the hoax are only truly interested in the power and wealth that flows from controlling virtually all economic activity. There is absolutely no prospect of persuading them. It is only by persuading enough of the sheeple to resist that we can hope to prevail.
Unfortunately, if you too effectively call attention to the gap between their rhetoric of defending the poor and the reality of what their policies entail in practice, you may have an ‘accident’ or find yourself committing ’suicide’.
“ideologies”? You mean as in the ideologies of money flow to themselves by controlling how people vote (for them)?
You will have nothing and you will be happy.
— WEF
Oldie but a goodie. They always know what is best for the plebes.
Perhaps we should stop regarding environmentalism and climate policy as the same? The former simply makes sense, the latter is nonsense.
“Maybe it’s time for climate policy to take a holiday”; not in the UK
According to oil price dot com, the UK’s energy sector, 2024 has been a transformational year. Per the government everything in the sector has been world class change, for the better.
Yes It has; the economy is collapsing faster this year than it has since the summer of 1940.
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/2024-Has-Been-a-Transformational-Year-for-the-UKs-Energy-Sector.html
On this site we have to love increased CO2 ppm and we have to write the obituary of climate policies, because we want to MAGA, and that cannot be done with highly subsidized, dysfunctional wind, solar, batteries, EVs, heat pumps, etc., as Germany and the UK have been proving for the past 20 years
At present, they are in very deep do do, as is dysfunctional France, where the billionaire owners of luxury hotels, spas and goods venders had a big haircut, due to poor sales of fashion, perfumes, jewelry, etc., and much lower number of foreign tourists visiting. GO WOKE AND CHOKE, CHOKE
This question embodies the notion that humans can change Earth’s climate by temporarily returning some of the sequestered carbon back into the atmosphere. Such a bold claim would need some actual science to support it.
There are two ways to alter Earth’s energy balance – change the temperature of the phase change of ice forming or alter the atmospheric pressure significantly. Small additions of CO2 are not going to change those fundamentals.
Climate policy belongs in lunatic asylums; delusional nonsense.
Very nice Charles, you are always so much more charitable than me when pointing out the shortcomings of the other side. We will always need people like you.
Where I worked everyone feared the auditors.