The Week That Was: 2025-09-13 (September 13, 2025)
Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org)
The Science and Environmental Policy Project
Quote of the Week: “The right to search for truth implies also a duty; one must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true.” — Albert Einstein, The Ultimate Quotable Einstein (2010) [H/t Richard Lindzen and William Happer]
Number of the Week: 1.5 mm per year
THIS WEEK:
By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
Scope: TWTW begins with a legal issue regarding the report by the Climate Working Group (CWG) to the Secretary of Energy. TWTW continues with the fourth and final discussion of key issues in the report. Then, it presents comments from physicists Richard Lindzen and William Happer to the CWG. TWTW then counters some unfavorable comments by some “leading scientists” who have no expertise in the field of atomic/molecular/optical (AMO) physics that pertains to the greenhouse effect.
*********************
Effective Criticism: According to Roger Pielke, Jr., the Climate Working Group (CWG) has been disbanded, and the Department of Energy (DOE) report will be withdrawn. It is the result of a lawsuit filed by the Environmental Defense Fund and the Unition of Concerned Scientists claiming that the formation of the CWG violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). You know you are effective when your enemies become fierce.
The DOE is fighting the lawsuit, but to SEPP the issue is filing a scientifically based document to the EPA on the absurdity of the Endangerment Finding by September 22. Even though the entire CWG report is under a legal cloud, there is no reason why the work of the individuals and their references in the CWG cannot be cited. See link under Questioning the Orthodoxy.
*********************
Review of the Climate Working Group Report (Part 4): In previous weeks TWTW discussed a report to the Secretary of Energy from five independent scientists (John Christy, Ph.D. Judith Curry, Ph.D. Steven Koonin, Ph.D. Ross McKitrick, Ph.D., and Roy Spencer, Ph.D.) “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate.”
This week TWTW discusses Chapter 7 Changes in Sea Level and Chapter 8 Uncertainties in Climate Change Attributions. It will only touch on specific points in Part III Impacts on Ecosystems and Society and then present Concluding Thoughts.
The Chapter Summary for Changes in Sea Level states [Boldface added]:
“Since 1900, global average sea level has risen by about 8 inches. Sea level change along U.S. coasts is highly variable, associated with local variations in processes that contribute to sinking and also with ocean circulation patterns. The largest sea level increases along U.S. coasts are Galveston, New Orleans, and the Chesapeake Bay regions – each of these locations is associated with substantial local land sinking (subsidence) unrelated to climate change.
Extreme projections of global sea level rise are associated with an implausible extreme emissions scenario and inclusion of poorly understood processes associated with hypothetical ice sheet instabilities. In evaluatingAR6 projections to 2050 (with reference to the baseline period 1995-2014), almost half of the interval has elapsed by 2025, with sea level rising at a lower rate than predicted. U.S. tide gauge measurements reveal no obvious acceleration beyond the historical average rate of sea level rise.”
The TOPEX satellite was launched in 1992 to monitor sea level. After a few years, it became clear that the satellite data showed a different rate of sea rise than did the weighted average of data from NOAA’s 33 tidal stations. The two types of data were ignorantly spliced together, with the result looking like a curve in the data. This resulted in false headlines declaring a dangerous acceleration in sea level rise when there was none. By now, there have been five different such satellites, and the result is a straight line over the 32 years: sea level, according to the satellites, is rising at 3.2 +/- 0.4 mm/year, and there is no indication whatsoever of any acceleration. The data from individual tidal stations (some relatively stable, some subsiding, some rising) also show steady sea rise with no acceleration. The estimate of 3.2 mm/year works out to about 32 cm/century or 12.6 inches per century. The 2008 NIPCC report discussed Fred Singer’s estimate of 18 cm per century or 7 inches per century.
Further, there is a new study on global sea level rise worldwide titled “A Global Perspective on Local Sea Level Changes,” published by the Journal of Marine Science and Engineering. This study shows that there are fluctuations in the local rates of rise that need to be leveled out. Also, there are multi-year cycles driven by the motion of the Moon with respect to Earth that must be considered. The abstract of the study states:
“In 2021, the IPCC published new sea level projections. For the first time, the projections gave insight into expected relative sea level rise locally. A prudent designer of coastal infrastructure will want to know how the local projections compare to local observations. That comparison, to date, has not been made. We compared local projections and observations regarding the rate of rise in 2020. We used two datasets with local sea level information all over the globe. In both datasets, we found approximately 15% of the available sets suitable to establish the rate of rise in 2020. Geographic coverage of the suitable locations is poor, with the majority of suitable locations in the Northern Hemisphere. Latin America and Africa are severely under-represented. Statistical tests were run on all selected datasets, taking acceleration of sea level rise as a hypothesis. In both datasets, approximately 95% of the suitable locations show no statistically significant acceleration of the rate of sea level rise. The investigation suggests that local, non-climatic phenomena are a plausible cause of the accelerated sea level rise observed at the remaining 5% of the suitable locations. On average, the rate of rise projected by the IPCC is biased upward with approximately 2 mm per year in comparison with the observed rate.” [Boldface added]
A projected upward bias of 2 mm per year works out to 20cm or 8 inches per century. Based on the NIPCC reports (2008) TWTW has been estimating an increase of about 7 to 8 inches per century, and the IPCC doubles it.
Many US local areas such as the Chesapeake Bay region have problems with ground subsidence due to ground water depletion. These are local problems that can be solved locally by desalinating sea water using reverse osmosis after the water has been prefiltered using inexpensive porous materials such as volcanic rock to remove algae. This is done in Carlsbad, California.
The Chapter Summary of Uncertainties in Climate Change Attribution states [Boldface added]:
“‘Attribution’ refers to identifying the cause of some aspect of climate change, specifically with reference to anthropogenic activity. There is an ongoing scientific debate around attribution methods, particularly regarding extreme weather events. Attribution is made difficult by high natural variability, the relatively small expected anthropogenic signal, lack of high-quality data, and reliance on deficient climate models. The IPCC has long cautioned that methods to establish causality in climate science are inherently uncertain and ultimately depend on expert judgement.
Substantive criticism of the main IPCC assessments of the role of CO2 in recent warming focus on inadequate assessment of natural climate variability, uncertainties in measurement of solar variability and in aerosol forcing, and problems in the statistical methods used for attribution.
The IPCC does not make attribution claims for most climate impact drivers related to extreme events. Statements related to statistics of global extremes (e.g., event probability or return times, magnitude, and frequency) are not generally considered accurate owing to data limitations and are made with low confidence. Attribution of individual extreme weather events is challenging due to their rarity. Conflicting claims about the causes of the 2021 Western North America Heatwave illustrate the perils of hasty attribution claims about individual extreme events.”
TWTW Comment: With the leader of the World Weather Attribution (WWA) group becoming a lead author in the upcoming IPCC Assessment Report (AR7) it appears that the IPCC may become another alarmist group making wild claims without a credible foundation in probability and statistics. We can only wait and see.
It is important that one of the authors of the Climate Working Group report is Ross McKitrick. McKitrick demolished prior efforts of the WWA group by having papers published in appropriate journals showing that the statistical techniques called Optimal fingerprinting methodology does not meet the Gauss-Markov conditions.
[It] “violates the Gauss-Markov conditions, leading to potentially biased and inconsistent fingerprinting coefficients, undermining the reliability of the method. Chen et al. (2023) confirmed this analysis, although they argued that the method could yield valid results under very stringent assumptions. McKitrick (2022) and (2023) raised a further concern that climate scientists—virtually alone among scientific disciplines—have used TLS [Total Least Squares] to estimate anthropogenic greenhouse gas signal coefficients, despite its tendency to be unstable unless some strong assumptions hold that in practice are unlikely to be true.” [See 8.3.2 Optimal fingerprinting]
The section concludes with:
“McKitrick (2025) presented an empirical example comparing the results of conventional optimal fingerprinting against methods drawn from mainstream econometrics that are known to be valid for the specific application of signal detection. While the IPCC optimal fingerprinting method yields an anthropogenic signal coefficient close to 1.0 on a global temperature data set spanning 1900 to 2010, the consistent method yields a coefficient around 0.4, which rises to about 0.65 on data spanning 1980 to 2010, implying the model response to greenhouse gases needs to be scaled down by about half to optimally match observations. The natural forcing signal coefficient, by contrast, is between 2.0 and 4.0, implying the climate model signals of natural forcing need to be scaled up two-to four-fold to match observed climate change. The fingerprinting coefficients estimated in McKitrick (2025), when used to scale the average sensitivity of the climate models used to generate the forcing signals in his data set, imply a Transient Climate Sensitivity of 1.4°C, which is consistent with the estimate by Lewis (2023) using a different estimation method and multiple independent data sets.
These findings indicate that the basis on which the optimal fingerprinting method has long been viewed as reliable is not valid. Re-examining previous results individually would be required to determine which findings are statistically robust.”
In short, statistically the IPCC estimates double the influence of CO2 and cut in half or even quarter natural influences on climate.
Section 8.4 Declining planetary albedo and recent record warmth begins with:
A sharp recent increase in global average temperatures has raised the question of short-term drivers of climate. One such candidate is the fraction of absorbed solar radiation which has also increased abruptly in recent years. The question is whether the change is an internal feedback to warming caused by greenhouse gases, or whether something else increased the fraction of absorbed radiation which then caused the recent warming.
The planetary albedo is the fraction of incoming solar radiation that is reflected back into space rather than being absorbed by the planet. Highly reflective surfaces like cloud tops and snow and ice are most important in this regard. The Earth’s albedo is approximately 30 percent, meaning almost a third of the sunlight that reaches Earth is directly reflected back to space. A lower albedo implies more solar energy is absorbed by the planet to be then re-radiated as heat. Hence, other things being equal, a decline in planetary albedo is associated with a warming of the Earth.
Arguably the most striking change in the Earth’s climate system during the 21st century is a significant reduction in planetary albedo since 2015, which has coincided with at least two years of record global warmth. Figure 8.2 [Figure not shown here] shows the planetary albedo variations since 2000, when there are good satellite observations. The 0.5 percent reduction in planetary albedo since 2015 corresponds to an increase of 1.7 W/m2 in absorbed solar radiation averaged over the planet (Hansen and Karecha, 2025). For comparison, Forster et al. (2024) estimate the current forcing from the increase in atmospheric CO2compared to preindustrial times to be 2.33 W/m2.
Looking back prior to 2000 with less adequate data, Goessling et al. (2025) assessed that the planetary albedo was relatively low around the 1940’s and 50’s before rising industrial aerosol precursor emissions increased the albedo until the 1980’s. The strongest planetary albedo excursions were high-albedo episodes caused by volcanic eruptions, such as after the Mount Pinatubo eruption in 1991. Although uncertain, the 2023 planetary albedo minimum might have been the lowest since at least 1940.
After discussing a number of other natural influences this section concludes with [Boldface added]:
“In summary, the decline in planetary albedo and the concurrent decline in cloudiness have emphasized the importance of clouds and their variations to global climate variability and change. A change of 1- 2 percent in global cloud cover has a greater radiative impact on the climate than the direct radiative effect of doubling CO2. While it is difficult to untangle causes of the recent trend, the competing explanations for the cause of the declining cloud cover have substantial implications for assessing the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity and for the attribution of the recent warming. An additional 10 years of data should help clarify whether this is a strong positive cloud feedback associated with warming or a temporary fluctuation driven by natural variability.”
Section 8.5 Attribution of climate impact drivers begins with:
“The IPCC (Ranasinghe et al. 2021) defines “climate impact drivers” or CIDs as “physical climate system conditions (e.g., means, events, extremes) that affect an element of society or ecosystems.” Hence CIDs are those features of the weather and climate system of primary interest in assessing the impacts of climate change since they potentially affect humans and the natural world.”
TWTW agrees with the CWG report that finds the IPCC significantly overestimates the influence of CO2 and underestimates natural influences and thus considers such drivers in IPCC reports as “fluff” which need no further discussion. The same applies to Extreme event attribution (EEA) which is often the result of tortured statistics and ignorance of climate history.
The remainder of the CWG report is quite straight forward. The Chapter summary of 9. Climate Change and U.S. Agriculture states:
“There has been abundant evidence going back decades that rising CO2 levels benefit plants, including agricultural crops, and that CO2-induced warming will be a net benefit to U.S. agriculture. The increase in ambient CO2 has also boosted productivity of all major U.S. crop types. There is reason to conclude that on balance climate change has been and will continue to be neutral or beneficial for most U.S. agriculture.”
The section on econometric studies discusses a number of studies and concludes with [Boldface added]:
“A major deficiency of all these studies, however, is that they omit the role of CO2 fertilization. Climate change as it relates to this report is caused by GHG emissions, chiefly CO2. The econometric analyses referenced above focus only on temperature and precipitation changes and do not take account of the beneficial growth effect of the additional CO2 that drives them. As explained in Chapter 2, CO2 is a major driver of plant growth, so this omission biases the analysis towards underestimation of the benefits of climate change to agriculture.”
Why scientific journals continue to publish studies on dubious effects of increasing CO2 on weather events but ignore the enormous benefits of increasing CO2 on plant life and life in general flourishing is unfathomable. The CWG report goes through some of these studies and addresses the issue of CO2 fertilization and possible micronutrient loss which can be overcome by adding appropriate fertilizer and selective plant breeding.
The summary of Chapter 10 “Managing Risks of Extreme Weather” states:
‘Trends in losses from extreme weather and climate events are dominated by population increases and economic growth. Technological advances such as improved weather forecasting and early warning systems have substantially reduced losses from extreme weather events. Better building codes, flood defenses, and disaster response mechanisms have lowered economic losses relative to GDP. The U.S. economy’s expansion has diluted the relative impact of disaster costs, as seen in the comparison of historical and modern GDP percentages. Heat-related mortality risk has dropped substantially due to adaptive measures including the adoption of air conditioning, which relies on the availability of affordable energy. U.S. mortality risks even under extreme warming scenarios are not projected to increase if people are able to undertake adaptive responses.”
The summary of Chapter 11 “Climate Change, The Economy, and The Social Cost of Carbon” states:
“Economists have long considered climate a relatively unimportant factor in economic growth, a view echoed by the IPCC itself in AR5. Mainstream climate economics has recognized that CO2-induced warming might have some negative economic effects, but they are too small to justify aggressive abatement policy and that trying to “stop” or cap global warming even at levels well above the Paris target would be worse than doing nothing. An influential study in 2012 suggested that global warming would harm growth in poor countries, but the finding has subsequently been found not to be robust. Studies that take full account of modeling uncertainties either find no evidence of a negative effect on global growth from CO2 emissions or find poor countries as likely to benefit as rich countries.
Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) estimates are highly uncertain due to unknowns in future economic growth, socioeconomic pathways, discount rates, climate damages, and system responses. The SCC is not intrinsically informative as to the economic or societal impacts of climate change. It provides an index connecting large networks of assumptions about the climate and the economy to a dollar value. Some assumptions yield a high SCC, and others yield a low or negative SCC (i.e., a social benefit of emissions). The evidence for or against the underlying assumptions needs to be established independently; the resulting SCC adds no additional information about the validity of those assumptions. Consideration of potential tipping points does not justify major revisions to SCC estimates.”
The term “tipping points” is thrown around by promoters of climate change fears so frequently that it appears that those who use the term do not understand it. Under tipping point the CWG report states [Boldface added]:
“SCC calculations typically consider gradual impacts of a warming climate, such as slowly melting glaciers and increasing average temperature. A driver of potentially high values of the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) is the introduction into models of discrete catastrophic outcomes associated with abrupt changes (Dietz et al., 2021). They are often referred to as ‘tipping points.’ The term ‘tipping point’ mingles two different physical concepts that pose different research challenges. Many physical systems are inherently stable unless acted upon with sufficient external energy. For example, an ice cap might remain intact over a wide range of temperatures but once the temperature crosses the 0°C threshold it melts. Such discontinuities are ubiquitous in nature and require an external force. Whether the force needs to be large relative to the size of the system depends on the underlying stability of the system.
A different type of tipping point is called a bifurcation and arises from the study of the internal dynamics of nonlinear systems (Crawford, 1991). Many systems have been observed to have more than one equilibrium point and can move between them with minimal or no external influence. For example, a weather system might have two different equilibrium states: one calm and one with a tornado. A transition from one to another can happen either with no external force or with a minuscule change, such as a flap of the proverbial butterfly’s wings (Shen et al. 2014). The term ‘tipping point’ is sometimes used to mean a bifurcation of this type and implies instability inherent in the system itself, which is not necessarily dependent on outside forces. It depends, instead, on parameters of the system taking values that support the emergence of bifurcations (Crawford, 1991).
The paper discusses two different possible types of tipping points, then states [Boldface added]:
The possible existence of bifurcations in the Earth’s climate system implies abrupt transitions are possible, not just in response to large forcing but also to small perturbations. This places tipping points into the category of low-likelihood and potentially catastrophic events, such as large meteor strikes. A key question to ask is whether those kinds of tipping points can be predicted. Current research has not resolved that question (Dakos et al., 2024) and indeed might not be able to since one implication of the ‘butterfly effect’ is the existence of predictability boundaries of nonlinear systems (Palmer et al., 2014). It is therefore not obvious how to incorporate such possibilities into SCC calculations. Small variations in assumptions will lead to arbitrarily large variations in the resulting SCC with no grounds for choosing among them. If such tipping points are possible the most appropriate stance for economic policy is to maximize resilience to any form of external catastrophe since it is unlikely we could predict it or prevent it from happening.”
In general, TWTW considers any calculations of the Social Cost of Carbon without the Social Benefit of Carbon a vague, fruitless exercise, unfit for consideration in government policies. Further, the global climate models become chaotic when the grid cells are reduced dimensions less than 100 km (62 miles). But that is no reason to assume that the climate becomes chaotic. It simply means we cannot model it.
The summary of chapter 12 “Global Climate Impacts of U.S. Emissions Policies” states:
“U.S. policy actions are expected to have undetectably small direct impacts on the global climate, and any effects will emerge only with long delays.”
The Concluding thoughts state [Boldface added]:
“This report supports a more nuanced and evidence-based approach for informing climate policy that explicitly acknowledges uncertainties. The risks and benefits of a climate changing under both natural and human influences must be weighed against the costs, efficacy, and collateral impacts of any “climate action,” considering the nation’s need for reliable and affordable energy with minimal local pollution. Beyond continuing precise, un-interrupted observations of the global climate system, it will be important to make realistic assumptions about future emissions, re-evaluate climate models to address biases and uncertainties, and clearly acknowledge the limitations of extreme event attribution studies. An approach that acknowledges both the potential risks and benefits of CO2, rather than relying on flawed models and extreme scenarios, is essential for informed and effective decision-making.”
See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy and under Changing Seas for the new study on sea level rise and articles.
*********************
Favorable Comments on CWG Report: Professors Emeriti Richard Lindzen and William Happer open their comments favorable to the CWG, emphasizing the importance of the Scientific Method and What Is, and Is Not, Science, similar to their comments to the National Academies discussed the August 30 TWTW. After stating their professional qualifications and the failure of climate scientists to use the scientific method, Lindzen and Happer discuss the political nature of government policies and the IPCC process. Lindzen and Happer discuss that “The Physics of Carbon Dioxide and GHGs Demonstrates They Cannot and Will Not Cause Catastrophic Warming and Extreme Weather.” They state:
“How changes in atmospheric greenhouse gases affect radiation transfer are described by precise physical equations that have never failed to describe observations of the real world. We and Prof. van Wijngaarden applied these formulas to the enormous efforts by the U. S. and worldwide to reduce CO2 emissions to Net Zero by 2050 in a paper that we recommend to those with a technical background.
We show that all these efforts to achieve Net Zero emissions of carbon dioxide, if fully
implemented, will have a trivial effect on temperature:
• United States Net Zero by 2050 — only avoids a temperature increase of 2/100 °F (0.02 °F) with no positive feedback, and only 6/100°F (0.06 °F) with positive feedback of 4 that is typically built into the models of the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
• Worldwide Net Zero by 2050 — only avoids a temperature increase of 13/100 (0.13°F), or 50/100 °F (0.50 °F) with a factor of 4 positive feedback.
This is a complex system, and the idea that one variable, globally average temperature, is changed primarily by one thing, manmade CO2, is baseless. As one of us (Lindzen) has explained:
“The climate system consists of two turbulent fluids interacting with each other, [ocean and atmosphere]. They are on a rotating planet that is differentially heated by the sun. A vital constituent of the atmospheric component is water in the liquid, solid, and vapor phases, and the changes in phase have vast energetic ramifications. The energy budget of this system involves the absorption and remission of about 200 watts per square meter. Doubling CO2 involves a two percent perturbation to this budget. So do minor changes in clouds, ocean circulations, and other features, and such changes are common. In this complex multifactor system, what is the likelihood that the climate (which itself consists of many variables not just globally averaged temperature anomalies) is controlled by a two percent perturbation in the energy budget due to just one of the numerous variables, namely CO2? Believing this is pretty close to believing in magic.”
Saturation also explains why temperatures were not catastrophically high over the hundreds of millions of years when CO2 levels were 10 to nearly 20 times higher than they are today, shown in the chart in our June 9 paper Part III.C.
In conclusion, since CO2 is now a weak GHG, and the warming effects of the other GHGs, including methane and nitrous oxide are so small, as a matter of physics there is no risk GHGs, and fossil fuels will cause catastrophic global warming and extreme weather. It will only result in a negligible increase in temperature and more food for people worldwide. See our June 7 paper Part III for more details.” [Specific references are not shown here but are in the comment.]
Lindzen and Happer conclude their comment with:
“In our scientific opinion, the CWG Report by five distinguished scientists is extremely important. It is particularly important because it applies in its over 140 pages what is rarely applied in climate science and is little known to most people: the scientific method, which is validating theoretical predictions with observations, and rejecting theories that do not work.
In contrast, climate science in our experience does not apply the scientific method but uses models that do not work, consensus, 97% of scientists’ opinions, cherry-picked, fabricated, and falsified data, omits contradictory science and data, and government opinion.
Hence we suggest there is an extraordinary opportunity for the final CWG Report to elevate the climate science debate to much needed and higher scientific level by explaining what many do not know and what is virtually never part of climate science debates: what is, and is not, science.”
For Lindzen and Happer’s comment, “Net Zero Avoided Temperature Increase,” and other favorable comments see links under Challenging the Orthodoxy.
*********************
Unfavorable Comments on the CWG Report: Professors Andrew Dessler and Robert Koop lead a group of 85 climate scientists who stated: “Leading Scientists Conclude DOE’s New Climate Report is ‘Not Scientifically Credible.’” The press release included statements such as:
“This report makes a mockery of science. It relies on ideas that were rejected long ago, supported by misrepresentations of the body of scientific knowledge, omissions of important facts, arm waving, anecdotes, and confirmation bias. This report makes it clear DOE has no interest in engaging with the scientific community.”- Dr. Andrew Dessler
“Normally, a report like this would undergo a rigorous, unbiased, and transparent peer review. When it became clear that DOE wasn’t going to organize such a review, the scientific community came together on its own, in less than a month, to provide it. The more than 85 volunteer expert reviewers found that DOE’s committee of five produced a report that is not scientifically credible.” – Dr. Robert Kopp”
TWTW has not gone through the entire list of authors cited in the 400 plus page report, but thus far has not found one in the fields of Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics (AMO), Molecular Spectroscopy, or Radiation Transfer which are crucial in understanding the Greenhouse Effect.
See links under Defending the Orthodoxy, for Roger Pielke’s comments see links under Seeking a Common Ground, and for a balanced review by Judith Curry, one of the authors of the CWG Report see link under Challenging the Orthodoxy.
*********************
Number of the Week: 1.5 mm per year. According to the latest report on global sea level rise based on tidal gauges, in 2020 the rate of rise was 1.5 millimeters per year. This works out to be 15 centimeters per century or less than 6 inches per century. Based on geologically stable areas the rate of rise is less than it was 4,000 years ago. The 2008 NIPCC report discussed Fred Singer’s estimate of 18 cm per century or 7 inches per century.
NEWS YOU CAN USE:
Censorship
Thou shalt not question climate change — MP recants tiny blasphemy from 2012 to appease UN
By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Sep 6, 2025
The Queensland Environment Minister once made the mistake of saying he was “still to be convinced” of the degree to which humans are influencing climate change. Now, 13 years later, he’s had to backtrack in public for the crime of ever having doubts about the climate-bible.
The ABC accidentally sums up the real reason:“It comes as Mr Powell works with Federal Environment Minister Murray Watt to prevent UNESCO from listing the Great Barrier Reef as “in danger”.” So it’s just extortion then? [Emphasis in original]
Challenging the Orthodoxy — NIPCC
Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science
Idso, Carter, and Singer, Lead Authors/Editors, Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), 2013
Summary: https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/CCR/CCR-II/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf
Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts
Idso, Idso, Carter, and Singer, Lead Authors/Editors, Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), 2014
http://climatechangereconsidered.org/climate-change-reconsidered-ii-biological-impacts/
Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels
By Multiple Authors, Bezdek, Idso, Legates, and Singer eds., Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, April 2019
http://climatechangereconsidered.org/climate-change-reconsidered-ii-fossil-fuels/
Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming
The NIPCC Report on the Scientific Consensus
By Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter, and S. Fred Singer, Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), Nov 23, 2015
http://climatechangereconsidered.org/why-scientists-disagree-about-global-warming/
Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate
S. Fred Singer, Editor, NIPCC, 2008
http://www.sepp.org/publications/nipcc_final.pdf
Challenging the Orthodoxy – Radiation Transfer
The Role of Greenhouse Gases in Energy Transfer in the Earth’s Atmosphere
By W.A. van Wijngaarden and W. Happer, Preprint, Mar 3, 2023
Dependence of Earth’s Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases
By W.A. van Wijngaarden and W. Happer, Preprint, December 22, 2020
Radiation Transport in Clouds
By W.A. van Wijngaarden and W. Happer, Klimarealistene, Science of Climate Change, January 2025
Challenging the Orthodoxy
A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate
By Climate Working Group, United States Department of Energy, July 23, 2025 https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/DOE_Critical_Review_of_Impacts_of_GHG_Emissions_on_the_US_Climate_July_2025.pdf
Lindzen and Happer Response to CWG Report
By Richard Lindzen, Professor of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Emeritus, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, William Happer, Professor of Physics, Emeritus, Princeton University, CO2 Coalition, Sep 3, 2025
Link to complete response: Scientific Comment on Climate Working Group, “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate” (“CWG Report”)
By Lindzen and Happer, Sep 1, 2025
Net Zero Avoided Temperature Increase
By Richard Lindzen, William Happer and William van Wijngaarden, CO2 Coalition, June 2024
http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.07392)
DOE Climate Assessment Report: Feedback
By Judith Curry, Climate Etc., Sep 2, 2025
The American Meteorological Society (AMS) has issued a statement Five foundational flaws in the Department of Energy’s 2025 climate report. This statement has been adopted by the Executive Committee of the AMS Council…
The science of climate change is far from ‘settled’
By Anthony Sadar, Washington Examiner, Sep 6, 2025
One recurring assessment within the Critical Review is the noting of small sample sizes, limited datasets, and truncated starting points for some well-publicized climate trend conclusions.
For instance, if a U.S. temperature trend is based on observations beginning in the 1950s, the substantial influence of record high temperatures in the 1930s are excluded, making recent warm periods seem more extreme.
GAO Submits Comments on DoE GHG Assessment
By Staff, Government Accountability & Oversight, Sep 2, 2025
GAO Submits Comments on NASEM Panel Tackling EPA ‘Endangerment Finding’ Rescision
By Staff, Government Accountability & Oversight, Sep 11, 2025
DOE Climate Assessment Report
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Sep 5, 2025
Link to: Green panties in a bunch
The fit about DoE climate report is a glorious spectacle of projection
By Irina Slav, Her Blog, Sep 4, 2025
From Slav: Once upon a time, or more specifically in July this year, the U.S. Department of Energy published a report titled “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate”. The report, unsurprisingly to many, concluded that greenhouse gas emissions were not the death sentence we have been repeatedly told they were and that “Both models and experience suggest that CO2-induced warming might be less damaging economically than commonly believed, and excessively aggressive mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than beneficial.”
New Study: ‘CO2 Does Not Precede Temperature, Nor Does It Control Temperature’
By Kenneth Richard, No Tricks Zone, Sep 5, 2025
Link to paper: Global Atmospheric CO2 Lags Temperature by 150 yr between 1 and 1850 AD
By Ronald Grabyan, Science of Climate Change, Accepted Aug 20, 2025
Greatest Mysteries of Climate Change.
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Aug 31, 2025
Interesting video from Peter Ridd
The Ripple Effect of Fraudulent Science
By Susan Goldhaber MPH, ACSH, Sep 03, 2025 [H/t John Dunn]
Link to: Cover up and cancer risk assessment: Prominent US scientists suppressed evidence to promote adoption of LNT
By Edward J. Calabrese and Paul B. Selby, Environmental Research, July 2022
Recent findings have shown important errors, and biases used to support.
Scientific misconduct by leaders who suppressed evidence that did not support LNT.
Link to: More fraudulent history of cancer risk assessment: The US National Academy of Sciences Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation (BEAR) I Genetics Panel used falsified data greatly exaggerating hereditary/cancer risks
By Edward J. Calabrese and Paul B. Selby, Chemico-Biological Interactions, July 2022
The recommendation to adopt LNT by the US NAS was based on falsified data.
Correction of the falsified record supported a threshold model.
The Science journal paper of the NAS falsified report should be retracted.
A correction based on the corrected conclusions should be published.
From Goldhaber: If the current Administration is serious about its commitment to “gold-standard science,” it must confront this legacy, acknowledge the errors, and correct the policies built on them. Half a century is long enough — correcting the record is overdue.
[SEPP Comment: The Endangerment Finding and other EPA findings depend upon the discredited Linear No Threshold (LNT) model.]
Defending the Orthodoxy
85 climate scientists refute Trump administration report downplaying climate change
By Rachel Frazin, The Hill, Sep 2, 2025
Link to press release: Leading Scientists Conclude DOE’s New Climate Report is “Not Scientifically Credible”
By Andrew Dessler and Robert Koop, Sep 2, 2025
“There’s a style throughout this of cherry-picking evidence that raises doubts about mainstream climate science while ignoring or downplaying the much larger body of evidence that supports it,” said Robert Kopp, a professor of earth and planetary sciences at Rutgers University.
[SEPP Comment: A report that exposes “cherry-picking” is an example of “cherry-picking”?]
5 forecasts early climate models got right – the evidence is all around you
By Nadir Jeevanjee, Research Physical Scientist, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Sep 3, 2025 [H/t Bernie Kepshire]
[SEPP Comment: There is no question that water vapor and CO2 delay the cooling of Earth at night, there is no question that greenhouse gases influence the polar regions,. The real question: Is increasing CO2 the primary cause of the recent warming or is it a minor component of the recent warming?]
‘Climate Forward’ Conference in NYT asks for Questions (wake ahead?)
By Robert Bradley Jr., Master Resource, Sep 5, 2025
Bradley: Where is everybody? Will Al Gore and John Kerry appear to rally the demoralized? Michael “Climategate” Mann? What about Angry Joe Romm? John Holdren? Jigar Shaw and Jennifer Granholm of Biden’s U.S. Department of Energy?
Tidbits
By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Sep. 3, 2025
Link to paper: Seeing the Forest for the Trees
By James Hansen and Pushker Kharecha, Columbia University, Aug 6, 2025
From Robson: James Hansen, godfather of the climate crisis, isn’t content to let ill enough alone. He has a new paper saying that ECS, the absolute warming in degrees Celsius/Kelvin you’d expect from a doubling of atmospheric CO2, is higher than his fellow comprador alarmists believe, well above three. Never mind that empirical evidence shows it being lower and casts some doubt on it even being a constant. We love our crisis and its human guilt, and we aren’t letting go.
Defending the Orthodoxy – Bandwagon Science
‘Mockery of science’: US experts blast Trump climate report
By Issam Ahmed, Terra Daily, Washington (AFP) Sept 2, 2025
The rebuttal marshals experts from multiple disciplines to challenge each assertion.
[SEPP Comment: Do any of the “experts” understand AMO physics, molecular spectroscopy, or radiation transfer? If not, then the comments are largely meaningless because they do not address the central issue: How much will increasing CO2 increase the greenhouse effect?]
Questioning the Orthodoxy
DOE Climate Working Group RIP
Breaking news
By Reger Pielke Jr., His Blog, Sep 10, 2025
Fake Science growing faster than real science: Dodgy papers doubling every 18 months.
By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Sep 9, 2025
Link to paper: The entities enabling scientific fraud at scale are large, resilient, and growing rapidly
By Reese A. K. Richardson, et al., PNAS, Aug 4, 2025
From Nova: Wait til they find out thousands of real papers are worthless because they rely on broken climate models that got the core assumptions wrong decades ago. And that’s not just the papers pretending to predict the climate, but tens of thousands of other papers calculating the floods that won’t happen, or the birds that won’t be extinct, or the cost of building seawalls we won’t need, and of building planes that won’t fly on recycled canola oil.
Science by the Pound
By Charles Rotter, WUWT, Sep 5, 2025
Science, at least in theory, is supposed to be about clarity and testable claims. But in the climate bureaucracy, truth is measured by weight. Zeke Hausfather, ever the loyal spokesman for consensus, actually bragged that their rebuttal to the DOE’s Climate Working Group report runs 459 pages—as if the more paper you churn out, the more correct you become. By that standard, the IRS tax code must be the pinnacle of scientific achievement.
We know nothing, with great certainty
By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Sep. 3, 2025
It’s a funny thing about climate models. They are essentially worthless at predicting, um, climate. And yet they remain extremely popular with people who like the dismal world they predict.
They won’t believe it when they see it
By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Sep. 3, 2025
It is easy, too easy, to accuse people you’re arguing with of being blind to the facts because they interpret them differently, with or without the pejorative “ideological” tacked on. But sometimes it really does happen, causing headlines like the Guardian’s “Dramatic slowdown in melting of Arctic sea ice surprises scientists/ Natural climate variation is most likely reason as global heating due to fossil fuel burning has continued.” At least they saw what was happening, even though they weren’t expecting it. Even worse is the tendency of alarmists to see what isn’t happening, or not to see what’s right there.
Economic growth is not the bogeyman — Rich nations have a cleaner better environment
By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Sep 2, 2025
Link to article: Study Finds Economic Prosperity is Associated With a Cleaner Environment
Higher living standards and ecological responsibility are two interrelated byproducts of human progress.
By Ethan Yang, Human Progress, July 13, 2025
[SEPP Comment: Unable to link to Environmental Performance Index]
New Lab Research Shows Increasing CO2 Leads To A Negative Greenhouse Effect At The Poles
By Kenneth Richard, No Tricks Zone, Sep 2, 2025
Link to paper: The Negative Greenhouse Effect – Part II:
Studies of Infrared Gas Emission with an Advanced Experimental Set-Up
By Hermann Harde, Michael Schnell, Science of Climate Change, Accepted Aug 19, 2025
[SEPP Comment: Van Wijngaarden and Happer have shown that the atmosphere above Antarctica emits more infrared radiation to space than is emitted at the surface. Atmospheric convection is the reason.]
Noble Climate Cause Corruption: PIK exemplar
By Ron Clutz, His Blog, Sep 1, 2025
Link to article: Potsdam climate researchers under fire
By Thomas Kolbe, American Thinker, Sep 1, 2025
And Iffn They Did?
By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, August 28, 2025
16-minute video
Energy & Environmental Review: September 2, 2025
By John Droz, Jr., Master Resource, Sep 2, 2025
After Paris!
Expectations Belém COP30 Nov. 2025
By Ron Clutz, His Blog, Sep 12, 2025
COP30 must do the difficult job of restoring confidence in the process following the disappointment of COP29
[SEPP Comment: Restoring confidence in the process of economic suicide?]
Social Benefits of Carbon Dioxide
African oil palm and rising CO2
By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Sep. 3, 2025
From the CO2Science Archive:
Seeking a Common Ground
Reconsideration of 2009 Endangerment Finding and Greenhouse Gas Vehicle Standards
A Proposed Rule by the Environmental Protection Agency on 08/01/2025
By Staff, Federal Register, Aug 1, 2025
[SEPP Comment: New comment due date – Sep 22, 2025]
The Matthew Effect, Mono-cultures, and the Natural Selection of Bad Science
By John Ridgway, Climate Etc. Sep 8, 2025
Science is Not Team Sport
The blue team response to DOE CWG shows that climate assessment is broken
By Roger Pielke Jr, His Blog, Sep 2, 2025
Link to: Climate Experts’ Review of the DOE Climate Working Group Report
By Andrew Dessler, et al., Blog Post, Accessed Sep 2, 2025
Link to: The merchants of doubt are back
But this time, it’s the U.S. government pushing doubt
By Andrew Dessler, His Blog, The Climate Brink, Sep 2, 2025
If you don’t follow climate policy closely, you may not know that the Trump administration is launching an effort to overturn one of the most fundamental pillars of American climate policy: the scientific finding that carbon dioxide endangers human health and welfare (the so-called “Endangerment Finding”). If successful, this move could unravel virtually every U.S. climate regulation on the books, from car emissions standards to power plant rules.
[SEPP Comment: Why will that be a loss to the American public?]
Models v. Observations
Forecast Failure
By Cliff Mass, Weather Blog, Aug 31, 2025
Relatively narrow cloud bands like this are a substantial forecast challenge. Models have to get their location and timing correct as they swing around the low.
There are also issues of simulating them correctly, with model descriptions of cloud processes (called cloud microphysics) having substantial problems, something I am working on.
Plenty of work for meteorologists over the next few years to address these smaller-scale cloud physics issues. Or we can hope Machine Learning solves it all.
Measurement Issues — Atmosphere
UAH v6.1 Global Temperature Update for August, 2025: +0.39 deg. C
By Roy Spencer, His Blog, Sep 2, 2025
The Version 6.1 global area-averaged linear temperature trend (January 1979 through August 2025) remains at +0.16 deg/ C/decade (+0.22 C/decade over land, +0.13 C/decade over oceans).
Changing Weather
The Hottest Summer Days in D.C. Have Not Gotten Hotter in Last 40 Years
By Roy Spencer, His Blog, Sep 2, 2025
Warm West and Cold East
By Cliff Mass, Weather Blog, Sep 2, 2025
Heavy Rain, Flooding, and Debris Flows at Mount Rainier Park
By Cliff Mass, Weather Blog, Sep 9, 2025
Moderate rain was predicted, but clearly the precipitation was underpredicted.
Getting thunderstorm precipitation right is very, very hard, and accurate local forecasts of such localized heavy rain may never be as skillful as we would like.
Germany Projected “2025 Summer Of Hellish Heat” Ends Up Seeing A Mean Of Just 18.3°C [64.9°F]
By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Aug 30, 2025
Reality: Germany 2025 summer was just somewhat warmer, sunnier than normal.
Changing Seas
Breaking: no acceleration in sea level rise detected worldwide
By Staff, Clintel Foundation, Aug 29, 2025 [H/t Bernie Kepshire]
Link to paper: A Global Perspective on Local Sea Level Changes
By Hessel G. Voortman and Rob De Vos, Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, Aug 15, 2025
From article, comments by Vorrtman: The solid red wave line shows the fluctuation resulting from the nodal cycle of 18.61 years. If you measure a trend from a trough to a peak, there will always be a higher trend. However, other long-term fluctuations in the sea level trend also influence the trend, as I recently demonstrated in an article:
No acceleration in sea level rise detected worldwide–New Study
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Sep 1, 2025
This certainly supports sea level trends around Britain and the US, which I have often highlighted.
I am glad to see a thorough, professional study on this matter. Claims of acceleration of sea level rise have only ever been dependent on dodgy satellite monitoring – a case of splicing two different sets of data together.
[SEPP Comment: See link to Voortman and De Vos paper immediately above.]
#HaveItBothWays: The disappearing Pacific coral atolls
By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Sep. 3, 2025
Link to paper: The dynamic response of reef islands to sea-level rise: Evidence from multi-decadal analysis of island change in the Central Pacific
By Arthur P. Webb, Paul S. Kench, Global and Planetary Change, June 2010
Changing Cryosphere – Land / Sea Ice
Baffled again? The Antarctic ice sheet has started gaining ice lately and no one knows why
By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Sep 4, 2025
Hmm. The biggest losses of ice from Antarctica are near those 91 volcanoes we discovered a few years ago.
Greenland Ice Mass Balance – 2025
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Sep 1, 2025
Link to: Surface Conditions
By Staff, Polar Portal, Current
Homewood: Given this year’s SMB, the overall Mass Balance loss this year will probably be similar to last year’s around 140 Gt.
A gigatonne is a billion tonnes. Greenland’s ice sheet is estimated to weigh about 3 million Gt, so it would take about 21000 years to melt away at current rates!
[SEPP Comment: On Sep 4, the daily posting for Greenland was showing mass gain and continues to do so on Sep 13.]
Surplus Arctic Ice Persists to End of August 2025
By Ron Clutz, His Blog, Sep 2, 2025
Of ice and surprises
By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Sep. 3, 2025
[SEPP Comment: Explaining that the downward trend in Arctic sea ice stopped in 2007.]
Lowering Standards
Peer reflux
By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Sep. 3, 2025
Link to paper: The economic commitment of climate change
By Maximilian Kotz, et al., Nature, April 17, 2024
Some people still bow down before the idol of “peer review”. But here’s a ghastly story from Nature magazine, which boasts of being “a weekly international journal publishing the finest peer-reviewed research in all fields of science and technology.” Or rather a ghastly story about Nature from Roger Pielke Jr. about a fairy tale masquerading as scientific study that their finest peer-review totally failed to detect, despite it being absurd in content and feeble in methodology. Instead, it proved highly influential in academic and policy circles before a critical review blew it to bits. And there’s more where it came from.
From Nature on Nov 6, 2024: Readers are alerted that the reliability of data and methodology presented in this manuscript is currently in question. Appropriate editorial action will be taken once this matter is resolved.
[SEPP Comment: No action has been taken thus far. (Sep 10, 2025)]
Sixty Years of Temperature Averages Declared at UK Met Office Station With Only EIGHT YEARS of Actual Observations
By Chris Morrison, The Daily Sceptic, Sep 1, 2025
MET OFFICE SHOCK: UK Temperature Network Goes From Bad to Even Worse in Just 18 Months
By Chris Morrison, The Daily Sceptic, Sep 11, 2025 [H/t Bernie Kepshire]
On the scandalous locating of new sites straight into the junk dump, regretfully the Met Office has considerable past form. Other FOI disclosures from last year have revealed that over 80% of the 113 stations opened in the last 30 years were in Classes 4 and 5. Worse, 81% of stations started in the last 10 years are junk, as are eight of the 13 new sites in the last five years. The latest batch opening is hardly an improvement on this track record.
Hottest Summer?
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Sep 10, 2025
But on top of this, many of the Met Office sites are also in heavily urbanised areas.
In short, the Met Office’s UK dataset is not fit for purpose and only has propaganda value. If, as the graphs suggest, UK temperatures are being overstated by 0.4C, the whole of the Met Office’s narrative is destroyed.
Communicating Better to the Public – Use Yellow (Green) Journalism?
When Skepticism Is a ‘Farce’: AP’s Hit Piece on the DOE Climate Report
By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Sep 4, 2025
AEP Loses Plot Again [Columnist for Telegraph Newspaper]
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Sep 2, 2025
He gives the game away at the end by moaning that the UK will be throwing away leadership on global climate policy. At £100 billion and counting, I don’t think it is anything sane people would worry about!
New York Times on Climate: Now (2025) and Then (1988)
By Robert Bradley Jr., Master Resource, Sep 4, 2025
Stop Promoting Attribution Studies, Associated Press, Europe’s Wildfires Aren’t Worsening
By Linnea Lueken, Climate Realism, Sep 3, 2025
Communicating Better to the Public – Exaggerate, or be Vague?
China Still Building Coal Power Plants
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Aug 31, 2025
Link to report: Analysis: Record solar growth keeps China’s CO2 falling in first half of 2025
By Lauri Myllyvirta, Carbon Brief, Aug 21, 2025
Homewood: Nothing in this report [by Carbon Brief] offers any evidence that China can run its grid with high amounts of wind and solar power. Regardless of what edicts might come down from Xi, it is the local and regional bureaucrats who will call the shots. After all, it is their heads that will be on the chopping block if there are blackouts or power shortages.
Scientific objectivity is a myth – cultural values and beliefs always influence science and the people who do it
By Sara Giordano, Associate Professor of Interdisciplinary Studies, Kennesaw State University, The Conversation, Sep 4, 2025 [H/t Bernie Kepshire]
[SEPP Comment: The social scientist misses the major issue in physical science: Is the hypothesis contradicted by physical evidence? If it is, it must be rejected or changed. Social sciences do not have such a method of testing objectivity.]
Communicating Better to the Public – Make things up.
Climate change causes prescience
By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Sep. 3, 2025
So, they invented a whole new kind of science that dispenses with that nonsense about long-term data and careful exploration of hypotheses:
“In part due to the IPCC’s failure to achieve D&A for most types of extreme events, the notion of EEA was invented to connect specific weather events with changes in climate and characterized as an effort to get into the media and support climate litigation. Most EEA work is published outside of the scientific literature, announced by press release, and is typically contrary to peer-reviewed research on extreme events.” [From Pielke]
The Associated Press Lies: Climate Change Isn’t Making U.S. Corn Farming ‘Dicier’
By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Sep 5, 2025
Oversupply is forcing farmers to store corn with little hope of profitable sales, while trade policy uncertainties in corn exports weigh on demand. These are the real stressors in agriculture today, none of which have anything to do with climate change. By fixating on climate change while admitting record abundance in the same breath, The AP obscures the actual challenges farmers face with regards to commodity markets, prices, and trade.
[SEPP Comment: The main competitor with the US in corn (maize) and soybean is Brazil, which is not in the temperate regions of Earth.]
Communicating Better to the Public – Use Propaganda
Lost Trust: German Professor Pleads For “Enlightenment Instead Of Apocalypse” From Media
By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Sep 3, 2025
German professor says the media have gone overboard with their apocalyptic climate reporting.
Communicating Better to the Public – Protest
Berlin Sees Major Power Outage After Extreme Leftists Sabotage Power Transmission Line
By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Sep 10, 2025
Questioning European Green
Europe: AI Development or Net Zero?
By Steve Goreham, Master Resource, Sep 10, 2025
This year, European nations announced plans to pursue artificial intelligence. National leaders announced AI spending goals totaling hundreds of billions of euros in efforts to catch up to the United States. But AI requires huge amounts of electrical power, conflicting with Europe’s commitment to achieve a Net Zero power grid.
The UK is going back to coal
By Andrew Montford, Net Zero Watch, Sep 12, 2025
Unfortunately, both the gas-fired and nuclear fleets are now very old, and much of the capacity is nearing the end of its life. Regulators have granted extensions to some of the nuclear units, but after 2028 permanent closures are likely. Meanwhile, as much as a third of our gas-fired capacity is expected to retire over the next five years.
However, replacement is currently looking unlikely. With so much wind and solar on the grid, nobody wants to put money into new power stations, either gas-fired or nuclear. The financial numbers simply don’t add up any longer, either for new units or for overhauls of existing ones.
Rachel Reeves [UK Chancellor of the Exchequer] faces £11bn bill over Ed Miliband’s North Sea shutdown
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Sep 3, 2025
Still, money does not matter where Net Zero is concerned!
Coutinho Writes To CCC
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Aug 30, 2025
Coutinho strikes back!
Just a pity she did not take the CCC to task when she was in power for doing exactly the same in their previous costings!
[SEPP Comment: Claire Coutinho now is the UK Shadow Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. The CCC is the Climate Change Committee. The primary issue is the costing assumptions of net zero.]
Green Jobs
Labour loses union rank and file
Written By Anonymous author, Net Zero Watch, Sep 4, 2025
The author is a retired trade unionist. He prefers to remain anonymous.
It is no longer a badge of honor to broadcast green credentials in Unite. Notably, there was no interest in ‘green jobs’ (unless you count the one speaker who asked if Deliveroo riders on electric scooters counted).
Non-Green Jobs
Oil rig parts maker to shut down 80pc of UK arm over Labor ‘cult of carbon’
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Sep 1, 2025
Litigation Issues
Appeals court overturns ruling halting EPA clawback of climate funds
By Rachel Frazin, The Hill, Sep 2, 2025
The 2-1 decision from a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., vacated a lower court ruling that would have prevented the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from recouping billions issued for climate-friendly projects under the Biden administration.
DOJ sues utility over Southern California fires
By Elizabeth Crisp, The Hill, Sep 4, 2025
[SEPP Comment: This is interesting because according to the California Constitution public utilities are subject to control by the Legislature.]
“Stupidest Litigation” Update
By Francis Menton, Manhattan Contrarian, Sep 2, 2025
In the New York City case, the District Court dismissed the City’s claim [against oil companies], and the Second Circuit affirmed. This quote is from the Second Circuit’s 2021 opinion:
“Such a sprawling case is simply beyond the limits of state law. To start, a substantial damages award like the one requested by the City would effectively regulate the Producers’ behavior far beyond New York’s borders. Since ‘[g]reenhouse gases once emitted ‘become well mixed in the atmosphere,’’ . . . ‘emissions in [New York or] New Jersey may contribute no more to flooding in New York than emissions in China,’ . . . Any actions the Producers take to mitigate their liability, then, must undoubtedly take effect across every state (and country). And all without asking what the laws of those other states (or countries) require. Because it therefore ‘implicat[es] the conflicting rights of [s]tates [and] our relations with foreign nations,’ this case poses the quintessential example of when federal common law is most needed. . ..”
Cap-and-Trade and Carbon Taxes
Greenhouses Pay the Costs of Demonizing ‘Greenhouse Gas’
By Vijay Jayaraj, CO2 Coalition, Sep 10, 2025
Canadian greenhouse farmers face carbon tax bills that represent up to 40% of their energy costs. Added to this are carbon taxes that Canadians pay when buying fuel, electricity and groceries.
Agriculture ranks among global industries most dependent on fossil fuels, making it particularly susceptible to the harms of bad energy policy. Diesel fuel powers equipment and propane runs grain dryers and heats barns. Nitrogen fertilizer, herbicides and insecticides are synthesized from natural gas and oil byproducts.
ubsidies and Mandates Forever
Let’s Get Real: Renewables Stand on Shaky Ground
By Terry L. Headley, Real Clear Energy, Sep 4, 2025
The removal of subsidies is not an attack on renewables; it is an acknowledgment that after decades of preferential treatment, these technologies should stand or fall in the market like any other.
Hidden in plain wallet
By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Sep. 3, 2025
What it all comes down to is that without subsidies alternative energy costs too much so people don’t want to buy it or, in consequence, invest in it. Which would suggest to unsophisticated minds that it’s not actually cheaper or more dependable than the stuff they do want to buy and invest in. Or more bluntly it costs more and works poorly. But the debate on climate is not the place for such plain speech, apparently.
It’s an outrage! Physical construction? What’s wrong with the rhetorical kind… other than the admitted difficulty of powering anything except your bank account with it?
Taxpayers Forked Out £700 Million For Heat Pump Subsidies In Last Year
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Sep 7, 2025
EPA and other Regulators on the March
EPA proposes to axe requirement for companies to report their planet-warming emissions
By Rachel Frazen, The Hill, Sep 12, 2025
“By hiding this information from the public, Administrator Zeldin is denying Americans the ability to see the damaging results of his actions on climate pollution, air quality, and public health,” said Joseph Goffman, who led the EPA’s Air and Radiation office under the Biden administration, in a written statement.
[SEPP Comment: Does the former EPA regulator believe that the flourishing of life from increasing CO2 is climate pollution?]
Energy Issues – Non-US
Why Fossil Fuels Still Rule
By Ron Clutz, His Blog, Sep 11, 2025
Nine-minute video by Kite/Key
Power sources need to be reliable, affordable, and abundant.
[SEPP Comment: Battery storage of electricity is about 30 times more expensive than using electric energy produced by coal, oil, and gas, which are easily stored.]
‘Blackouts are coming’
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Sep 10, 2025
The only remarkable thing about this latest Spiked interview with Kathryn Porter is that it is even news to some people!
Porter states: After 35 years of subsidies the wind industry is not an infant industry. It has a capacity factor of about 31%.
[SEPP Comment: Wind industry is a subsidy sink hole!]
Wholesale Electricity Prices
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Sep 1, 2025
This all needs bearing in mind when looking at the new Administrative Strike Prices for AR7 – offshore wind at £113/MWh (or £117/MWh at 2025 prices), for instance.
[SEPP Comment: Wave and Tidal Stream are the most expensive.]
Wind Constraint Payments Could Hit £12 Billion A Year Under Labour’s 2030 Plan
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Sep 10, 2025
Greenpeace Call For Strategic Reserve of Gas Plants
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Sep 5, 2025
But this new proposal is very similar to the sort of market restructuring that I and others have been calling for, which would involve splitting the market in two:
1) A pool for dispatchable power, to be supplied at annually contracted prices, with gas power stations index linked to wholesale gas prices.
2) A separate pool for intermittent energy at much lower prices, reflecting the lower intrinsic value of wind and solar power.
Norway’s electricity crisis is about to hit Britain
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Aug 31, 2025
Kathryn Porter raises new issues concerning our reliance on electricity from Norway:
“Reservoir levels in southern Norway are now well below the 20-year average and heading towards 20-year lows.
The south of Norway is the main region of tension. This is where the interconnectors to Britain and Germany land, and where the population is highest.
Since these two interconnectors opened in 2021, the region has seen higher prices. The issue of high and volatile prices has led to them becoming an issue of concern among the general public.”
Power Failure
Lost in transmission [UK]
By Mark Hodgson, Climate Scepticism, Sep 3, 2025 [H/t Bernie Kepshire]
We used to have an excellent system for generating electricity and getting it to the places where it was needed. Gas- and coal-fired power stations were situated near large population centres. It was cheap, not least because it didn’t have artificial (made-up) “carbon prices” loaded onto the fossil fuels that generated it, because it didn’t see significant volumes lost in transmission from remote locations, and because power generators weren’t regularly paid to switch off. It didn’t depend on the vagaries of the weather, and we weren’t dependent on foreigners to help us to keep the lights on.
Does AEP Think We Will Stop Using Oil & Gas?
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Sep 3, 2025
Link to: Future Energy Scenarios (FES)
By Staff, National Energy System Operator (NESO), July 2025
Homewood: According to NESO, the UK will still be using nearly as much natural gas in ten years’ time as we are now –between 71% and 80%, depending on scenario.
Even by 2040, we will still be using at least half as much. And if we go for the hydrogen scenario in a big way, gas consumption will barely fall at all.
Hanoi’s ‘Green’ Path to Poverty and Blackouts
By Vijay Jayaraj, CO2 Coalition, Sep 3, 2025
Energy Issues – Australia
The Greens set up a senate inquiry to track down the funds for misinformation in climate change
By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Sep 13, 2025
The motivations are obvious (but unreported)
There are many vested interests in the climate debate and most of them profit from promoting Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change.
[SEPP Comment: The government is asserting the lack of integrity?]
Buy our scheme to fix the weather for half a trillion says Business Council and everyone will be $10,000 richer
By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Sep 5, 2025
The Government has never told us what the magic fairy cake of Net Zero will cost
It’s like buying a house and you don’t know the price.
For some reason the Business Council of Australia (BCA) is adding up what the Treasury can’t or won’t — and they calculate that a target of 70% by 2035 would *only* cost $530 billion dollars. This bargain deal, ladies and gentlemen, is just $18,000 a person, or nearly $80,000 from a family of four. Perhaps you’d like to vote on that? Nevermind.
The White-Anting of Our Primary Industries
By Bill Johnson, Quadrant, Sep 9, 2025
Australia’s war with its own industries is not driven by natural scarcity, market forces, or global competition. It is largely a consequence of legislation shaped by external NGOs, particularly the WWF, that have effectively moved from advocacy and storytelling into the realm of lawmaking. Forestry closures, fisheries restrictions, and agricultural-land mandates illustrate a broader trend: policy decisions increasingly reflect global priorities rather than domestic realities.
Energy Issues — US
Energy & Labor Saving Day
By Robert Bradley Jr., Master Resource, Aug 31, 2025
Confronting the Electricity Price Shock
By Robert W. Chase, Real Clear Energy, Sep 4, 2025
What tech companies have not done – at least so far – is embrace the existing coal fleet. It’s a glaring mistake.
Despite soaring electricity demand, many existing coal plants are scheduled to close early—a response to years of state and federal regulatory pressure. Losing these plants is simply incompatible with this moment.
Watching The End Game Of New York’s Climate Madness Begin To Play Out
By Francis Menton, Manhattan Contrarian, Sep 8, 2025
As I have written many times, with New York’s fantasy “net zero” energy plans, it is not a question of whether they will fail, but only when and how. The Democrats, who dominate state politics, and their environmentalist allies, are firmly committed to the impossible. Thus, they are caught in a trap of their own making, and from which there is no good escape. The fact that they are caught in this trap is obvious to anyone with basic arithmetic skills, but almost all of our politicians and environmentalists lack those. However, a small handful of them are starting to sense the impending crash. This makes for amusing interplay.
The Green Agenda Turned New England Into an Energy Price Punchline
By Daniel Turner, Real Clear Energy, Sep 12, 2025
When Joe Biden took office, electricity in New England cost .207 cents per kilowatt-hour. By the time he left, it was more than .282 cents. That’s a staggering spike of more than 36% in just four years.
Nearly 400 fossil fuel plants have been shuttered across the country since 2010, including almost 300 coal plants. In the Northeast alone, names like Indian Point in New York, Eagle Point in New Jersey, Schiller Station in New Hampshire, and Canal Station in Massachusetts have been crossed off the map. Each closure meant fewer megawatts of reliable power and higher bills for families.
Save LBI Unveils Multipoint Plan to Secure Reliable and Affordable Electricity
Urges NJ Lawmakers to Act on Escalating Energy Crisis and Reconsider the Role of Offshore Wind Development
By Staff, Save Long Beach Island, Inc. (Save LBI) [N.J.], Via WUWT, Sep 4, 2025
Link to: 2025 PSE&G Load Forecast Adjustments: Methods and Approach to Adjustments
By Staff, Public Service Electric and Gas (PSE&G) [Central New Jersey], December 2025
From the PSE&G report: Data centers are significant users of on-peak electricity and since they are more energy intensive than the average commercial activity, data centers are not captured by the PJM econometric based load forecast model. [Boldface added]
The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 provides US Environmental Protection Agency with $3 billion to fund zero-emission port equipment and infrastructure as well as climate and air quality planning at U.S. ports. [Boldface added]
[SEPP Comment: A warning of higher costs to New Jersey consumers.
Electric Deregulation Historically Means Higher Power Bills
By Gary Meltz, Real Clear Energy, Sep 2, 2025
Setting the Record Straight on Energy Costs and Utility Customer Value
By Mike Innocenzo, Real Clear Energy, September 03, 2025
[SEPP Comment: The Executive VP and COO at Exelon, one of the largest US utility companies, states that the opinion piece, “Utility Monopolies Are Driving Up Your Electric Bill,” misrepresents the facts, while overlooking the actual work utilities such as those in the Exelon family of companies are doing to support customers.]
Oil and Natural Gas – the Future or the Past?
UK Tories promise to let industry dig up all the North Sea oil and gas they can find
By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Sep 3, 2025
Tories pledge to get all oil and gas out of North Sea
New Zealand government votes to bring back fossil fuel exploration in major reversal
Nuclear Energy and Fears
ENTRA1: Mystery Company Behind NuScale/TVA Nuclear Megadeal
By Kennedy Maize, Master Resource, Sep 9, 2025
Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Solar and Wind
Why Dislike Solar Power
By Chris Martz, Via Ron Clutz, His Blog, Sep 4, 2025
Why do I dislike solar so much? Because solar farms are a giant waste of land and natural resources. Let’s do some math.
BHP cuts renewable budget by 88% — axes Pilbara wind and solar and delays electric trucks
By Jo Nova, Her Blog, 10, 2025
Solar grows to 30 or 40% then microgrid costs rise exponentially
The Pilbara in the NW of WA is one of the sunniest places in the world — 10 hours a day and 218 clear days a year. If we can’t make a solar powered microgrid work there, where can it work?
[SEPP Comment: BHP is a mining company with 10 active mines in Australia, most in remote locations such as Western Australia (WA).]
Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Energy — Other
Farmers Can Supercharge America’s Energy Dominance
By Kip Tom , Oliver McPherson-Smith, Real Clear Energy, Sep 4, 2025
Ethanol is now produced in 21 states and the United States has been a net-exporter of the fuel since 2010. Other biofuels—such as renewable diesel and sustainable aviation fuel—are produced in 22 plants across 13 states.
Shell abandons huge biofuel project in Netherlands
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Sep 3, 2025
More proof that renewable energy is not viable without massive subsidies and mandates.
Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Vehicles
EU Auto Industry Rebels Against CO2 Targets
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Aug 30, 2025
Airlines warn that net zero targets are slipping beyond reach
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Sep 8, 2025
Dale Vince’s net zero airline in disarray
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Aug 31, 2025
From The Telegraph (paywalled): A leading Labour donor’s plans to establish the world’s first all-electric airline have been thrown into doubt after it sacked almost its entire workforce.
Ecojet, which is owned by Dale Vince, the founder of renewable energy firm Ecotricity, made 11 employees redundant earlier this year – having previously had a team of 13.
California Dreaming
Tips to Understand California’s Energy Economy
By Edward Ring, What’s Current, Accessed Sep 11, 2025
California’s biggest irrigation district throws support behind disputed diversion project
By Sharon Udasin, The Hill, Sep 2, 2025
Link to: Governor Newsom’s Delta Conveyance Project is single most effective action for California’s sustainable water future, study finds
New report reinforces the need for this critical project to be completed quickly
By Staff, Office of Governor Galvin Newson, Aug 29, 2025
A new report released today by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) examines how a combination of strategies, most importantly the Delta Conveyance Project, can help the State Water Project maintain reliable water deliveries to 27 million Californians despite hotter temperatures, more extreme storms, more severe droughts, and higher sea levels.
Health, Energy, and Climate
Study details how ‘forever chemicals’ disrupt liver function
By Sharon Udasin, The Hill, Sep 11, 2025
Link to paper: Assessing the impact of perfluoroalkyl substances on liver health: a comprehensive study using multi-donor human liver spheroids
By Lucy Golden-Mason, et al., Environmental International, September 2025
[SEPP Comment: A possible way “forever chemicals” may cause harm, no details.]
BELOW THE BOTTOM LINE
The Word “Organic” Is Wildly Confusing — Here’s Why
By Josh Bloom, ACSH, Sep 5, 2025
“Organic” might be the most abused word in the English language. Chemists, farmers, and marketers all use it—and none of them mean the same thing. The result is a label that can make Oreos, cigarettes, and even bottled water sound like health food. Tampons too.
Claim: Militaries have to Switch to Clean Energy to Stop Climate Breakdown
By Eric Worrall, WUWT, Sep 5, 2025
There may be a case for nuclear power on military bases, to generate fossil fuel and electricity – transport costs in war zones can add hundreds of dollars per gallon to fuel costs. But this transportable nuclear powered fuel generator is no more than a lab toy for now, their current best full size transportable design produces a mere 0.8 gallons of hydrogen per minute, or 1100 gallons per day, which still has to be processed into liquid fuel in a lossy chemical reaction
1 in 4 homes face ‘severe or extreme’ climate risks, study finds
By Andrew Dorn, The Hill, Sep 5, 2025
Link to report: Over a Quarter of U.S. Homes, Worth Nearly $13 Trillion, Face Severe Climate Risk—These 3 Cities Bear the Heaviest Homeowners Insurance Costs
By Snejana Farberov, Realtor.com, Sep 3, 2025
Realtor.com: About 26.1% of U.S. homes, with a combined value of $12.7 trillion, are exposed to at least one type of severe or extreme climate risk such as hurricanes, wildfires, or floods, according to the latest Realtor.com 2025 Housing and Climate Risk report.
[SEPP Comment: Extreme weather risks are now extreme climate risks according to realtor.com? Why live in an area where climate is extreme? A category 3 hurricane has wind speeds of 111 to 129 mph (179 to 208 kph). Would anyone live there if they occur as frequently as, say, thunderstorms?]
Smartphones can be a pain in the butt when used in the bathroom
Endlessly scrolling through social media while on the toilet could result in hemorrhoids, a new study found. Plus, experts say, it’s gross.
By Erika Edwards, NBC News, Sep 3, 2025
Link to paper: Smartphone use on the toilet and the risk of hemorrhoids
By Chethan Ramprasad, et al., PLOS One, Sep 3, 2025
ARTICLES
1. At Long Last, Clarity on Climate
The Energy Department’s recent report is drawing predictable criticism from politicized scientists.
By Steven E. Koonin, WSJ, Sept. 7, 2025
One of the five independent scientists on the Climate Working Group writes:
“A recent Energy Department report challenged the widespread belief that greenhouse-gas emissions pose a serious threat to the nation. It likely soothed Americans irked by forced energy transitions, but you would be wrong to assume it reassured many alarmed by hypothetical climate catastrophes.
There is a disconnect between public perceptions of climate change and climate science—and between past government reports and the science itself. Energy Secretary Chris Wright understands this. It’s why he commissioned an independent assessment by a team of five senior scientists, including me, to provide clearer insights into what’s known and not about the changing climate.
Collectively, our team brought to the task more than 200 years of research experience, almost all directly relevant to climate studies. The resulting peer-reviewed report is entirely our work, free from political influence—a departure from previous assessments. It draws from United Nations and U.S. climate reports, peer-reviewed research, and primary observations to focus on important aspects of climate science that have been misrepresented to nonexperts.
Among the report’s key findings:
• Elevated carbon-dioxide levels enhance plant growth, contributing to global greening and increased agricultural productivity.
• Complex climate models provide limited guidance on the climate’s response to rising carbon-dioxide levels. Overly sensitive models, often using extreme scenarios, have exaggerated future warming projections and consequences.
• Data aggregated over the continental U.S. show no significant long-term trends in most extreme weather events. Claims of more frequent or intense hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and dryness in America aren’t supported by historical records.
• While global sea levels have risen about 8 inches since 1900, aggregate U.S. tide-gauge data don’t show the long-term acceleration expected from a warming globe.
• Natural climate variability, data limitations and model deficiencies complicate efforts to attribute specific climate changes or extreme events to human CO2 emissions.
• The use of the words “existential,” “crisis” and “emergency” to describe the projected effects of human-caused warming on the U.S. economy finds scant support in the data.
• Overly aggressive policies aimed at reducing emissions could do more harm than good by hiking the cost of energy and degrading its reliability. Even the most ambitious reductions in U.S. emissions would have little direct effect on global emissions and an even smaller effect on climate trends.
Our report is the first from Washington in years that deviates from the narrative of a climate headed for catastrophe. That these findings surprised many speaks to a governmental failure to communicate climate science accurately to the public.
Our work has attracted strong criticism, despite its grounding in established science. Almost 60,000 comments were submitted to the Federal Register during the month after its publication, and the Environmental Defense Fund and Union of Concerned Scientists filed a lawsuit to prevent the Energy Department or Environmental Protection Agency from using the report in decision-making. Most of these challenges have no scientific backing.”
After stating that the critiques mostly add detail and nuances to the findings, Koonin concludes with:
“Climate policies must balance the risks of climate change against a response’s costs, efficacy and collateral effects. Reports like ours may draw a lot of anger but our work accurately portrays important aspects of climate science. Acknowledging the facts is essential for informed policy decisions.”
*************
2. Reef Madness: A Baseless Coral Panic
The Great Barrier shrank over the past year but was bigger than ever in 2024.
By Bjorn Lomborg, WSJ, Sept. 4, 2025
TWTW Summary: The president of the Copenhagen Consensus begins with:
“You might have gotten the impression that the Great Barrier Reef—the aquatic wonder off Australia’s coast—is in grave peril. Last month, headlines shouted in unison: Great Barrier Reef suffers worst coral decline on record. Environmental journalists paint a picture of immense devastation driven by climate change.
The truth is much less alarming. Australian scientists have meticulously tracked the reef’s coral cover since 1986. For many years, they published an annual average coral cover figure. The data show that the reef was mostly stable until 2000, then began declining, and by 2012 it had shrunk to less than half its original cover.
But then the reef started growing. It rebounded spectacularly. The scientists stopped publishing their reef-wide average, perhaps because it didn’t further the climate-change narrative. But they continued publishing regional and sector-wide averages, making it possible for anyone to effectively recreate the reef-wide average.
By 2021 coral cover was higher than it had been since measurements began. It increased further, staying at unprecedentedly high levels in 2022 and 2023. The coral grew more still in 2024.
That brings us to 2025. The new data show that coral cover has dropped across 10 of 11 sectors, with two experiencing their largest one-year drop. Climate alarmists rang their bells: ‘Great Barrier Reef suffers worst coral decline on record,’ read a BBC headline. CNN: ‘Australia’s Great Barrier Reef devastated by worst coral bleaching on record, new report finds.’
Never mind that the reductions came off the record high of 2024, or that large year-to-year variations are typical. One sector saw its coral cover in 2025 reach its highest level ever. The data show coral cover across the entire reef in 2025 is ‘only’ the fourth highest ever recorded since systematic monitoring began. Cover across the entire reef is still higher than in 2021, which itself was higher than in any other time prior recorded year. All the highest years are in the 2020s, yet we hear nothing but doom and gloom.
It is impossible to compare today’s reef to its pristine, natural state, because there are very little data before systematic tracking began in 1986”.
A section is omitted here, and the author concludes with:
“The reef fluctuates, but today it still logs its fourth-highest coral cover since records began. Instead of being ‘devastated,’ the Great Barrier Reef is still great.”
[SEPP Comment: The warmest part of the world’s oceans is called – wait for it – The Coral Sea.]
“The DOE is fighting the lawsuit, but to SEPP the issue is filing a scientifically based document to the EPA on the absurdity of the Endangerment Finding by September 22.”
Exactly. Here is my comment, filed and posted recently. Plots and histograms of the hourly parameter “vertical integral of energy conversion” from the ERA5 reanalysis are used to demonstrate the absurdity of the claim of a harmful influence on the climate system from emissions of CO2, CH4, N2O, etc.
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0194-0305
I might generate another comment along a different line of evidence while there is still a week to go before the Sept 22 deadline.
“Rachel Reeves [UK Chancellor of the Exchequer] faces £11bn bill over Ed Miliband’s North Sea shutdown
Rachel from Accounts has really screwed it all up, and in less than 18 months:
A damning new report by the Centre of Policy Studies warns the UK is facing a “looming crisis” without spending cuts. The high-spend, high-tax stooges in the Treasury might want to listen…
“Urgent action is needed to fix our public finances and restore confidence in the UK economy. But the current government’s answer to that has been higher spending and higher borrowing. That is unsustainable, crowds out the private sector and pushes up inflation.” – Guido Fawkes
Increasing taxes will only lower the already overburdensome take. Simple as that.
But our glorious leader is bogged down by Rayner, Mandelson and others, so everything else is up in the air.
Starmer’s Director of Strategy Paul Ovenden has resigned this afternoon after sexually explicit emails about Diane Abbott emerged. According to the Mail, Ovenden stood down today following the publication of the 2017 messages in which he recounted a story about “a game of ‘shag, marry, kill’ involving Abbott”. He resigned to avoid becoming a “distraction“. – Guido Fawkes
I sometimes wonder if mad Ed Miliband is behind all this, orchestrating things and ensuring he remains in the political shadows? With his net zero fetish…
From searching “debt to GDP ratio by country”
Sudan 256
Argentina 155
USA 122
UK 97.6
China 83
India 82
Saudi Arabia 30
Russia 15
It surprises me that Saudi has government debt, but debt creation seems to be a requirement for fiat currency maintenance.
Radiation transfer is just meaningless jargon in this context. Adding CO2 to air does not make it hotter.
As a matter of fact, all gases at the same temperature are – at the same temperature! Emitting the same frequencies of photons. So 100% CO2 at 20 C cannot be distinguished from 100% O2 or N2 at 20 C by measuring the frequencies of emitted radiation due to temperature.
“Precise physical equations” notwithstanding. Anybody who disagrees is dreaming – unless they have reproducible experimental support (which they haven’t).
No GHE – not even a teensy, weensy, bit.
I’ve seen posts here on WUWT that claim that O2 and N2 can neither absorb nor emit radiative energy – “not even a teensy, weensy, bit!” Meaning that those gasses transfer heat only by conduction and convection. Seems strange to me, but I await clarification from someone who knows??
“Emitting the same frequencies of photons.” The air should not be modelled as a black body. Except in some industrial locations.
Who’s modelling? Not me! If modelling clashes with physical measurements, the ignorant and gullible (“climate scientists”) reject reality in favour of models.
Not me.
“TWTW Comment: With the leader of the World Weather Attribution (WWA) group becoming a lead author in the upcoming IPCC Assessment Report (AR7) it appears that the IPCC may become another alarmist group making wild claims without a credible foundation in probability and statistics. We can only wait and see.”
Reading went so long I forgot what I’d stuffed in the copy-paste buffer. Thanks for a mountain of research and two dates to remember: 1992 for sea level and 1986 for coral reefs.
Regarding the leader of the World Weather Attribution group becoming a lead author in the upcoming IPCC Assessment Report- it was inevitable like Fonzie jumping a pen of sharks on water skis or the Cosby show adding a new 3-year-old. Let’s get it over with.