The Week That Was: 2026-01-31 (January 31, 2026)
Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org)
The Science and Environmental Policy Project
Quote of the Week: “Insight must precede application.” — Max Planck
Number of the Week: 1-day in10 Years.
*********************
THIS WEEK:
By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
Scope: This TWTW begins with discussing an interview of Ross McKitrick by scientist journalist Manish Koirala. It then presents John Tyndall’s findings of how water vapor slows the cooling of Earth and how subsequent scientists misinterpreted Tyndall’s findings. TWTW presents the view of Tilak Doshi that Bjorn Lomborg may be in a difficult position. Then, it discusses the concerns that labor leaders in Scotland have with the current government’s policies toward oil and gas. TWTW questions the use of a new saying of affordability and concludes with an explanation of how sulfur dioxide from volcanoes becomes dangerous sulfuric acid.
*********************
Interview of Ross McKitrick: The CLINTEL group founded by geophysicist Guss Berkhout and science journalist Marchel Crok published a frank interview of Ross McKitrick (the 2023 co-recipient of SEPP’s Frederick Seitz Award) by science journalist Manish Koirala of Bāgmatī, Nepal. Both the questions and answers were clear and direct.
As readers may recall, McKitrick together with Stephen McIntyre, exposed the faulty statistics behind the infamous hockey-stick graph used to claim that surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere were by far the highest they had been in the past 1000 years. The graph was featured in the Summary for Policymakers of the Third Assessment report (TAR, 2001) of the IPCC. The graph, based on research by Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes (MBH98), appeared multiple times in that report. The graph was based on tree-ring data. McIntyre went on to show that Hughes omitted over 70% of the observations of trees in the boreal forests that did not support the hockey-stick shape.
McKitrick exposed the once highly cited Allen-Tett paper (1999) that falsely claimed that a statistical technique used in the paper met the Gauss-Markov Theorem criteria, that the technique, called “optimal fingerprinting” was BLUE – the best, linear, unbiased estimator. “Optimal fingerprinting” was used for asserting that human carbon dioxide emissions were the cause of many recent extreme weather events. Organizations such as World Weather Attribution, funded by the Grantham Foundation, the European Climate Foundation, and the Bezos Earth Foundation continue to make such claims but do not have a solid statistical foundation for making them.
McKitrick participated with Steven Koonin, Roy Spencer, John Christy, and Judith Curry in an independent study sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) called the Climate Working Group which announced its findings on July 29, 2025.
“Among the key findings, the report concludes that carbon dioxide (CO2) -induced warming appears to be less damaging economically than commonly believed, and that aggressive mitigation strategies could be more harmful than beneficial. Additionally, the report finds that 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.”
Litigation claiming the independent group was not legally formed prompted DOE to suspend its operations after the publication of the report. The report still stands and it has not been contradicted by physical evidence. However, the authors of the report did not have the ability to respond to criticisms as a group.
Readers of TWTW are encouraged to read the entire interview of McKitrick. Of particular interest is the section on treating carbon dioxide as a pollutant, government responses, and global climate modeling.. This section includes the following [the questions are numbered and in boldface]:
“11. What’s the most common misunderstanding among your critics about what the report actually claims — and what’s the most common misunderstanding among your supporters?
That it’s an attack on climate science—it’s a ridiculous thing to say. I think anyone who spent any time reading the report would realize that it’s not an attack on climate science. We rely heavily throughout the report on the IPCC reports. We cite the National Climate Assessment reports. But we also believe that there are important topics and discussions that are downplayed or ignored that really should be put on the table for discussion. That’s what we’re trying to do: we’re trying to make the discussion more complete and comprehensive, not attack it.
12. Why do you claim that the U.S. Clean Air Act is not a good framework for greenhouse gas policies?
It was set up to deal with local urban air pollution issues. The framework of the Clean Air Act divides the country into attainment and non-attainment zones and authorizes the EPA administrator to prescribe local emission requirements on power plants and motor vehicles in order to get non-attainment zones into attainment, meaning get specific types of air pollution down to a criterion level. That whole framework doesn’t make any sense at all for a globally mixed greenhouse gas like carbon dioxide.
There’s no such thing as a non-attainment or attainment zone for carbon dioxide. You’re looking at a uniform level that’s mixed into the troposphere, and there’s no rule that you can prescribe for motor vehicles or power plants in the United States that’s going to unilaterally change the global CO2 concentration, much less change the local climate. So, if your concern is that there’s too much warming in the city of Philadelphia, that doesn’t tie to cars and power plants in the Philadelphia area. That’s a local effect of a globally mixed phenomenon.
For that reason, it was the Clean Air Act—which, clearly in my view, I’m not a lawyer—was set up to deal with urban air pollution issues and has been very effective for that. But it’s just the wrong framework for thinking about carbon dioxide and global climate issues.
13. Climate models are central to the IPCC’s projections, but you’ve raised concerns about their limitations. How well do you think these models, and the IPCC’s methods for quantifying uncertainty, reflect the true risks of future climate change—and are there alternative empirical approaches or data sources you believe should play a larger role?
I don’t put a lot of weight on the IPCC’s statements about confidence. They tend to be very subjective, and some of them don’t make a lot of sense. For instance, we pointed out that the IPCC has accepted that it’s very clear that climate models as a group put way too much warming in the troposphere, and they cite lots of papers, including papers I’ve co-authored that show that, and yet they assign it only medium confidence. And yet, they assign very high confidence to other issues where the evidence basis is quite weak. Some of those statements, it seems to me, tend to be subjective and put in there for rhetorical purposes—to try to emphasize messages rather than communicate the actual strength of quantitative information.
Now, I don’t know what the alternative would be; it’s difficult to summarize large, complex topics in a meaningful way. But I think specifically the IPCC has used a very poor methodology for attribution. I think the optimal fingerprinting methodology is extremely flawed, and I’ve published papers explaining why. I think it tends to miss the role of natural variability in a systematic way and overstate the role of anthropogenic forcing, and they’ve assigned way too much confidence to the results of that.
Also, the IPCC—and this goes back 20 years now—tends to put out families of emission scenarios that include an upper tail that should not be there, that historically don’t validate against the data, and just in terms of the storyline behind them, doesn’t make sense. They get very cagey when pressed on why they have these emission scenarios that are just not credible. I think it’s because it gives them the rhetorical advantage of being able to put out a range of warming projections and then say it’s going to be six degrees or something like that. By the time that appears in a newspaper or a public setting, people lose the subtlety that this is an extreme upper end, and they think the IPCC is actually projecting that much warming.
That’s a case where I think the way they handle the range of uncertainty around emission scenarios ends up serving to mislead the public discussion rather than center it on the most realistic and plausible outcomes.
14. How do you assess the cost-effectiveness of current climate policies, and are there specific approaches you believe could achieve emissions reductions more efficiently?
Well, that’s a big topic. Cost-effectiveness, I would say, is not achieved in general by most of the climate policies we’re familiar with, especially things like renewables—solar and wind. It’s just, in my mind, a terrible tragedy how much the world has spent on those power systems, and we get almost no useful electricity, or a tiny amount, at an extremely high cost.
Then things like the EV mandate: these issues are playing out in Canada the way they’re playing out in so many other countries around the world. Governments seem too willing to allow corporate interests that see this as an opportunity for making a lot of money by selling the government on a technology that requires the government to back it up with regulatory force. EVs would have a presence in the automobile market, the technology is improving, and there will be people who want EVs and prefer them to gas-powered cars. But these mandates are trying to force that through way ahead of schedule. It’s very profitable for certain automakers and the industries that support them, but it’s very costly for consumers and harmful to the traditional auto sector.
So that is not a cost-effective approach, and it doesn’t even reduce emissions very much. EV mandates have minimal effect on greenhouse gas emissions for all the costs.
The economic approach—and one of the points I tried to get across in the economics chapter—is more concerned with sending a price signal into the market as best we can concerning the social cost of CO2 emissions and then stepping back and letting the market respond to that price signal. Because of the role fossil fuels play around the world, and the necessity of energy, there won’t be a big response in terms of emissions. It’s very expensive to reduce fossil fuel use, and with current technology, we just don’t expect to see a lot of short-term reduction in emissions.
Down the road, it might get cheaper. There might be a way to decouple CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use. There isn’t at present, but there might be. We have decoupled particulates, sulfur, and carbon monoxide from fossil fuel use, but we haven’t figured out how to do that with carbon dioxide yet. Once we do, lower-cost options will appear, and that’s when you would see much more cost-effective approaches to dealing with CO2 emissions.
So, the economic reasoning here has always been: for the time being, we’re just going to have to learn to live with it, hope it doesn’t become a crisis, and assume that there will be technological improvements, maybe in the latter half of the century, that make the problem easier to solve.
15. What are your thoughts on the net-zero mandate?
On the net-zero mandate, I think it’s, at best, a very misguided attempt by politicians to look like they’re doing something heroic, even though they have no idea how they would actually implement it. At worst, I think geopolitically it is causing Western countries to seriously weaken their industries and capacities. It’s creating an opening for some hostile governments, including Beijing, to establish a presence around the world in other countries that weren’t able to get financing for their own power plants and fossil fuel development, because the net-zero agenda in the West caused the money to disappear for those projects. This allowed the government of China to take control of a lot of developing countries in a way that I think is hostile to those countries’ interests.
16. Do you think economists are systematically better or worse than physical scientists at reasoning about deep uncertainty—and what blind spots does your own discipline bring to climate questions?
Economists, I will say, have an advantage in that the average economist has a lot more training in quantitative methods, econometrics, and statistics than the average physical scientist. One of the reasons I got into publishing in climate science journals was that there were a lot of issues where the methods being used are really drawn from economics and econometrics, but they weren’t being used very competently in physical science journals. I think economists do a better job of statistical reasoning and statistical analysis.
As far as reasoning about deep uncertainty, everybody grapples with issues around trying to say something sensible about things that might or might not happen 100 years from now. Economists are used to studying something—namely the global economy—that has changed really dramatically, so we know that today’s technology isn’t necessarily going to be the same as tomorrow’s technology. We know that incomes and standards of living can change dramatically over 100 years. Physical scientists, on the other hand, are studying systems that tend to be very stable and not change a whole lot, so they are very alert to anything that looks like it has changed appreciably over the last 50 years or so.
For economists, I suppose our blind spot would be that if you tell us the world could warm a couple of degrees and that could have a lot of big effects, we would, in the first instance at least, just shrug and say, okay, well, we can live with that. The progress of income and technology means that we probably won’t really notice the change very much when we think about everything else that’s going to change over the next 100 years. Physical scientists, by contrast, would be a lot more alert to the potential for harmful surprises and unprecedented changes.”
For the entire interview see link under Challenging the Orthodoxy.
*********************
Misunderstanding John Tydall’s Experiments: Starting in 1859 John Tyndall conducted experiments at the Royal Institution to understand why Earth was warm enough to support life. In 1861 he reported that certain gases are transparent to sunlight but absorb (and emit) infrared radiation from Earth to space. In 1863 he reported in Philosophical Transactions “On Radiation Through the Earth’s Atmosphere” that:
“Numberless other meteorological phenomena receive their solution, by reference to the radiant and absorbent properties of aqueous vapour. It is the absence of this screen, and the consequent copious waste of heat, that causes mountains to be so much chilled when the sun is withdrawn. Its absence in Central Asia renders the winter there almost unendurable; in Sahara the dryness of the air is sometimes such that, though during the day ‘the soil is fire and the wind is flame,’ the chill at night is painful to bear. In Australia, also, the thermometric range is enormous, on account of the absence of this qualifying agent. A clear day, and a dry day, moreover, are very different things. The atmosphere may possess great visual clearness, while it is charged with aqueous vapour, and on such occasions great chilling cannot occur by terrestrial radiation. Sir John Leslie and others have been perplexed by the varying indications of their instruments on days equally bright, but all these anomalies are completely accounted for by reference to this newly-discovered property of transparent aqueous vapour. Its presence would check the earth’s loss; its absence, without sensibly altering the transparency of the air, would open wide a door for the escape of the earth’s heat into infinitude.” [Boldface added]
Aqueous vapour is clearly water vapor, not carbonic acid (liquid water with dissolved carbon dioxide). Unfortunately, subsequent scientists including Svante Arrhenius used the term carbonic acid. Modern climate scientists have used this confusion to claim carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas and to justify a positive water vapor feedback from carbon dioxide emissions.
Writing in No Tricks Zone, Kenneth Richard discusses a 2016 example of what he terms a thought experiment by Anderson, et al. to justify their high sensitivity of Earth’s temperature to carbon dioxide in Earth System Models. Richard does not go into the findings of John Tyndall which clearly illustrate the misinterpretations of Tyndall experiments to claim that a high sensitivity of Earth’s temperatures to atmospheric carbon dioxide is founded on radiation transfer.
The abstract of the Anderson et al. paper states:
“Climate warming during the course of the twenty-first century is projected to be between 1.0 and 3.7 °C depending on future greenhouse gas emissions, based on the ensemble-mean results of state-of-the-art Earth System Models (ESMs). Just how reliable are these projections, given the complexity of the climate system? The early history of climate research provides insight into the understanding and science needed to answer this question. We examine the mathematical quantifications of planetary energy budget developed by Svante Arrhenius (1859–1927) and Guy Stewart Callendar (1898–1964) and construct an empirical approximation of the latter, which we show to be successful at retrospectively predicting global warming over the course of the twentieth century. This approximation is then used to calculate warming in response to increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases during the twenty-first century, projecting a temperature increase at the lower bound of results generated by an ensemble of ESMs (as presented in the latest assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). This result can be interpreted as follows. The climate system is conceptually complex but has at its heart the physical laws of radiative transfer. This basic, or “core” physics is relatively straightforward to compute mathematically, as exemplified by Callendar’s calculations, leading to quantitatively robust projections of baseline warming. The ESMs include not only the physical core but also climate feedbacks that introduce uncertainty into the projections in terms of magnitude, but not [the] sign: positive (amplification of warming). As such, the projections of end-of-century global warming by ESMs are fundamentally trustworthy: quantitatively robust baseline warming based on the well-understood physics of radiative transfer, with extra warming due to climate feedbacks. These projections thus provide a compelling case that global climate will continue to undergo significant warming in response to ongoing emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.” [Boldface added]
Anderson et al. does not recognize that in 1906 Arrhenius published a paper significantly altering his earlier views in his 1896 paper.
See links under Defending the Orthodoxy
*********************
Difficult Position: In “The Bjorn Lomborg Conundrum: Sceptic but Not Quite” Tilak Doshi discusses the difficult position Bjorn Lomborg, the Skeptical Environmentalist” may be in. Doshi writes:
“Bjørn Lomborg occupies a curious and increasingly uncomfortable position in the climate wars. To climate activists, he is a dangerous heretic who undermines the urgency of ‘The Science’ by questioning the costs of Net Zero. To many sceptics, he is a frustrating near-ally who dismantles the climate policy edifice brick by brick — only to stop short of questioning its foundations.
Lomborg insists that climate change is real, that CO2-driven warming is a problem and that humanity must ultimately ‘solve’ it. Yet he also argues, persuasively, that the costs of current climate policies vastly exceed their benefits, and that trillions are being squandered on symbolic decarbonisation while far more urgent human needs go unmet.
This intellectual tension — between skepticism about policy and faith in the premise — defines Lomborg’s conundrum.”
See link under Seeking a Common Ground.
*********************
Destroying Industry: A few years ago, a common political slogan was “Build Back Better.” What the actual slogan meant was destroy first, then try to build back. The UK is well underway in implementing this policy on its oil and gas industry based in Arbedeen, Scotland. Tilak Doshi draws attention to a report by Nick Tyrone of the Jobs Foundation. The report “Cliff Edge: Jobs in Aberdeen, the epicenter of the UK’s energy transition” has a forward by Louise Gilmour, Scotland Secretary of the GMB, a major trade union in the UK. Gilmore wrote:
“A just transition. The three little words that have come to mean nothing at all in a country losing thousands of good jobs today, right now, on airy promises of a brighter, greener tomorrow.
Families and communities founded on well-paid, unionized jobs in oil and gas would be unharmed, we were assured, because – cue the M&S voiceover – this isn’t just any transition, it’s a just transition, a fair and inclusive transition. In this alternative universe, ministers insist, a well-planned and necessary contraction of our offshore industries and their supply chains will see workers seamlessly find new jobs harnessing the power of the wind, sun, and sea. It is a lovely thought but bears little resemblance to the chaotic reality of a rushed and needless rundown of our oil and gas sector, not least in Aberdeen, where the drumbeat of redundancy announcements is quickening week by dispiriting week.
Meanwhile, our governments seem stricken, almost delusional, in the face of onrushing disaster, insisting we must ignore today’s reality and believe in tomorrow’s dreams as arguably the most destructive industrial calamity in our nation’s history – a disaster risking untold jobs, communities, even higher bills, and our energy security – unfolds. For those of us old enough to remember, this energy revolution is already resembling another, when sudden, savage pit closures 40 years ago only transitioned thriving mining communities into despair and dereliction.
The UK will, of course, need oil and gas for years, decades, while continuing to build our renewables capacity and the need for measured progress towards Net Zero – while protecting our energy security and a sector underpinning hundreds of thousands of jobs could not be clearer or more obvious. Well, clear and obvious everywhere but Holyrood [modern seat of the Scottish Parliament] and Westminster [seat of the UK Parliament] apparently.”
Doshi writes:
“The United Kingdom produces just one-third of the total energy from all sources that it did in 1999 – think of that, one-third – and they’re sitting on top of the North Sea, one of the greatest reserves anywhere in the world, but they don’t use it, and that’s one reason why their energy has reached catastrophically low levels, with equally high prices. High prices, very low levels. Think of that – one-third and you’re sitting on top of the North Sea.”
There have been at least five significant oil and gas discoveries in the North Seas in 2025 and 2026. And the UK politicians are turning their backs on all of them. See links under Energy Issues – Europe.
*********************
Affordability: In the US, the new political slogan for de-industrialization and unreliable energy is “affordability and energy efficiency” Francis Menton writes:
“So, how to achieve ‘affordability? There are two approaches, which are essentially opposites of each other. Can they both be right?
Approach Number 1 is that the government orders producers not to increase prices, and sometimes also offers handouts of one sort or another to favored constituencies to reduce their effective costs. Approach Number 2 is that the government mostly keeps out of the relationship between producers and consumers, and thereby makes the producers reduce their costs if they want to attract customers.”
See link under Questioning the Orthodoxy and for Paul Driessen’s essay on how it works in Virginia see link under The Political Games Continue.
*********************
Sulfuric Acid: Although percentages vary by location, sulfur dioxide makes up about 7% of the total gases emitted by volcanoes. Water vapor and carbon dioxide are about 78% and 12%, respectively. Writing in the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) website, Josh Bloom explains how sulfur dioxide from a volcano becomes Sulfuric Acid, a very strong acid. See link under Changing Earth.
*********************
Number of the Week: 1-day in10 Years. According to the 2025 Long-Term Reliability Assessment by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC):
“The overall resource adequacy outlook for the North American BPS [Bulk Power System] is worsening: In the 2025 LTRA, NERC finds that 13 of 23 assessment areas face resource adequacy challenges over the next 10 years…. The continuing shift in the resource mix toward weather-dependent resources and less fuel diversity increases risks of supply shortfalls during winter months.”
Under Risk Categories the report states:
“An assessment area is determined as High Risk when established resource adequacy targets or requirements are not met or when probabilistic or deterministic energy analyses find that planned resources produce shortfalls resulting in unserved energy or load loss exceeding criteria for baseline resource adequacy specified below. Regulatory authorities or market operators establish resource adequacy targets. Most targets in North America are currently based on a 1-day/event load loss in a 10-year planning requirement.” [Last sentence, boldface added.]
One never reads of estimates of reliability of wind and solar power in estimated days of failure over 10 years. Needless to say, both are High Risk using NERC’s classification. See links under Energy Issues – US,
NEWS YOU CAN USE:
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
Net Zero Averted Temperature Increase
By Richard Lindzen, William Happer, and William A. van Wijngaarden, CO2 Coalition, June 2024
Radiation Transport in Clouds
By W.A. van Wijngaarden and W. Happer, Klimarealistene, Science of Climate Change, January 2025
Challenging the Orthodoxy
Ross McKitrick on Climate Models, Economic Impacts, and the DOE Report
In this in-depth interview, economist and statistician Ross McKitrick discusses climate models, uncertainty, and whether the public climate debate is as scientifically balanced as often claimed. He also reflects on his role as a co-author of the recent U.S. Department of Energy report.
By Manish Koirala, CLINTEL, Jan 24, 2026
Livestock, Methane and Climate
By D. Alexander, et al., CO2 Coalition, Jan 27, 2026
#DOEDeepDive: Ch 5.4 The vertical mismatch
By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Jan 28, 2026
The atmosphere’s temperature profile is a case where models are not merely uncertain. They show a dogmatic common warming bias relative to observations. This result shows that they prefer doctrine to observation. And it also suggests that their internal processes misrepresent certain fundamental feedback processes. (Or don’t actually attempt to represent them because of the scale problem we have discussed elsewhere in this series but contain workarounds that misrepresent their results.)
It’s too big to ignore. But it’s also too awkward to discuss. So, the IPCC put in a chart showing the problem, but only in an online Appendix, not in the main report, and didn’t mention it in the body of the report so readers would have no way of knowing what to look for. And as for what the IPCC had to say in its most recent report, the AR6, the DoE team simply pointed out:
“The IPCC AR6 did not assess this issue.”
Defending the Orthodoxy
130 Years Later: The CO2 Greenhouse Effect Is Still Only An Imaginary-World Thought Experiment
By Kenneth Richard, No Tricks Zone, Jan 30, 2026
Link to: On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground
By Svante Arrhenius, the London, Edinburgh and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, April 1896
Link to: CO2, the greenhouse effect and global warming: from the pioneering work of Arrhenius and Callendar to today’s Earth System Models
By Thomas R. Anderson, Ed Hawkins, Philip D. Jones, Endeavour, Sep 28, 2016
Ship fuel sulfur content regulations may exacerbate mass coral bleaching events on the Great Barrier Reef
By Robert G. Ryan, et al., Nature, Communications Earth & Environment, Jan 22, 2026
Here we use the WRF-Chem model to estimate the effect these regulations have had on aerosols, clouds and solar radiation at the Great Barrier Reef, where climate change is increasing the frequency of mass coral bleaching events….Persistent incoming shortwave radiation enhancements on the order of 5-11 Wm−2 likely lead to sea-surface temperature increases of 0.05-0.15 °C, implying that during bleaching-conducive conditions, 5-10% additional thermal stress is felt by GBR corals now than before the regulation of ship sulfate emissions.
Balancing Energy Production While Powering AI Revolution
By Randi Charno Levine, Real Clear Energy, Jan 29, 2026
Governments face a delicate balancing act. On one hand, they want to foster innovation and advance America’s global competitiveness. On the other, they must prevent the AI boom from derailing climate commitments.
Oh No – President Trump’s Climate Policies Just Edged Us Closer to Doomsday
Be Eric Worrall, WUWT, Jan 28, 2026
From the Bulletin: The Doomsday Clock is set every year by the Bulletin’s Science and Security Board in consultation with its Board of Sponsors, which includes eight Nobel laureates. The Clock has become a universally recognized indicator of the world’s vulnerability to global catastrophe caused by man-made technologies.
The United States Congress can repudiate President Trump’s war on renewable energy, instead providing incentives and investments that will enable rapid reduction in fossil fuel use.
[SEPP Comment: The Science and Security Board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists should stick with subjects they understand. They clearly do not understand the physics of the Greenhouse Effect.]
Questioning the Orthodoxy
Sauve qui peut… uh, where’d everyone go?
By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Jan 28, 2026
As we watch the climate alarmist retreat turn into a rout, we are reminded of Rudi Dornbusch’s line about economics, that first things happen more slowly than you thought possible and then they happen faster than you thought possible.
From Nordhaus: “One important reason is that policy makers want these damage estimates. Elected officials want to show that the benefits of their preferred climate policies exceed the costs.”
Again, the point is worth noting on its own merits, and doubly so for appearing in a publication not conspicuous in days of yore for conceding that there might be a massive state-funded bias toward alarmist pseudo-science.
[SEPP Comment: The path to becoming wealthy by politically promoting fears is well established. But the sayings may change. Today it may be affordability used by those who support unreliable electricity, which is hardly affordable. Othe possible sayings include dangerous plastics and clean water.]
Announcing A Live Event In New York: Net Zero And Freedom
By Francis Menton, Manhattan Contrarian, Jan 23, 2026
Net Zero Watch has commissioned a series of reports on the subject of Net Zero and Human Freedom. On February 19 NZW will present an in-person event in New York City with the title “Net Zero & Freedom.”
“Affordability”: Two Theories Of How To Achieve It
By Francis Menton, Manhattan Contrarian, Jan 27, 2026
Real Environmental Crisis Is Not Climate Change
By Vijay Jayaraj, WUWT, Jan 30, 2026
Researchers like William Happer and W. A. van Wijngaarden have shown that the greenhouse effect of each CO2 molecule diminishes as its [CO2’s] atmospheric concentration increases. Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere is like painting a black window with another coat of black paint; it makes little difference to the light passing through.
Recent assessment by the U.S. Department of Energy acknowledges that excessively aggressive mitigation policies targeting CO₂ are likely more detrimental than beneficial to economic welfare. The scientific case for treating CO₂ as a planetary menace has weakened as observational data and physical modeling have matured.
And the irony is that the fossil fuels proposed for abandonment are needed to solve the real problems: High-temperature incinerators, recycling plants and water treatment facilities require massive amounts of reliable, affordable baseload power. Solar and wind cannot provide this.
The real extinction rebellion
By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Jan 28, 2026
Never mind the lunatics blocking traffic, or the Swedish scold declaring that we are in the beginning of a mass extinction, or whatever bug-eyed academic is quoted this week claiming 20 percent of global species will disappear by, er, three years ago. The real rebellion against extinction is happening among the world’s species which, according to a recent study (h/t NoTricksZone) are holding up just fine
America’s Energy Future: A Conflict of Visions
By Duggan Flanakin, Real Clear Energy, Jan 29, 2026
Link to idealistic report: The Future of the Electric Grid: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study
By John G. Kassakian, Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, MIT, et al., 2011
From Flanakin: Back in 2011, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology report on the future of the electric grid stated that “One of the most important emerging challenges facing the grid is the need to incorporate more renewable generation in response to policy initiatives at both state and federal levels.”
Signaling their own skepticism at this strategy, the authors added that “Much of this capacity will rely on either solar or wind power and will accordingly produce output that is variable over time and imperfectly predictable, making it harder for system operators to match generation and load at every instant.”
Democrat Governors Ignore Global Realities, Cling to “Green” Policies
By Gordon Tomb, CO2 Coalition, Jan 27, 2026
Seeking reelection this year, Hochul has become concerned about “the need to govern in reality,” …as she continues a ban on natural gas drilling that keeps billions of dollars from upstate New York. The state’s drilling ban “has unjustly denied New York landowners their property rights and lucrative natural gas royalties and has been for purely political reasons,” says the Institute for Energy Research.
Problems in the Orthodoxy
Davos Ditches Climate, Focuses on Economy
By Ron Clutz, His Blog, Jan 25, 2025
From: Davos Ditches Climate: Elites Now Eyeing Economy Instead
By Ward Clark, Red State, Jan 22, 2026
Facts Over Fear: Newspaper Editorial Shift shows Climate Realism Breakthrough in the UK
By Anthony Watts, Climate Realism, Jan 26, 2026
Link to Carbon Brief: Analysis: UK newspaper editorial opposition to climate action overtakes support for first time
By Multiple Authors, Jan 19, 2026
From Carbon Brief: Nearly 100 UK newspaper editorials opposed climate action in 2025, a record figure that reveals the scale of the backlash against net-zero in the right-leaning press.
Another Exit: Ultra Low Carbon Solar Alliance
By Robert Bradley Jr., Master Resource, Jan 23, 2026
Major Solar Bankruptcies as of June 2025 include: (list below)
After Paris!
U.S. Out of Paris Climate Agreement
By Robert Bradley Jr., Master Resource, Jan 28, 2026
“The Secretary-General of the United Nations, acting in his capacity as depositary, communicates the following:
The above action was effected on 27 January 2025. [Notification of withdrawal from the Agreement]
The action shall take effect for the United States of America on 27 January 2026 in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 of article 28 of the Agreement which read as follows:
‘1. At any time after three years from the date on which this Agreement has entered into force for a Party, that Party may withdraw from this Agreement by giving written notification to the Depositary.
2. Any such withdrawal shall take effect upon expiry of one year from the date of receipt by the Depositary of the notification of withdrawal, or on such later date as may be specified in the notification of withdrawal.’”
Trump’s Withdrawal From Collapsing Climate Narrative
By Vijay Jayaraj, CO2 Coalition, Jan 26, 2026
Late last year, the Indian government auctioned blocks of coal with combined geological reserves of over 3 billion metric tons. India’s planning documents ignore natural gas as a “bridge fuel” and identify coal as the nation’s mainstay fuel.
Worldwide, there are 460 coal plants under construction. Another 500 have been permitted or are about to be, with an additional 260 new plants expected to be announced. The vast majority of all this activity is in China and India.
Social Benefits of Carbon Dioxide
New Study Affirms Rising CO2’s Greening Impact Across India – A Region With No Net Warming In 75 Years
By Kenneth Richard, No Tricks Zone, Jan 26, 2026
Link to paper: Analysis of net primary productivity trends in India by incorporating the direct effect of CO2 fertilization in MODIS data
By Ripan Das, Subhankar Karmakar, and Subimal Ghosh, Environmental Research Communications, 2026
Link to temperature chapter: Temperature Changes in India
By J. Sanjay, et al., Assessment of Climate Change over Indian Region: A Report of the Ministry of Earth Sciences (MoES), Government of India. pp 21-45 June 2020
The effect of CO2 on soybean
By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Jan 28, 2026
From the CO2Science archive: Since 1979 there have been 290 experiments showing that, on average, an extra 300 ppm CO2 boosted soy growth by 47.9 percent, an extra 600 ppm boosted it by 70.7 percent, and an extra 900 ppm boosted it by 80.9 percent.
[SEPP Comment: In terms of tonnage, soybeans are the sixth largest crop; in terms of value, the fourth largest crop.]
Seeking a Common Ground
Climate Hazard Mortality: Diagnosing Trends and Outliers
By B. B. Cael, Geophysical Research Letters, Dec 4, 2025 [H/t Bernie Kepshire]
From Key Points: Development in Asia since 1988 reduced deaths from floods and storms by 350,000 (95% CI: 220,000–560,000) lives
The Bjorn Lomborg Conundrum: Sceptic but Not Quite
By Tilak Doshi, Tilak’s Substack, Jan 28, 2026
Measurement Issues — Surface
The Hottest Year Shell Game
By Ron Clutz, His Blog, Jan 29, 2026
Links to and provides the text of a video: The Distorted Reporting of Global Average Temperature 2025 and its relevance to the Paris Agreement
[SEPP Comment: Compare with an estimate for one year with a guess of an average of 50 years.]
Changing Weather
Thousands face another arctic blast without power as East Coast preps for a storm
By Kristin Hall and Sophie Bates, AP, Via The Hill, Jan 30, 2026
Nearly 90 people have died in bitter cold from Texas to New Jersey. Roughly half the deaths were reported in Tennessee, Mississippi and Louisiana. While some deaths have been attributed to hypothermia, others are suspected to be related to carbon monoxide exposure. Officials have not released specific details about how some of the people died.
Massive Snowstorm Hits US
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Jan 26, 2026
Fortunately, Americans are keeping warm thanks to fossil fuels. Yesterday coal and gas supplied 63% of their electricity, with just 7% coming from wind and even less from solar. [3%]
Why Has January Been So Wet?
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Jan 29, 2026
For once, an informative BBC weather report!
Victoria appears to be almost as hot today as it was back in 1932
By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Jan 29, 2026
Changing Climate
We predict they will keep making predictions
By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Jan 28, 2026
As we have said before, “on record” is an ignorant and misleading phrase. Surely the Holocene Climate Optimum is “on record” since we know about it. And not even ECCC [Environment and Climate Change Canada] believes 2026 will be hotter than 6000 BC. Or maybe it does; one hesitates to assume our bureaucrats and politicians know about the HCO [Holocene Climate Optimum about 9,000 to 5,000 years ago] any more than the people Bloomberg Green has write on climate do.
We dig Protoceratops
By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Jan 28, 2026
The point is, Mongolia is dry. Always has been. Hot in summer. Always has been. Cold in winter. It has been at least since the start of the Pleistocene. And it still rains a fair bit in summer, at least according to that tourism site.
Changing Cryosphere – Land / Sea Ice
Polar Colding…Antarctica Saw Its Coldest October In 44 Years!
By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Jan 24, 2026
EIKE argues that no clear, short-term conclusions about global climate development can be drawn due to the contradictory nature of the data (record cold vs. low sea ice).
Video in German
Polar bears on Norwegian islands fatter and healthier despite ice loss
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Jan 30, 2026
Changing Earth
Kilauea Blows Its Stack. People Are Breathing a Really Nasty Chemical
By Josh Bloom, ACSH, Jan 27, 2026
Changing Seas
Sea-level Rise: Evidence and Engineering
Press Release, GWPF, Jan 27, 2026
Link to report: Sea-level Rise: Evidence and Engineering
By Hessel G. Voortman, The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 2026
Lowering Standards
Expert Study Shows Sanity Returning to Global Oil Forecasts, But Damage Has Been Done
By William Murray, Real Clear Energy, Jan 28, 2026
Link to: World Energy Outlook 2025
By Staff, International Energy Agency, Nov 12, 2025
Beginning in the early 1990s, the Outlook included a Current Policies Scenario (CPS) that forecast future oil and natural gas demand over the coming decades based on current laws and government energy policies. This scenario was then used by banks and companies to extrapolate how many billions of dollars they must invest to satisfy coming energy demand.
In 2020, under its long-time Executive Director Fatih Birol, the IEA decided to abandon the CPS, “in part due to pressure from European nations and green campaigners,” according to Bloomberg energy analyst Javier Blas. Most of these green campaigners were interested in using climate policies to permanently displace oil and coal production.
To do this, IEA inserted new scenarios that considered policy ambitions and aspirations that had not yet become law.
[SEPP Comment: No doubt many analysts realized the IEA became highly politicized.]
Storm Chandra
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Jan 29, 2026
There was a time when you could rely on the weatherman to give you the facts, pure and simple, no more, no less. The cult of the TV Weatherman changed all that.
Communicating Better to the Public – Use Yellow (Green) Journalism?
Yale 360: We Briefly Crossed 1.5C But We Still Have Time to Reverse Climate Change
By Eric Worrall, WUWT, Jan 29, 2026
What does it take to properly cross one of these tipping points?
NYT “Big Oil” Narrative Challenged
By Robert Bradley Jr., Master Resource, Jan 26, 2026
Tidbits
By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Jan 28, 2026
From the world of predictions that didn’t age well, the New York Times “Climate Forward” declares, as if there were nothing to see, that “Last year, greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. jumped 2.4 percent, according to new estimates by the Rhodium Group, a research firm. What caused the jump? More coal burning and colder weather.” Say, didn’t you tell us there was an unstoppable green energy transition and unstoppable warming?
Wrong, Mainstream Media, A Brief 1.4°C Global Temperature Spike Isn’t Evidence of ‘Climate Doom’
By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Jan 22, 2026
Trailer park brawl
By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Jan 28, 2026
What’s missing in Heatmap’s analysis is any appreciation of trade-offs at all, and much appreciation of other people and their ability to judge the trade-offs they face sensibly. After all, the vote didn’t ban the construction or purchase of these fabled resilient-construction-practice trailers. It just left it to customers and manufacturers to decide what sort of trade-offs to make between quality and price. Exactly what markets have done superbly since the invention of the haggle, and governments have done terribly since the invention of the edict.
Argentine Cherry Crops are Fine, The Cool Down
By Linnea Lueken, Climate Realism, Jan 29, 2026
Communicating Better to the Public – Exaggerate, or be Vague?
How the polar vortex and warm ocean intensified a major US winter storm
By Mathew Barlow and Judah Cohen, The Conversation, Jan 26, 2026 [H/t Bernie Kepshire]
The sudden blast may have come as a shock to many Americans after a mostly mild start to winter, but that warmth may have partly contributed to the ferocity of the storm.
[SEPP Comment: The polar vortex dipping south is a characteristic of Rossby Waves, identified in the 1930s. The increase in sea surface temperatures is not from carbon dioxide caused “climate change.” It is from an increase in solar radiation absorbed by the oceans at various depths. The authors fail to make this important distinction.]
Communicating Better to the Public – Make things up.
The Ocean Equity Index
By Jessica L. Blythe, et al., Nature, Jan 28, 2026 [H/t Bernie Kepshire]
Opening paragraph: Ocean inequity is growing rapidly as countries and corporations increasingly look to the ocean to meet human demand for resources. Benefits from the world’s oceans are accrued by a handful of powerful actors, whereas the burdens of the surging ocean economy—which range from exposure to pollution and toxic waste to the impacts of climate change and biodiversity loss—are borne by the most vulnerable. Many who constitute this group—including Indigenous Peoples, local communities, women and small-scale fishers—are not fully recognized, are excluded from ocean decision-making processes and do not gain a fair share of ocean benefits.
Communicating Better to the Public – Do a Poll?
Poll Finds New England Women Feel Misled About Climate Policies
By Gabriella Hoffman, Real Clear Energy, Jan 28, 2026
New England has enacted the nation’s most aggressive climate policies to phase out oil, gas, and coal and achieve a 100% renewable energy target by 2050.
Last fall, the CEO of ISO New England, the regional transmission organization overseeing the region’s electric grid and transmission, warned that wind and solar aren’t dependable sources during winter, remarking: “We cannot operate the system in the wintertime without a dependable energy source that can balance the system when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow.”
By continuing down its decarbonization path, New England, save for New Hampshire, would see energy costs spike $815 billion through 2050 over the cost of operating the current grid.
Communicating Better to the Public – Use Propaganda
“Climate Change Presses On”
Global Weather Catastrophe Losses 1990 to 2025
By Roger Pielke, Jr., His Blog, Jan 25, 2026
Despite the low losses of 2025, Munich Re announced: “Climate Change Presses On.”
Meantime, Munich Re also expects to report €6.0 billion in profit for 2025 and projects profits of €6.3 billion for 2026.
Expanding the Orthodoxy
British Intelligence Goes Full Guardian Promoting Untestable Computer-Generated Scares of Eco-System Collapse
By Chris Morrison, The Daily Sceptic, Jan 28, 2026
Link to: Global biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and national security: A national security assessment
By Staff, HM Government,
Critical ecosystems are at risk of collapsing
Six ecosystem regions are critical for UK national security given the likelihood and impact of their collapse. Severe degradation or collapse would drive displacement of millions, change global weather patterns, increase global food and water scarcity, and drive geopolitical competition for remaining resources. Although many other global ecosystems are important, these six meet at least three of the following ecological features.
[SEPP Comment: The six ecosystem regions in danger of collapsing and the year starting from: 1) Amazon rainforest (2050); 2) Congo Basin (2050); Coral reefs (2030) & Mangroves (2050); 4) Himalayas (2030); 5) Boreal forests, Russia (2030); and Boreal forests, Canada (2030).
From Morrison: Humans affect the environment they live in, as do all species, but political extremists are given free rein to magnify to truly absurd levels the dangers of exploitation. Their solution is a neo-Malthusian command-and-control Net Zero takeover that would inevitably cause societal and economic collapse. When people are starving and destitute, biodiversity will be torn to shreds. Cobbling together 14 pages of reheated sandwich board-scares that have been doing the rounds for decades is an absurd waste of time for security professionals with presumably better things to do.
Questioning European Green
Mad Miliband Slammed by GMB Union
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Jan 27, 2026
[SEPP Comment: Video interview of Chris Morrison. Job losses and costs of Net Zero. UK cannot make the foundations for wind farms?]
The Political Games Continue
Will Governor Spanberger ever demonstrate moderation or rational thinking on energy?
By Paul Driessen, CFACT, Jan 27, 2026
EPA and other Regulators on the March
EPA proposes to limit states’ ‘Good Neighbor’ obligations to reduce interstate smog pollution
By Rachel Frazin, The Hill, Jan 29, 2026
Under Wednesday’s action, Alabama, Arizona, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico and Tennessee would not need to further restrict nitrogen oxide pollution beyond what they’ve laid out in their plans to the EPA.
Trump administration weighs mining off Alaska’s coast
By Rachel Frazin, The Hill, Jan 27, 2026
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), part of the Interior Department, announced Tuesday that it would issue a Request for Information to gauge corporate interest and collect public input on the idea.
It said that the request is not necessarily a decision to move forward. Large-scale deep-sea mining has never been done.
Energy Issues – General
The Cost of Wind and Solar Power Backup
By Andy May, WUWT, Jan 28, 2026
Link to report: The Cost of Wind and Solar Variability to Texas Ratepayers
By Michael Reed and Brent Bennett, Texas Public Policy Foundation, February 2025
From the conclusion of the report: A key point that is often missed in debates about electricity policy is that the goal is to design the grid to maximize benefits to consumers. And by benefits, we mean the right balance of cost and reliability so that all classes of consumers—residential, commercial, and industrial—can maximize the utility they derive from the system at the lowest possible cost. The challenge for lawmakers and regulators is that they are bombarded with information from numerous market participants and from special-interest groups who place a heavy weight on certain benefits or attributes over others.
Do Renewables Make for Cheaper Electricity?
By Kevin Kilty, WUWT, Jan 27, 2026
[SEPP Comment: Comparing the marginal cost of unreliable generation when it works with the marginal cost of reliable generation is a false comparison. Increasing total costs with increasing unreliable generation make this clear.]
Data centers are the physical internet
By David Wojick, CFACT, Jan 26, 2026
Energy Issues – Europe
How Labour Betrayed Britain’s Working Class in the Name of Net Zero
By Tilak Doshi, Tilak’s Substack, Jan 30, 2026
How Labour Betrayed Britain’s Working Class in the Name of Net Zero
Link to report: Cliff Edge: Jobs in Aberdeen, the epicenter of the UK’s energy transition
By Nick Tyrone with Catherine Frost, Forewords by Georgiana Bristol and Louise Gilmour, Jobs Foundation, 2025
Energy industry ‘faces collapse over Miliband’s delusional net zero plan’
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Jan 27, 2026
Dale Vince: ‘Heat pumps have been mis-sold’
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Jan 28, 2026
As for the £550 saving, let’s remember that to install a heat pump, solar panels, batteries and insulation will set you back about £30,000, making it a 54-year payback!
Labour dials back heat pump target
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Jan 25, 2026
[SEPP Comment: A multi-year failure leading to a lesser multi-year failure.]
Germany’s Natural Gas Crisis Escalates … One Storage Site Near Empty …Government Silent
By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Jan 25, 2026
Industrial hubs face shutdowns
Since Germany’s largest storage facilities are located in the North (Lower Saxony/North Rhine-Westphalia), the Upper Bavarian sites (representing about one-eighth of total capacity) are essential for supplying the industrial hubs of Southern Germany.
Industry is Being Sacrificed to Net Zero Ideology, Says Siemens Energy Boss
By Will Jones, The Daily Sceptic, Jan 27, 2026
Energy Issues – Australia
‘Catastrophic’ national grid failure coming to Australia says grid expert
By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Jan 28, 2026
“It’s just a matter of time” says Frontier Economics chief Danny Price
Even though it was a public holiday, there was a raging bonfire in prices in South Australia on the evening of Australia Day. The spike in prices hit a blistering $20,000 peak and stayed there for three long hours…
Australians to Receive Free Midday Grid Solar Power – But Don’t Charge your EV
By Eric Worrall, WUWT, Jan 25, 2026
Energy Issues – Elsewhere non-US
Canadians Will Pay for Carney’s Grand Illusions
By Ron Clutz, His Blog, Jan 26, 2026
Energy Issues — US
The Grid Will Hold – Maybe – But the Bill Will Rise
By Terry Headley, WUWT, Jan 27, 2026
The modern American electric grid has become adept at avoiding disaster. Operators have more tools than ever: demand response, emergency imports, market signaling, conservation messaging, and sophisticated forecasting. What they do not have — at least not in sufficient quantity — is inexpensive, fuel-secure generation that can run whenever it is needed, regardless of weather.
In winter, the grid’s vulnerability is not generation capacity on paper. It is fuel deliverability in the real world.
[SEPP Comment: Including wind and sunshine to fuel deliverability makes the list more complete.]
Grid reliability projected to decline as data centers drive demand, watchdog says
By Rachel Frazin, The Hill, Jan 29, 2026
Link to: 2025 Long-Term Reliability Assessment
By Staff, North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), January 2026
[SEPP Comment: Hi risk areas and the estimated year are: MISO (2028); PJM (2029); Texas RE-ERCOT (2029); WECC-Basin (2029); and WECC-Northwest (2029).]
Red States Have Reliable Power Because They Embrace an All-of-the-Above Strategy
By Greg Brophy, WUWT, Jan 24, 2026
Link to report: Red State Reliable: How Rural America Is Keeping the Power Grid Stable With A Wide Range of Energy Sources
By Staff, The Western Way, Accessed Jan 29, 2026
All of the above, please
By Bill Ponton, WUWT, Jan 27, 2026
[SEPP Comment: Ponton critiques the report immediately above.]
Efforts to Kill Gas Industry Disguised as Environmental Protection
By Gordon Tomb, CO2 Coalition, Jan 27, 2026
Under consideration in the state [Pennsylvania] House of Representatives and at the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) are new setback requirements that would increase minimum distances between gas wells and both structures and water supplies by as much as a mile—without conclusive scientific data to support it.
Appalachian Gas Is Key to Lowering Emissions and Prices Amid Rising Power Demand
By Paul Bledsoe, Real Clear Energy, Jan 27, 2026
Increasingly low emissions from Appalachian natural gas along with renewable energy, electricity storage and existing nuclear taken together hold strong promise to reduce both U.S. consumer prices and emissions in much of the eastern U.S. But the fast-growing build- out of data centers by the technology industry means permitting reform in Congress is more vital than ever for both economic and environmental progress. It’s time all consumer, economic, and environmental advocates realized the opportunity—and let Congress know.
Winter Storm Fern a Reminder of the Importance of Electrical Workers
By Ronnie Shows, Real Clear Energy, Jan 26, 2026
Oil and Natural Gas – the Future or the Past?
Natural Gas Wins the (Frigid) Day(s)
By Allen Brooks, Master Resource, Jan 27, 2026
Ed. note: CNN’s January 22, 2026, headline–“Extreme winter storm threat sparks historic natural gas spike”–begs for the proverbial rest of the story, presented below by Allen Brooks at Energy Musings.
Natural gas is drawing significant attention both here at home and internationally. The U.S., which came to Europe’s rescue in 2022 after Russia invaded Ukraine and the continent lost access to Russian pipeline gas. U.S. LNG shipments surged, followed by additional supplies from Qatar, the world’s two largest natural gas exporters.
Currently, U.S. LNG is the primary gas supplier to Europe, as Qatar has balked at supplying gas due to the recently enacted EU carbon border tax scheme.
The Crude Calculations Ahead for Delcy Rodríguez
By Oliver McPherson-Smith, Real Clear Energy, Jan 28, 2026
[SEPP Comment: Secretary of Energy Chris Wright asserted that it is not big oil that will be attracted to Venezuela, but smaller more entrepreneurial firms.]
Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Solar and Wind
Cold Temperatures Hit Western Washington
By Cliff Mass, Weather Blog, Jan 25, 2026
An irony of the cold is that renewable energy, and particularly wind energy, has gone to nearly zero in our area, just as we need it for heating–something that is quite typical.
Consider the latest BPA [Bonneville Power Authority] statistics below. Renewables (mainly wind) are nearly flatlined around zero. Our limited nuclear power (purple) is steady and significant. Thankfully, we have a lot of hydropower.
Storm Ferm: Remember Uri (centrally planned electricity ‘transition’ in Texas)
By Robert Bradley Jr., Master Resource, Jan 26, 2026
Ed. note: The current cold snap (“where is global warming when you need it?”) makes timely a review of the Texas electricity debacle of February 2021. This post by Robert Bradley, “Wind, Solar, and the Great Texas Blackout: Guilty as Charged,” was originally published by the Institute for Energy Research. As of 5 pm yesterday, natural gas and coal supplied about 75 percent of Texas’s electricity (ERCOT scoreboard) and wind/solar 17 percent (versus 50 percent of rated capacity).
UK to join major wind farm project with nine European countries
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Jan 26, 2026
Now, what could possibly go wrong?
But it needs to be stressed that this initial agreement is simply an agreement between nations to share the resource in principle. That does not mean that anything will actually get built.
Bear in mind that nobody will build an offshore wind farm in UK waters without a guaranteed CfD, which provides heavily subsidized, index-linked prices for ALL the electricity they can supply. Without this security, investors are unsurprisingly not prepared to put money down.
Miliband Admits He’ll Buy Chinese Solar Panels Made With Slave Labour
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Jan 25, 2026
Indeed, the requirement for GB Energy to “ensure slavery and human trafficking is not taking place within its supply chain” will have no effect either. Yes, they might get a piece of paper from the Chinese Government, certifying this – but that’s all it will be, a piece of paper.
Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Energy — Other
Abundant, Affordable, Available Energy for All
Frontieras North America is an energy and environmental technology company bringing breakthrough industrial innovation to solid hydrocarbon materials.
Promotional video, Accessed Jan 27, 2026 [H/t Bernie Kepshire]
From Gordon Fulks: We can already make just about any hydrocarbon from any carbon feedstock. Conversion of coal to liquid fuels was accomplished by the Germans with the Fischer–Tropsch process prior to WW2. I suspect that Frontieras is promoting some variation on that process and trying to sell it as something wonderfully new. It is likely not.
Eavor’s First-of-Its-Kind Closed-Loop Geothermal Project Produces Grid Power in Germany
By Sonal Patel, Power Mag, Jan 8, 2026
Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Energy — Storage
Elevate Renewables Acquires Major Battery Storage Project in PJM
By Darrell Proctor, Power Mag, Jan 15, 2026
[SEPP Comment: Not clear what the final cost of 150-MW/600-MWh battery storage project will be.]
Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Vehicles
Labour Throw Motorists Under The Bus
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Jan 30, 2026
You will remember I wrote to my local Labour MP a couple of months ago to discuss the problems facing electric car drivers who don’t have off street parking – namely the exorbitant cost of public chargers, lack of chargers and the issue of running a charge cable across the pavement.
I have now received what is a very frank reply. [See link]
Carbon Schemes
Peak Cluster Carbon Capture Project
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Jan 25, 2026
California Dreaming
California’s Drought is Over, But We Still Must Invest in Water Supply Projects
By Edward Ring, Californians for Energy and Water Abundance, Jan 28, 2026
Link to study: Statistical Review of United States Drought Monitor
By Edward Ring and Marc Joffee, California Policy Center, 2026
Are Green Energy Subsidies Driving California’s Plan to Expropriate the Wealthy?
By Eric Worrall, WUWT, Jan 25, 2026
Oh Mann!
Mann v. Steyn: Finally Ready For Appeal?
By Francis Menton, Manhattan Contrarian, Jan 25, 2026
Also, while this case has been endlessly going on, in 2022 Mann moved his base of operations from Penn State to the University of Pennsylvania. There he flaunts the ridiculous title of “Presidential Distinguished Professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Science and founding director of the Penn Center for Science, Sustainability, and the Media.” Well, University of Pennsylvania, you now have a “Presidential Distinguished Professor” who has been adjudicated to have lied under oath to fabricate a damages case, and to have engaged in “bad faith litigation tactics.” And yet they continue to support him as some kind of hero, I guess because he is on the right team. Other Penn professors who are actually serious scholars but find themselves not on the right team (e.g., Stanley Goldfarb, Amy Wax) get completely different treatment.
Michael Mann Loses In Court Again
By Andy Rowlands, Principia Scientific, Jan 24, 2026 [H/t Bernie Kepshire]
Link to: Mann’s $9M Jury Lie
Court Sanction Against Mann Upheld
By Melissa Howes, The Mark Steyn Club, Jan 22, 2026
Environmental Industry
Greenies And Democrats At Each Other’s Throats As Climate Change Talking Point Evaporates
By Audrey Streb, Daily Caller, Jan 28, 2026
The Sierra Club is calling for a local Democratic representative to be dismissed from his role on a key committee, which the Democratic Massachusetts House Speaker panned as a “foolish.”
[SEPP Comment: During the current cold period, on January 31, 2026, at 1:09pm, the EIA’s New England Dashboard reported that Petroleum Products contributed 32.99% of the energy; Natural Gas 31.02%; Nuclear 24.35%; and Other (trash burning, etc.) 4.39%; Hydro and pumped storage 4.24%; Solar 1.62%; and Wind 1.4%. The Sierra Club is railing against cutting the state’s “clean energy” laws, when “Clean Energy” delivers about 3% of energy needed during bitter cold? See Article #1 below.]
Other News that May Be of Interest
Has Earth Seen Its Last ‘Ice Age’?
By Ross Pomeroy, WUWT, Jan 29, 2026
BELOW THE BOTTOM LINE
Al Gore Wants To Pay Farmers To Grow Less Food To Fight Climate Change
By Harold Hutchinson, Daily Caller, Jan 21, 2026
[SEPP Comment: To counter the increases in productivity from increasing carbon dioxide that he claims will destroy Earth?]
Chinese Professor Demands Politicians Shut Down Rich Country High Carbon Industries
By Eric Worrall, WUWT, Jan 27, 2026
[SEPP Comment: But not China’s high carbon industries?]
The 15-minute city is back [UK]
By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Jan 30, 2026
By Camilla Turner, The Telegraph UK
The most high-profile example of such a plan is in Oxford, where the council put forward proposals to divide the city into six “15-minute neighborhoods”.
Global Environmental Summit That Demands Solutions, Not just Spending Money
By Borislav Sandov, Real Clear Energy, Jan 29, 202
Because the truth is clear: the biodiversity crisis isn’t waiting. Scientists warn that a million species could face extinction in the coming decades. No borders can shield us from the collapse of ecosystems, water scarcity, or the climate shocks that follow.
[SEPP Comment: Features a 2019 National Geographic estimate of species extinction that has been debunked.]
FLASHBACK–Gulf Stream Could Collapse By 2025!
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Jan 27, 2026
[SEPP Comment: Is that why it is so cold in the Eastern US and in Europe?]
Edinburgh To Save The Planet By Installing Solar Powered Lighting.
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Jan 25, 2026
So, Edinburgh is the first city to do this? I wonder why?
Could it be that every other city has worked out that the sun does not shine at night?
[SEPP Comment: On December 21, 7 hours of daylight will power the light for 17 hours of darkness? What about Edinburgh’s cloudy winters?]
Ted Willihand Defends Net Zero!
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Jan 27, 2026
Amusing video
Still all meetings all the time
By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Jan 28, 2026
And you might want to sit down as “Minister Sidhu meets with United Arab Emirates’ Minister of State for Foreign Trade”. Truly a world transformed. No carbon footprint too massive for these giants.
Non-Canadians may be wondering who exactly Minister Sidhu might be. Canadians cannot enlighten them.
INSANE Ecojet ELECTRIC aircraft company DEAD
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Jan 25, 2026
Video
Treasure Climate Comedian Jim Dale [British Weather Services meteorologist] While You Can: We May Never See His Like Again
By Chris Morrison, The Daily Sceptic, Jan 26, 2026 [H/t Ron Clutz]
“…last week on Mark Dolan’s TalkTV show when he falsely claimed Costa Rica had reached Net Zero and the polar ozone hole had closed.”
For some time, Costa Rica has presented itself as a poster country for eco-tourism and sustainability, but it was never near Net Zero. There comes a time when all the virtue signaling has to stop. Hard reality seems to have bitten the territory, as it has every other country taking a serious look at the stupidity of the Net Zero fantasy.
ARTICLES
1. Thank Heaven for Coal Power in the Cold
The energy source Biden tried to shut down rode to the deep-freeze rescue of the electric grid this weekend.
By The Editorial Board, WSJ, Jan 25, 2026
TWTW Summary: The editorial begins with:
“The weekend’s arctic blast has put much of the U.S. grid through a stress test and served as another alert about the growing risks to electric-power reliability. Americans can be grateful the Biden crowd didn’t succeed in forcing all coal plants to shut down.
The North American Electric Reliability Corp. warned in November that ‘extreme winter conditions extending over a wide area could result in electricity supply shortfalls.’ That’s what happened. Frigid temperatures supercharged demand in areas where Americans use electricity for heating, especially in Texas.
In the Northeast and Midwest, where more people get heat from natural gas, less fuel was available for power plants. Add weather-caused plant outages, and you have all the ingredients for a grid emergency. Grid operators, the utilities and the Trump Energy Department had to pull out all stops to keep the lights and heat on for tens of millions of Americans.
Utilities in the Midwest on Saturday directed customers to lower thermostats, unplug ‘nonessential appliances,’ and reduce temperature settings on electric water heaters. Hope you enjoy lukewarm showers and curling up in a heavy coat with a book.
The Energy Department also waived emissions rules so fossil-fuel plants could run at maximum capacity. Early Sunday morning, coal accounted for some 40% of power in the Midwest’s MISO grid, 24% in the eastern U.S. PJM Interconnection and 18% in Texas, with most of the rest coming from natural gas and nuclear.
New York’s blockade on gas pipelines has constrained the fuel supply for power plants across New England. Power plants in the region had to resort to burning oil, which accounted for 40% of electricity at times of peak demand. Get this—the region generated more power from burning wood and trash than from wind power.” [Boldface added]
The editorial mentions that wind, solar, and batteries contributed little during the storm, then concludes with:
“The deep-freeze energy scare underscores why the Energy Department issued emergency orders in recent months to ‘stop the political closure of coal plants’ in the Midwest. The grid needs all the coal power it can get when temperatures plunge or skyrocket. Environmental groups have challenged the department’s orders. Is the goal to reduce carbon emissions by making Americans freeze?”
[See SEPP Comment under Environmental Industry.]
Destroying Industry: The UK is well underway in implementing this policy.
Newspaper Editorial Shift shows Climate Realism Breakthrough in the UK – Something I have not seen.
Cliff Edge: Jobs in Aberdeen, the epicenter of the UK’s energy transition. – Something you don’t see on the BBC etc
The 15-minute
citygulag is back. Mind you, getting into Oxford University has never been easier…Oxford drops bespoke entrance exams in admissions shake-up – TES
Another day, another paper, and another model or three:
Number of people living in extreme heat to double by 2050 if 2C rise occurs, study finds
Scientists expect 41% of the projected global population to face the extremes, with ‘no part of the world’ immune.
In a surprise to the authors, the computer models also found that the greatest shift will occur early in the warming trajectory – near the 1.5C phase, which is where the world is now. This adds urgency to the need to adapt areas such as healthcare, the economy and the energy system.
This is a really core finding – The Guardian
No, it’s just a computer generated excuse for an alarming – and wholly imagined – headline in the media. And yes, the research as they call it was funded by Oxford University.
Global gridded dataset of heating and cooling degree days under climate change scenarios – Nature
It’s business as usual in the UK
Both the 2-degree and the 1.5-degree “limits” are pure speculation:
https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/2022/07/19/the-two-degree-limit/
Pick a number…
Agreed..!
What are people’s thoughts on this https://substack.com/home/post/p-186464145?
Well no, it doesn’t.
The article is wishful thinking, or nonsense, if you prefer. It is predicated on the belief that adding CO2 to air makes thermometers hotter.
It doesn’t. End of story.