The Week That Was: 2026-05-09 (May 9, 2026)
Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org)
The Science and Environmental Policy Project
Quote of the Week: “Physics is essentially an intuitive and concrete science. Mathematics is only a means for expressing the laws that govern phenomena.” — Albert Einstein
Number of the Week: About 7.7 inches or 0.196 meters per century.
THIS WEEK:
By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
Scope: This TWTW begins by discussing key points in the “How Science Works” chapter of Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, Third Edition, and compares it with the “How Science Works” chapter of Fourth Edition and with IPCC science in which the author of the chapter in Fourth Edition is heavily involved. TWTW gives a historical side note on findings on optical dust by John Tyndall who discovered that water vapor is the primary gas that protects the land masses of Earth from entering a deep freeze every night, killing growing vegetation. TWTW then discusses two reports by Roger Pielke Jr.: one, on the lack of media response to the reduction of future carbon dioxide emissions; and two, on the UN IPCC Science Advisory that creates the assumptions that go into global climate models. TWTW closes with an explanation by energy economist Lars Schernikau that electricity serving the public is a system, not a product that can be tinkered with.
*********************
Competition of Ideas: In their open letter to US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts objecting to the “How Science Works” chapter of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, Fourth Edition, physics professors Richard Lindzen, William Happer, and Seven Koonin compared the new chapiter with the “How Science Works” in the third edition of the manual. Among the objections to the new chapter they stated:
- New Chapter Adopts an Advocacy Framework, Not a Scientific One
- The Gold Standard of Science Is Prediction Tested Against Reality
- Consensus Is Not the Foundation of Science
- The Chapter Mischaracterizes Science as a Community-Governed Enterprise.
For a basis of comparison, it is useful to review key parts of the “How Science Works” Chapter of Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, Third Edition (2011) written by David Goodstein, who was a professor of physics and applied physics, Emertius, California Institute of Technology.
Goodstein discussed various theories of science: Francis Bacon’s Scientific Method; Karl Popper’s Falsification Theory; and Thomas Kuhn’s Paradigm Shifts. Goodstein found issues with each and then described An Evolved Theory of Science. He wrote: [footnotes in text but not presented here and boldface added]
“If neither Bacon nor Popper nor Kuhn gives us a perfect description of what science is or how it works, all three of them help us to gain a much deeper understanding of it.
Scientists are not Baconian observers of nature, but all scientists become Baconians when it comes to describing their observations. With very few exceptions, scientists are rigorously, even passionately, honest about reporting scientific results and how they were obtained. Scientific data are the coin of the realm in science, and they are always treated with reverence. Those rare instances in which scientists are found to have fabricated or altered their data in some way are always traumatic scandals of the first order.
Scientists are also not Popperian falsifiers of their own theories, but they do not have to be. They do not work in isolation. If a scientist has a rival with a different theory of the same phenomenon, the rival will be more than happy to perform the Popperian duty of attacking the scientist’s theory at its weakest point. Moreover, if falsification is no more definitive than verification, and scientists prefer in any case to be right rather than wrong, they nonetheless know how to hold verification to a very high standard. If a theory makes novel and unexpected predictions, and those predictions are verified by experiments that reveal new and useful or interesting phenomena, then the chances that the theory is correct are greatly enhanced. And, even if it is not correct, it has been fruitful in the sense that it has led to the discovery of previously unknown phenomena that might prove useful in themselves and that will have to be explained by the next theory that comes along.
Finally, science does not, as Kuhn seemed to think, periodically self-destruct and need to start over again. It does, however, undergo startling changes of perspective that lead to new and, invariably, better ways of understanding the world. Thus, although science does not proceed smoothly and incrementally, it is one of the few areas of human endeavor that is genuinely progressive. There is no doubt at all that the quality of twentieth century science is better than nineteenth century science, and we can be absolutely confident that the quality of science in the twenty-first century will be better still. One cannot say the same about, say, art or literature.
To all of this, a few things must be added. The first is that science is, above all, an adversarial process. It is an arena in which ideas do battle, with observations and data the tools of combat. The scientific debate is very different from what happens in a court of law, but just as in the law, it is crucial that every idea receive the most vigorous possible advocacy, just in case it might be right. Thus, the Popperian ideal of holding one’s hypothesis in a skeptical and tentative way is not merely inconsistent with reality; it would be harmful to science if it were pursued. As will be discussed shortly, not only ideas, but the scientists themselves, engage in endless competition according to rules that, although they are not written down, are nevertheless complex and binding.
In the competition among ideas, the institution of peer review plays a central role. Scientific articles submitted for publication and proposals for funding often are sent to anonymous experts in the field, in other words, to peers of the author, for review. Peer review works superbly to separate valid science from nonsense, or, in Kuhnian terms, to ensure that the current paradigm has been respected. It works less well as a means of choosing between competing valid ideas, in part because the peer doing the reviewing is often a competitor for the same resources (space in prestigious journals, funds from government agencies or private foundations) being sought by the authors. It works very poorly in catching cheating or fraud, because all scientists are socialized to believe that even their toughest competitor is rigorously honest in the reporting of scientific results, which makes it easy for a purposefully dishonest scientist to fool a referee. Despite all of this, peer review is one of the venerated pillars of the scientific edifice.”
Under the section Some Myths and Facts About Science Goodstein writes in part: [citations omitted here, boldface added]
“’In matters of science,’ Galileo wrote, ‘the authority of thousands is not worth the humble reasoning of one single person.’ Doing battle with the Aristotelian professors of his day, Galileo believed that kowtowing to authority was the enemy of reason. But, contrary to Galileo’s famous remark, the fact is that within the scientific community itself, authority is of fundamental importance. If a paper’s author is a famous scientist, the paper is probably worth reading. The triumph of reason over authority is just one of the many myths about science. Following is a brief list of some others:”
Included in the list are the following: [citations omitted here, boldface added]
“Myth: The institution of peer review assures that all published papers are sound and dependable.
Fact: Peer review generally will catch something that is completely out of step with majority thinking at the time, but it is practically useless for catching outright fraud, and it is not very good at dealing with truly novel ideas. Peer review mostly assures that all papers follow the current paradigm (see comments on Kuhn, above). It certainly does not ensure that the work has been fully vetted in terms of the data analysis and the proper application of research methods.
Myth: Real science is easily distinguished from pseudoscience.
Fact: This is what philosophers call the problem of demarcation: One of Popper’s principal motives in proposing his standard of falsifiability was precisely to provide a means of demarcation between real science and impostors. For example, Einstein’s general theory of relativity (with which Popper was deeply impressed) made clear predictions that could certainly be falsified if they were not correct. In contrast, Freud’s theories of psychoanalysis (with which Popper was far less impressed) could never be proven wrong. Thus, to Popper, relativity was science but psychoanalysis was not.
Real scientists do not behave as Popper says they should, and there is another problem with Popper’s criterion (or indeed any other criterion) for demarcation: Would-be scientists read books too. If it becomes widely accepted (and to some extent it has) that falsifiable predictions are the signature of real science, then pretenders to the throne of science will make falsifiable predictions too. There is no simple, mechanical criterion for distinguishing real science from something that is not real science. That certainly does not mean, however, that the job cannot be done. As I discuss below, the Supreme Court, in the Daubert decision, has made a respectable stab at showing how to do it.”
The Daubert decision established the federal standard for admitting expert witness testimony.
In the section Objectives under Comparing Science and the Law, Goodstein writes: [citations omitted here, boldface added]
“Beyond the meanings of certain key words, science and the law differ fundamentally in their objectives. The objective of the law is justice; that of science is truth. These are among the highest goals to which humans can aspire, but they are not the same thing. Justice, of course, also seeks truth, but it requires that clear decisions be made in a reasonable and limited period of time. In the scientific search for truth there are no time limits and no point at which a final decision must be made.
And yet, despite all these differences, science and the law share, at the deepest possible level, the same aspirations and many of the same methods. Both disciplines seek, in structured debate and using empirical evidence, to arrive at rational conclusions that transcend the prejudices and self-interest of individuals.”
Here we can see a significant difference between current global warming science and how real science works. Global warming science is based on advocacy of an idea that carbon dioxide is causing dangerous global warming. Yet, the advocates have not produced significant physical evidence that it does. The UN IPCC and its collaborators ignore the history of climate change as reported by geoscientists and by the International Commission on Stratigraphy (the study of rock strata). These studies show that Earth has undergone many periods of climate change and that, in general, Earth has been cooling for the past 2.5 million years. Further, the past million years have been marked by severe glaciation interrupted by brief warm periods.
Before the current warm period, the last warm period was the Eemian (about 130,000 to 115,000 years ago) with temperature and sea levels higher than today. The advocates ignore evidence taken from ice cores showing carbon dioxide levels follow changes in temperatures (predominately from oceans absorbing or releasing carbon dioxide). Thus, variation in carbon dioxide cannot be the major cause of glaciation and interglacials.
The reports of the IPCC have circumvented the scientific method by adding false claims or omitting evidence that contradicts their goal of claiming that the use of fossil fuels is causing dangerous global warming. An example of adding false claims is that after peer-review the Second IPCC Assessment Report (1995) predicted a hot spot over the tropics centered at about 10 km (33,000 feet). After decades of atmospheric research using weather balloons and other means, no such hot spot has been found.
Omitting evidence is a feature of UN IPCC reports. The authors fail to acknowledge evidence of global atmospheric temperature trends which have been gathered for over 45 years.
Instead, global warming advocates have politicized climate science by forcing editors of once respected journals not to publish evidence contrary to their opinions. Thus, the advocates have destroyed the once respected peer-review process. “Climate science” has become a political movement, and needs to be distinguished from real science, even though the political movement includes NASEM (the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine).
See link under Challenging the Orthodoxy and links under Measurement Issues – Atmosphere for atmospheric temperature trends.
*********************
Historical Side Note: On January 27, 1870, Nature published an article on John Tyndall’s findings on organic dust in London’s atmosphere and certain optical properties of unpure air. Nature objected to Tyndall’s implication of the germ theory of disease. The article states, in part:
“And this led on to the starting of the third theory (c), which asserts that cholera is multiplied in, and is spread around by, the intestinal evacuations of those already suffering from the disease. But even this, although urged in the most forcible manner, did not meet all difficulties; and there arose the demand that it should be supplemented by a fourth theory. In relation to this demand, the latest theory (d) alleges that the evacuations of an individual in whom cholera has not become apparent, and never will appear, may be the means of spreading cholera around.”
By endeavoring without observation to attain to knowledge which can only be arrived at by observation, theory has, in this instance, walked round in a circle and left science outside. In great questions affecting the health and life of nations, theories are quite out of place. They do no good, cost money, and bar scientific progress.”
In covering topics in climate change today, Nature routinely publishes papers without supporting observations, just speculation while it rejects papers that have observations that contradict the speculations. See link under Other News that May Be of Interest
*********************
Media Confirmation: Last week TWTW carried Roger Pielke Jr’s report on what he called “The biggest story in climate science in decades.” It has been mostly ignored. He now writes:
“The international committee responsible for official IPCC scenarios had declared the high-end scenarios — RCP8.5, SSP5-8.5, and SSP3-7.0 — to be implausible. These scenarios have dominated climate research, headlines, and policy for the better part of two decades.
Today I review who in the ‘mainstream’ media has covered this major story and who has so far ignored it.”
All model forecasts based on those high-end scenarios (assumptions) are false. But the media is so committed to the claim that carbon dioxide is causing dangerous global warming that it does not care if the claims are false. Further, to TWTW a particular scenario is of minor importance compared to the assumption of the temperature rise from increasing CO2 concentrations, regardless of the scenario. Apparently, Pielke seems to accept IPCC calculations that global temperatures are highly sensitive to CO2 concentrations. There is no physical evidence supporting this view. See link under Communicating Better to the Public – Use Yellow (Green) Journalism?
*********************
Science Advisory Committee: This week Pielke has another post identifying what he calls “The Most Important Science Advisory Committee.” Pielke refers to the individuals on the:
“The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP), now in its seventh phase, is the international scientific group under the World Climate Research Program that oversees official projections of climate futures. CMIP scenarios drive the temperature and emissions projections that anchor every Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment and much more.”
After explaining some of the influence CMIP models have, Pielke writes:
“It is no exaggeration that the CMIP climate projections influence trillions of dollars in investment and regulation. They are, in functional terms, among the most consequential 21st century scientific products designed to inform policymaking, economics, and regulation. They are not just about science, but about science advice to policymakers in government, business, and civil society.
Last week I revealed that CMIP had released illustrative versions of its new scenario set and that it had retired — finally — the out-of-date and implausibly extreme RCP8.5 scenario that has dominated climate research and policy for over a decade.
You might wonder: Who produces this critical scientific guidance for policy? Who participates? Who does not? Who decides who gets to participate? To whom are they accountable? Who supports their work? How is quality control ensured? Who decides what values are prioritized — who wins, who loses in the scenarios?
Remarkably, answers to questions such as these are not at all easy to find, if they exist at all.
Today, I take a look behind the curtain of the most important committee that most people have never heard of, yet has influence that impacts each of us.
The CMIP scenarios are developed by a community of integrated assessment modelers numbering perhaps two hundred people worldwide, working in roughly fifteen institutions, and concentrated heavily in two: the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) outside Vienna, and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) in Germany.
Last month, this community released the illustrative versions of scenarios that will drive the next round of climate-model simulations that will be used in tens of thousands of research papers that project climate, climate impacts, economic consequences, and evaluate policy alternatives. These scenarios will underpin the next IPCC assessment due later this decade.
The illustrative scenarios are described in a design paper in Geoscientific Model Development with 44 authors, and a follow-on Zenodo dataset lists 29 creators of that dataset. Sixteen of the 29 carry an IIASA or PIK affiliation.
Many of these researchers have been at the center of scenario development for two decades or more, spanning three iterations of scenario families.
I cross-referenced the 64 unique CMIP7 authors and dataset creators against the 13 papers that established earlier generations of scenarios: the Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) in 2011 and the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) in 2014 and 2017 yields:
21 of the 64 (33 percent) CMIP7 participants co-authored at least one foundational RCP or SSP paper.
Five participants co-authored all three foundational frameworks.”
Two of the three ScenarioMIP-CMIP7 co-chairs co-authored all three foundational frameworks.”
Pielke identifies two big funders for this group:
“ClimateWorks Foundation is a San Francisco–based regranting hub founded in 2008 by the Hewlett, Packard, and McKnight foundations. Their goal is to keep warming to 1.5°C by directing philanthropic capital to the highest-leverage sectors and geographies for emissions reduction. It has awarded over $1 billion to more than 500 organizations since its founding, and was the sole philanthropic funder acknowledged in the NGFS Phase V Technical Documentation.
Bloomberg Philanthropies is among the largest US private funders of climate advocacy. Its flagship initiative, Beyond Carbon — launched in 2019 with $500 million and doubled to $1 billion in 2023 — aims to retire every US coal plant, halve US natural gas capacity, block all new gas plants, and making “clean energy” 80 percent of US electricity generation by 2030, pursued through litigation, state-level lobbying, and grassroots advocacy. Michael Bloomberg also serves as the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy on Climate Ambition and Solutions. Bloomberg Philanthropies funded NGFS scenarios in Phases 1–3 but was not acknowledged in Phase V.”
Global climate models have failed spectacularly. Pielke reveals that the modelers are funded by anti-prosperity groups. The UN is claiming that it is running out of cash. Yet, global climate modeling is being done under UN sponsorship. Perhaps the ClimateWorks Foundation and Bloomberg Philanthropies should fund the UN as well. See link under Challenging the Orthodoxy for Pielke’s post and link under Defending the Orthodoxy for the UN’s plea for cash.
*********************
A System, Not a Product: In a post on WUWT, “Why electricity costs more than we think…and why, in Germany, solar is about 10x more expensive than coal” and on his blog, Energy Economist Lars Schernikau asks some provocative questions:
“The question worth asking: If electricity is a system, not a product; if costs extend far beyond individual technologies; and if those costs rise as complexity increases; then the real question is no longer which technology is cheapest, it is: what does it actually cost to keep the lights on, reliably, 24/7/365 year after year?”
Schernikau has perhaps uncovered the biggest problem with Net Zero that escapes the politicians advocating Net Zero (or similar ideas). Electricity is not a product that can be tinkered with. It is a system that energizes a flow of electrical charge that powers many devices essential to modern civilization. [A light bulb has no more charge—electrons and/or protons—when turned on than when turned off. The power company does not deliver electrons to us; we already have enough. The power company energizes the electrons, forcing them around the circuit.] The electrical system may be the most important development in modern civilization. By tinkering with it, politicians can cause damage far beyond what they can realize. See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy.
*********************
SEPP’S APRIL FOOLS AWARD
THE JACKSON
SEPP is conducting its annual vote for the recipient of the coveted trophy, The Jackson, a lump of coal. Readers are asked to nominate and vote for who they think is most deserving, following these criteria:
- The nominee has advanced, or proposes to advance, significant expansion of governmental power, regulation, or control over the public or significant sections of the general economy.
- The nominee does so by declaring such measures are necessary to protect public health, welfare, or the environment.
- The nominee declares that physical science supports such measures.
- The physical science supporting the measures is flimsy at best, and possibly non-existent.
Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, was the 2025 recipient. Past recipients are not eligible. See list at https://www.sepp.org/april-fools-award.cfm
The committee that makes the selection prefers a candidate with a national or international presence. The voting will close on JULY 1 NOT JULY 31 as previously announced. Please send your nomination and a brief reason why the person is qualified for the honor to Ken@SEPP.org.
*********************
Number of the Week: About 7.7 inches or 0.196 meters per century. In exposing a deceptive trick on sea level rise being used by the Met Office, Paul Homewood references the NOAA’s Tides & Currents for Newlyn, UK. Located in Cornwall, UK, Newlyn was selected over one hundred years ago for a tidal gauge because it was geologically stable. Over periods of decades, it appeared that sea levels were sometime rising faster. Also, sea levels were sometimes rising slower. Both probably due to prevailing winds. According to Tides & Currents:
“The relative sea level trend is 1.94 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.15 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from 1915 to 2022 which is equivalent to a change of 0.64 feet in 100 years.”
NEWS YOU CAN USE:
Commentary: Is the Sun Rising?
Elliptical Orbit Representation for the Annual Evolution of the Northern Hemisphere Stratospheric Polar Vortex. Part II: Long-Lead Forecasts of Wintertime S2S Anomalies
By Michael Secor, et al., JGR Atmosphères, Mar 12, 2026 [H/t Bernie Kesphire]
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
How Science Works
By David Goodstein, Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, Third Edition, Federal Judicial Center, 2011
The Most Important Science Advisory Committee
By Roger Pielke, Jr. The Honest Broker May 4, 2026
Why electricity costs more than we think…and why, in Germany, solar is about 10x more expensive than coal
By Lars Schernikau: Energy Economist, WUWT, May 6, 2026
Link to analysis: Rethinking the cost of electricity in a complex energy system
By Lars Schernikau: Energy Economist, The Unpopular Truth, Accessed May 8, 2026
About That Science We’re Supposed To Believe In …
I & I Editorial Board, May 7, 2026
That’s why science is never settled. Unless they have been corrupted, scientists are expected to challenge each other, not sign onto “consensus” documents that are based on invalid scientific estimates.
Otherwise, it’s not really science at all — it’s merely a political agenda masquerading as science with great financial benefits.
46 IPCC Scientists Break Rank, Publicly Challenge Long-Standing Dogmatic Climate Claims
By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, May 5, 2026
In Assessing Cancer Risk It’s Time to Follow the Science
By Susan Goldhaber, ACSH, Apr 28, 2026
Why Does the EPA Keep Using the LNT Model?
EPA knows its model is flawed, but pressure from competing constituencies, such as environmental groups and industry, has frozen the agency in place. EPA last updated its Cancer Guidelines in 2005.
Defending the Orthodoxy
UN is facing imminent financial collapse — Guterres begs for cash
By Jo Nova, Her Blog, May 6, 2026
The US pays 22% of the regular UN budget, yet the UN has no respect for American voters or their choices.
“Unless collections improve, Guterres warned, the UN will run out of cash by July 2026.”
[SEPP Comment: Will it run out of cash before COP 31 in Antalya, Türkiye, from Nov 9 to 20 to further the implementation of the Paris Agreement? Tens of thousands of green groupies will be disappointed.]
‘Much‑needed fresh air’: 5 outcomes from the world’s first summit on ending fossil fuels
By Wesley Morgan, Research Associate, Institute for Climate Risk and Response, UNSW Sydney, The Conversation, May 6, 2026 [H/t Bernie Kepshire]
The first speed is that of the UN climate talks, which are slower and anchored in consensus. They ensure legitimacy, universality and collective direction.
But what the Santa Marta conference shows is the existence of a second, much faster speed available to any country wanting to rapidly move to end the use of fossil fuels, once and for all.
[SEPP Comment: Did the participants from Australia, Canada, Norway, etc. get to Colombia by swimming or sailboat? The next conference is scheduled for Tuvalu which claims it is going underwater from rising sea level, which has been rising for some 18,000 years. Tuvalu is a client of the author of the “How Science Works” chapter of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, Fourth Edition so it blames sea level rise on carbon dioxide caused warming.]
The Global Oil Crisis Seems to Be Helping One Industry: Renewable Energy
Sources like wind and solar can now deliver continuous power, according to a new report. And, they’re often a bargain compared with fossil fuels.
By Chico Harlan, NYT, May 7, 2026 [H/t Bernie Kepshire]
Link to press release: 24/7 renewables: The economics of firm solar and wind
This report explores the rapidly changing economics of co-located renewable and battery energy storage systems delivering round-the-clock electricity.
By Staff, IRENA.org, May 2026
Full report: https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2026/May/IRENA_TEC_24-7_renewables_2026.pdf
[SEPP Comment: The executive summary of the full report from the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) reveals questionable assumptions that may not fit modern civilizations, particularly in the temperate regions. One key assumption is “It indicates that co-located solar photovoltaics (PV) and onshore wind systems with battery energy storage systems (BESS) can reliably and cost-effectively provide round-the-clock electricity in favorable resource conditions. [Boldface added] Sill, winter nights are not “favorable resource conditions.” In short, in a perfect world with perfect weather conditions, wind and solar plus storage may work. Twenty-four hour, 365-day sunlight would be even more favorable!]
Questioning the Orthodoxy
What about Earth’s Threatened and Endangered PEOPLE?
By Paul Drissen, WUWT, May 4, 2026
We just had our 57th Earth Day, and our planet’s poorest people were ignored yet again
Another Study Links Warming To Cloud Forcing, Shortwave Radiation, Natural Atmospheric Circulation
By Kenneth Richard, No Tricks Zone, May 4, 2026
Link to paper: Radiative Forcing of Western Tibetan Vortex on Surface Air Temperature in Spring
By Jingzhi Wang, et al., Geophysical Research Letters,
Problems in the Orthodoxy
Ding Dong, RCP8.5 Is Dead!
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, May 8, 2026
Now we know that the Met Office have been feeding government with advice based on faulty assumptions. They must now withdraw UKCP18 in its entirety and explain why they used them in the first place, particularly given the long-standing criticisms of RCP8.5.
In turn, the Government must now come clean and immediately suspend all programmes, spending and targets, which have been justified on the basis of the Met Office’s climate projections.
[SEPP Comment: Even the low-emission scenario produces an implausible CO2-caused warming of 1 to 2℃.]
IPCC Admits Apocalyptic Climate Scenarios Are “Implausible” – Meaning Most Media Scare Stories Over Last 15 Years Are Officially Junk
By Chris Morrison, The Daily Sceptic, May 5, 2026
[SEPP Comment: More like 30 years.]
UN Climate Panel Quietly Admits Its Doomsday Climate Scenarios Were ‘Implausible’
By Tyler Durden, ZeroHedge, May 7, 2026 [H/t Bernie Kepshire]
Pielke has run the figures and estimates that the new high scenario will produce 3°C of warming by 2100, a reduction from 3.9°C but still an improbable 1.8°C rise in less than 80 years. Of course these new scenarios are just assumptions anyway, and on past observational evidence of atmospheric gas ‘saturation’ stretching back 600 million years they still grossly overestimate the warming effect of a few trace gases. Much higher levels of CO2 were the norm in the past in a complex, chaotic, non-linear and ultimately unmeasurable atmosphere. Climate scare bingo based on sightings in mainstream media of ‘scientists say’ will likely continue as long as an audience, albeit a diminishing one, still believes in the politicized agitprop of a ‘climate emergency’. [Boldface in original]
RIP RCP8.5: The IPCC is always the last to admit the obvious
By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, May 6, 2026
As RPJ observes:
“Tens of thousands of research papers have been – and continue to be – published using these scenarios, a similar number of media headlines have amplified their findings, and governments and international organization have built these implausible scenarios into policy and regulation. We now know that all of this is built on a foundation of sand.”
Speaking of sand, the new (CMIP7) Medium scenario is the one in yellow, and it overlaps with the IEA “current policies” scenario, which assumes business-as-usual with no further climate policies. But even those projections may be exaggerated because, as Pielke Jr. notes, the scenario writers are using assumptions about population growth well above mainstream demographic estimates, which take into account the world’s ongoing fertility crash. So take out the new High scenario and put it in the same bin as RCP8.5 and SSP5-8.5.
Climate Change Weekly # 578— Countries and Industries Are Abandoning or Reducing Net-Zero Commitments
By H. Sterling Burnett, The Heartland Institute, May 1, 2026
Social Benefits of Carbon Dioxide
The effect of extra CO2 on Hayfield Tarweed
By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, May 6, 2026
From the CO2Science archive.
Model Issues
Assessing the accuracy of the Climate Trace global vehicular CO2 emissions
By Kevin R Gurney, et al., Environmental Research Letters, May 5, 2026 [H/t Bernie Kepshire]
From abstract: Across 260 urban areas in 2021, we find a mean relative difference (MRD) of 70.4%. These large differences are driven by biases in CT’s [Climate Trace] machine learning model, fuel economy values, and fleet distribution values. We conclude that sub-national policy guidance or climate science applications using the on road CO2 emissions estimates made by CT should be done so with caution.
[SEPP Comment: My model v. your model, my AI v. your AI.]
Is Antarctica Melting?
By Tony Heller, His Blog, May 4, 2026
Heller explaining the difference between his AI, and most AI types.
Measurement Issues — Atmosphere
UAH v6.1 Global Temperature Update for April 2026: +0.39 deg. C
By Roy Spencer, His Blog, May 7, 2026
This month I’m adding plots for USA48 and Canada, too.
The Version 6.1 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for April, 2026 was +0.39 degree C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, which remains statistically unchanged for 4 months now.
The Version 6.1 global area-averaged linear temperature trend (January 1979 through April 2026) remains at +0.16 deg/ C/decade (+0.22 C/decade over land, +0.13 C/decade over oceans).
Global Temperature Report
By John Christy and Roy Spencer, The Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville, May 4, 2026
Map and Chart: https://www.uah.edu/aosc/data-products/global-temperature-report
Text: https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/aosc/Global_Temperature_Report/2026_Reports/GTR_202604.pdf
UAH April 2026 Land Chills More Than Ocean Warms
By Ron Clutz, His Blog, May 7, 2026
TLTs include mixing above the oceans and probably some influence from nearby more volatile land temps. Clearly NH and Global land temps have been dropping in a seesaw pattern, nearly 1C lower than the 2016 peak. Since the ocean has 1000 times the heat capacity as the atmosphere, that cooling is a significant driving force.
[SEPP Comment: The 2016 peak was significantly below the 2023 to 2025 peak.]
Changing Weather
ENSO: Recent Evolution, Current Status and Predictions
By Staff, NOAA, Climate Prediction Center / NCEP, May 4, 2026
ENSO-neutral conditions are present.
ENSO-neutral conditions favored through April-June 2026 (80% chance). In May-July 2026, El Niño is likely to emerge (61% chance) and persist through at least the end of 2026.
Tropical cyclone landfall intensity (Vmax) for western North Pacific nations: return period and trends
By Samuel S. Bell, et al., Natural Hazards, Apr 29, 2026
#DoEDeepDive: Managing extreme weather risks
By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, May 6, 2026
But as Chapter 10 of last summer’s contrarian US Department of Energy climate report notes, not only have weather disasters been happening for a long time, because of adaptation they are far less damaging than they used to be. For instance, in 1900 the Galveston hurricane killed over 8,000 people (0.01 percent of the population) whereas the worst such storm in recent times, Hurricane Katrina, killed 1,800 people or 0.0006 percent of the population. Because we now have early warning systems, satellite monitoring, better infrastructure and, we would like to add, fossil fuel-powered vehicles to evacuate areas and send in emergency response crews, the death toll from weather disasters has fallen to all-time lows.
New Study: Declining Trends In 1980-2023 Tropical Cyclone Frequency, Accumulated Energy
By Kenneth Richard, No Tricks Zone, May 6, 2026
Link to paper: Tropical cyclone landfall intensity (Vmax) for western North Pacific nations: return period and trends
By Samuel S. Bell, Natural Hazards, Apr 29, 2026
Major Forecast Failure
By Cliff Mass, Weather Blog, May 8, 2026
This week in western Washington, we had a master class in forecast failure due to our local weather nemesis: low clouds.
Changing Cryosphere – Land / Sea Ice
Arctic winter sea-ice extent fails to expand and sets a new record low in 2026
By Sadie Harley, Research Organization of Information and Systems, Phys.org, May 4, 2026 [H/t Bernie Kepshire]
Changing Seas
The Met Office’s Sea Level Trick
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, May 3, 2026
Link to: Relative Sea Level Trend, 170-161 Newlyn, UK
By Staff, NOAA, Tides & Currents, Accessed May 8, 2026
From Tides & Currents: The relative sea level trend is 1.94 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.15 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from 1915 to 2022 which is equivalent to a change of 0.64 feet in 100 years.
Agriculture Issues & Fear of Famine
Food shortage nightmare as Iran war hits supplies of key ingredient
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, May 3, 2026
From the Express:
“The disruption to supplies of fertilizer and its key ingredients due to the Iran war could cost up to 10 billion meals a week globally, the boss of one of the world’s biggest fertilizer producers has warned.”
Homewood: If the world had followed through on its climate pledges in Paris, we would be seeing these headlines every week.
Lowering Standards
Amicus Brief of Naomi Oreskes … er, “Expert Report” Redux 5: the Conservation Law Foundation v Shell version
By Russell Cook, GelspanFiles.com, Apr 30, 2026
I’ll repeat again what I said toward the end of my dissection of her 2023 Washington DC amici brief: Naomi Oreskes gets away with this because the people who should notice if they actually did their jobs properly — the legacy news media reporters — have never once questioned a word she says regarding how she got into this climate issue in the first place and what propelled her to become a self-proclaimed ‘expert’ on energy company disinformation campaigns.
The Price of Science Institutions’ Partisan Advocacy
By Roger Pielke, Jr. The Honest Broker May 6, 2026
Communicating Better to the Public – Use Yellow (Green) Journalism?
Media Coverage (or not) of RCP8.5 RIP
The biggest story in climate science in decades has been mostly ignored
By Roger Pielke Jr. His Blog, May 9, 2026
Two Bets On The Future Of Wind Energy: Who Is Right?
By Francis Menton, Manhattan Contrarian, May 6, 2026
[SEPP Comment: Both articles from the New York Times may be highly biased.]
Quit Fearmongering, San Francisco Chronicle, Climate Change Isn’t Coming for Cabernet
By H. Sterling Burnett, Climate Realism, May 5, 2026
[SEPP Comment: Napa Valley may be benefitting from increasing CO2 by producing fruitier, fuller wines known as fruit bombs.]
No, Washington Post, ‘Carbon Pollution’ Isn’t Making Food Less Healthy
By Anthony Watts, Climate Realism, May 7, 2026
[SEPP Comment: Can the editors of the Washington Post survive on foods made without that pollutant carbon dioxide? Will they restrict their diets to chemosynthesizing bacteria?]
No, USA Today, ‘Day After Tomorrow’ AMOC Collapse Isn’t Happening
By Anthony Watts, Climate Realism, May 4, 2026
Communicating Better to the Public – Make things up.
This just in: Europe is on land
By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, May 6, 2026
Regular readers of CDN will not be surprised to hear that: “Europe is warming >2x as fast as the global average, reducing snow & ice cover.” This stunning finding, complete with bright red map of the blazing region in question, comes via the World Meteorological Organization from a European outfit, the “European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), which implements the Copernicus Climate Change Service”. Implements? Um yeah but never mind. The key point is that, as everybody knows or should, and their own chart actually pretty much reveals while painting everything scary red, everywhere anyone lives is warming “faster than the average” because the land is warming faster than the oceans. And since the WMO and the ECMWF and the CCCS all know it, it is irresponsible if not dishonest to keep recycling this rhetorical trick.
Communicating Better to the Public – Use Propaganda
We Need to Talk About Seepage
Don’t let yourself die of embarrassment
By John Ridgway, Climate Scepticism, May 7, 2026
Even the best of us can succumb to “seepage”. Furthermore, it is understandable that no one would wish to admit to it. It’s a bit like getting head lice. No one likes to admit that they have let a parasitic insect get the better of them. And, of course, with the climate sceptic it is even worse, because the little blighter hasn’t just got into your hair, it has got inside your head! What self-respecting scientist is going to admit to that? But as Lewandowsky et al explain, it is a perfectly natural result of years of having been exposed to pathogenic open-mindedness:
“We suggest that in response to constant, and sometimes toxic, public challenges, scientists have over-emphasized scientific uncertainty and have inadvertently allowed contrarian claims to affect how they themselves speak, and perhaps even think, about their own research. Given that science operates in a societal context, there are strong a priori grounds to assume that relentless denial may find some degree of reflection in the scientific community. We refer to this potential phenomenon as “seepage”—defined as the infiltration and influence of what are essentially non-scientific claims into scientific work and discourse.”
[SEPP Comment: Long post but pertinent to How Climate Science Works.]
Alarmist Fussing at NYT Climate Reporting
By Robert Bradley Jr., Master Resource, May 7, 2026
The leading author of climate alarmist books and articles [Jeff Goodell] continued:
“Forget the idea of energy policy based on abundance. This is energy policy based on scorched Earth. And a blatant giveaway to the fossil fuel industry, who will profit while the world burns.”
Expanding the Orthodoxy
Hatching a fossil fuel phase-out treaty
By David Wojick, CFACT, May 5, 2026
About 60 countries just gathered together to try to kick off a global phase-out of fossil fuel use. For now it is more of a show than a threat so it is worth watching with some humor. Planning to achieve the impossible has to be funny.
At this point there are just a lot of proposals. By far the funniest is a proposed phase out deadline of 2030 for coal. Do they not know that China is burning over 5 billion tons a year? That India, Indonesia and others are rapidly building fleets of new coal-fired power plants? This madness is the measure of the phase out movement.
UK to include aviation and shipping in future carbon budgets
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, May 2, 2026
Funding Issues
Exposing The Great Green Grift
I & I Editorial Board, May 5, 2026
Link to: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund
By Staff, EPA, Accessed May 8, 2026
“The days of ‘throwing gold bars off the Titanic’ are over. The well documented instances of self-dealing and conflicts of interest, unqualified recipients, and intentionally reduced agency oversight pose unacceptable risk. EPA will be an exceptional steward of taxpayer dollars dedicated to our core mission of protecting human health and the environment, not a frivolous spender in the name of ‘climate equity.’”
– EPA Administrator Zeldin
Partisan disparities in the funding of science in the United States
Republican lawmakers consistently provided robust federal funding, often exceeding Democrats
By Alexander C. Furnas, et al, AAAS Science, Sep 18, 2025
The Political Games Continue
‘Republican’ Green energy fantasies and casualties
By Craig Rucker, CFACT, May 4, 2026
Litigation Issues
Can Oil Industry Lawsuits Compel Rational Energy Policy?
By Edward Ring, California Policy Center, May 6, 2026
Is PFAS the Next Asbestos?
By Barbara Pfeffer Billauer JD MA (Occ. Health) PhD, ACSH, May 1, 2026
The asbestos crisis showed what happens when a hidden hazard becomes a legal tidal wave. PFAS is following a disturbingly familiar script, and the opening act is already underway.
[SEPP Comment: PFAS designated per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, a group of synthetic chemicals known for their persistence in the environment and resistance to degradation. There is no evidence that they are harmful to humans.]
Subsidies and Mandates Forever
The Oil Price Fiction
By David S. Cohen, Real Clear Energy, May 04, 2026
Republicans also argue that prices will snap back on their own once Iran is defeated. But major oil companies have made clear through their capital allocation decisions that windfall profits will go toward stock buybacks and shareholder dividends rather than new supply. If the oil industry itself is not planning to bring prices down, the market will not fix what Washington refuses to.
As I argued in “Avoiding the Hormuz Trap,” the U.S. could stabilize domestic gasoline prices through targeted, temporary intervention at roughly $70 per barrel, the marginal cost of production that powered the shale revolution. This is not a general argument for price controls.
[SEPP Comment: Price supports and subsidies for supply are unnecessary and if implemented, likely to remain long after the perceived need has vanished. The wind power production tax credit was implemented in 1992, when many believed the US was about run out of oil and natural gas.]
Feed in Tariff Subsidies Cost £1.8 Billion Last Year
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, May 6, 2026
[SEPP Comment: In the UK, Feed-In-Tariffs guarantees payments to producers of electricity from solar and wind to the grid whether the electricity is needed or not.]
EPA and other Regulators on the March
Catfish Farmers, Undertakers, Miners Helped Bring About Major EPA Deregulation
By Benjamin Roberts, Daily Caller, May 7, 2026
EPA Deputy Administrator David Fotouhi issued a memo on April 27 ending the 1985 Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) method of classifying hazardous chemicals. Numerous stakeholders have criticized IRIS for dramatically overestimating the toxicity for certain industry-specific compounds to many business’ detriment.
The Deputy Administrator’s letter also notes that “the IRIS toxicity value for ethylene oxide (EtO), a chemical critical for medical equipment sterilization, has been criticized because it was at least 10,000 times lower than levels naturally occurring in the human body.”
[SEPP Comment: The chemical formula for ethylene oxide is C2H4O.]
U.S. Fossil Fuel Environmentalism: EPA Air Quality Statistics
By Robert Bradley Jr. Master Resource, May 8, 2026
A tweet from the Institute for Energy Research (IER) shared the latest from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, with the comment:
From 1970 to 2023, U.S. emissions of six criteria air pollutants declined 78% while GDP grew 321% and energy consumption rose 42%—consistent with the Environmental Kuznets Curve and driven by wealth creation and market incentives rather than central planning.
Energy Issues – General
Yes, Nuclear. How Much? How Soon?
Here’s the transcript of a discussion I had at Southern Methodist University with Jim Burke, the CEO of Vistra, and Ray Rothrock, a longtime nuclear investor and board member at Centrus Energy.
By Robert Bryce, His Blog, Apr 30, 2026
Ten years ago, there was a view that wind, solar, and batteries—which obviously weren’t as big then as they are now—could run the electric system. I think folks are revisiting those assumptions.
Burke: About $2,500 to $3,000, all-in cost, for a new combined-cycle gas turbine. That’s correct.
Big Tech Is Funding Space Solar and Fusion While Running on Gas
By Haley Zaremba, Oil Price.com, May 01, 2026 [H/t Bernie Kepshire]
Artificial Intelligence: Systemic Risk or Bogeyman?
By Geoffrey Pohanka, Real Clear Energy, May 6, 2026
Energy Issues – Europe
BP quitting the North Sea in blow to Britain
Video Alex Phillips interviewing Andrew Montford,
Are BP’s assets of value with a 78% tax on profits?
Government policies of saving energy no matter what the cost.
No quick fix to get energy prices down.
Energy UK Catches Net Zero Derangement Syndrome
False claims in Energy UK’s latest carbon pricing report shows they are losing the plot
By David Turver, Eigen Values, May 8, 2026 [H/t Bernie Kepshire]
Link to report: The importance of carbon pricing to the UK
By Staff, Energy-UK, May 2026
Energy Issues – Australia
The USA is the global energy powerhouse
By Jo Nova, Her Blog, May 2, 2026
Compare the US to Australia. Downunder there is chaos due to fuel shortages, one in four international flights have been cancelled, and inflation figures have leapt, which may lead to higher interest rates. That in turn will likely force some families to sell their homes, and others to go out of business. These are the costs of bad energy planning. Plus, we’re going cap-in-hand to China to beg for fuel. Other Australians are holding off booking holidays in July, for fear that they won’t be able to pay for the petrol to get there, or the regional pump might run dry, which is also hurting the tourism industry. The chaos, it flows.
In response to the crisis, our government has just arranged for an extra 150 million liters of fuel to arrive which should keep us going for … almost another 24 hours.
If only we had explored for oil and kept a few refineries open?
“Get Rid of the Department of Climate Change”: Aussie One Nation’s Condition for a Future Coalition Government Deal
By Eric Worrall, WUWT, May 3, 2026
Energy Issues – Elsewhere non-US
Positive national energy momentum at risk of being swamped by…everything else
By Terry Etam, BOE Report, May 6, 2026
[Tim Hodgson, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources said at the CAOEC (Canadian Association of Energy Contractors) spring luncheon]: “This government and Canadians now understand that energy is the engine of Canada’s economy.”
Paging big oil
By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, May 6, 2026
Most conservative politicians, including Alberta’s premier, privately don’t believe there’s a climate crisis. But they’ll never say so out loud, partly because they haven’t done enough homework to be able to defend that position when the paid government media come after them and partly because their party leaders have a cunning plan to win power by being fake liberals. (Even when they are the leaders.) But we digress.
But if McKenna is right that “Canadians expect everyone to step up and do their parts” it is high time industries slated for execution got vocal about bad policy.
Energy Issues — US
A Growing Grid Needs Market Discipline: Five Principles for Transmission Policy
By Nick Loris, Real Clear Energy, May 6, 2026
Link to article: NERC issues Level 3 alert, mandates action to address data center load losses
Computational loads pose “immediate risks,” the grid watchdog said. Certain grid participants must take seven actions by Aug. 3 in response.
By Robert Walton, Utility Dive, May 5, 2026
Link to alert: Essential Action to Industry: Computational Load Modeling, Studies, Instrumentation, Commissioning, Operations, Protection, and Control
By Staff, North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), May 4, 2026
PJM Dumps Wind and Solar in New Interconnection Queue
Wind and solar should “learn to code”
By Energy Bad Boys and Mtich Rolling, Energy Bad Boys, May 2, 2026 [H/t Bernie Kepshire]
After years of misplaced priorities and politicians being asleep at the wheel, market participants are now playing catch-up all at once, rushing to build more reliable natural gas, nuclear, and battery storage, and leaving wind and solar on the sidelines.
[SEPP Comment; PJM stands for Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland Interconnection. PJM is the largest electrical regional transmission organization (RTO) in the US. It coordinates wholesale electricity supply and demand across parts of 13 states and WDC. Will politicians allow decisions based solely on providing reliable and affordable power? How long will it take for the unreliability costs of subsidizing wind and solar to fully play out? (Such as closing base-load coal, gas, and nuclear plants.)]
In West Virginia, Voters Should Choose Reliable and Affordable Energy
By Zach Kent, Real Clear Energy, May 05, 2026
Washington’s Control of Energy
Trump II vs. Biden: Energy Policy Reversal
By Robert Bradley Jr., Master Resource, May 5, 2026
Political economists are used to describing government intervention expanding from its own shortcomings. Intervention — Problem — More intervention — More problems — More intervention. But President Trump has introduced the opposite dynamic to yesterday’s intervention. Inherited government actions against fossil fuels have been repealed, and lost subsidies have caused the crony wind, solar, and battery/EV industries to contract.
Oil and Natural Gas – the Future or the Past?
UAE’s OPEC Exit: Pragmatic Oil Policy, Not ‘Stranded Assets’ Panic
By Tilak Doshi, Tilak’s Substack, May 4, 2026
As the Hormuz crisis underscores, the world still runs on oil. Brent’s surge to over $110 after UAE’s exit notice was not a panicked farewell to fossil fuels but a reminder of supply vulnerability. The UAE will produce more, invest in bypass infrastructure and contribute to stability “in a measured and responsible manner”, as its statement noted. It appreciates OPEC’s past efforts while moving on. That is statesmanship, not surrender to the green transition fairy tale.
The climate establishment’s inability to see this reveals more about the ideology of its adherents than about Gulf energy strategy.
Leaving OPEC Will Make the UAE More Competitive
By Caleb Jasso, Real Clear Energy, May 06, 2026
What stranded asset? Norway opens up 3 old, gas and oil fields and 70 new exploration sites
By Jo Nova, Her Blog, May 7, 2026
The plan is working… unfortunately
By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, May 6, 2026
But it’s worth reminding ourselves that just because this result was intentional it was not therefore necessarily either a plot or one whose implications the people who caused it thought it would bring. On the former point, it was a plan not a plot, openly declared and openly pursued. And on the latter, once again, it turns out that fools massively outnumber rogues (though the two are not of course mutually exclusive) including in high policy positions. The number of people who have run afoul of the law of unintended consequences is amazingly large. And growing fast.
Oil Spills, Gas Leaks & Consequences
Sovereign Arbitrage
Heads, America wins; tails, Canada loses.
Doomberg, Newsletter, May 04, 2026
While it was not unusual to experience hundreds of thousands of tonnes of oil spilled annually in the 1970s and 80s, the 2020s have averaged less than 10,000. In particular, double-hulled Very Large Crude Carriers (VLCCs)—leviathans that can handle upwards of 2 million barrels of oil at a time—have performed exceptionally well, with no major spills on record. Let’s hope we didn’t just jinx them.
Nuclear Energy and Fears
The Hidden Tax on Nuclear Power
How the Linear No-Threshold Model Makes Nuclear Power Unaffordable
By Martin Bouckaert, His Blog Apr 6, 2026
MIT scientists say fusion overcoming energy challenges
By Duggan Flanakin, CFACT, May 2, 2026
Zap Energy: The First Fission-Fusion Company
By Duggan Flanakin, Real Clear Energy, May 04, 2026
Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Solar and Wind
Obama-backed $2.2B green energy ‘boondoggle’ leaves taxpayers on the hook
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, May 8, 2026
From Fox news:
“Federal taxpayers helped build a $2.2 billion solar plant — now electricity customers are on the hook to keep it running.
The Ivanpah Solar Power Plant, a sprawling facility near the California-Nevada border built with billions in federal support during the Obama-era economic stimulus program, is stuck in a costly dilemma.
Both the Trump and Biden administrations — along with the utility company that buys its power — have sought to shut it down, saying it underperforms, produces expensive electricity and has been overtaken by cheaper energy sources. But California regulators have refused to allow it to close, warning that closing the plant could strain the power grid.”
Wind Energy Is Toxic, Hazardous To Human Health, Scientific Review Shows
By Pierre Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, May 3, 2026
The article emphasizes a critical distinction: natural infrasound (like wind or ocean waves) is usually “harmonious” or random. In contrast, wind turbine infrasound is pulsating and repetitive. This rhythmic nature prevents the body from “tuning out” the stimulus, leading to chronic physiological stress.
NOAA’s Offshore Wind Monitoring Plan Fails to Protect Whales, Fisheries, and Our Coast
By Staff, Save Long Beach Island, Inc., Accessed May 6, 2026
How the Free Market Cancelled BP’s Renewable Energy Push
By Eric Worrall, WUWT, May 3, 2026
Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Energy — Storage
Super Power To Spare: How Battery Tech Illuminates Competition Between U.S. & China
By James Varney WUWT, May 7, 2026
Carbon Schemes
Direct air capture has substantial health and climate opportunity costs
By Yannai Kashtan, et al., Nature Communications Sustainability, May 4, 2026 [H/t Bernie Kepshire]
Health, Energy, and Climate
The Court Physician of the Therapeutic State
A Rothbardian Reading of the Fauci Era
By Robert Malone, The Malone Institute, May 4, 2026
Other News that May Be of Interest
BOOK REVIEW: “Poisoned Ivies: The Inside Account of the Academic and Moral Rot at America’s Elite Universities,”
Uprooting a toxic monoculture
Review by Anthony Sadar, Washington Times, Apr 28, 2026
Dust and Disease
By John Tyndall, Nature, Jan 27, 1870
How China used dirty price wars to knock out competitors in Rare Earths production
By Jo Nova, Her Blog, May 8, 2026
Hardrock Mining Management:
Selected Countries, U.S. States, and Tribes Have Different Governance Structures but Primarily Use Leasing
By Staff, GAO, Jul 26, 2021
BELOW THE BOTTOM LINE
Amsterdam bans public adverts for meat and fossil fuels
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, May 5, 2026
“These aim for the Dutch capital to become carbon neutral by 2050, and for local people to halve their meat consumption over the same period.”
Copenhagen’s City Govt. Limits Elderly to Tiny Servings of Delicious, Nutritious Meat
Clearly, the Danish council is shamefully basing nonsensical policy on both climate and dietary pseudoscience.
By Leslie Eastman, Legal Insurrection, May 8, 2026
She was speaking against plans to exclude nursing home residents from guidelines in the Danish capital that restrict meals at government-run sites to just 2.8 ounces (80 grams) of beef, lamb, or veal per week.
That is less than the amount of beef in a standard McDonald’s Big Mac, which contains two 1.6-ounce beef patties — for a total of 3.2 ounces.
Climate Nutrition! Drive EVs to get more zinc into chickpeas and help feed the poor!
By Jo Nova, Her Blog, May 5, 2026
Euronews: Being White and Male is Bad for the Climate
By Eric Worrall, WUWT, May 7, 2026
Climate Scenarios for Prisons
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, May 22026
Why on earth is the government paying for “climate risk experts”, when it has not got enough money to mend our potholes? It seems that young Charlotte [an expert] has been on the receiving end of taxpayer money for over two years now:
ARTICLES
1. The U.N. Will Make Airfares More Expensive
Airlines will soon have to pay to offset their emissions.
By Brenda Shaffer, WSJ, May 6, 2026
The faculty member at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School’s Energy Academic Group and a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Global Energy Center begins with:
“You’ve got your passport, phone, wallet and luggage. Now buy your plane ticket. If you think it’s expensive, wait till next year. In the name of fighting climate change, the International Civil Aviation Organization, a specialized United Nations agency, in 2027 is set to require airlines to report their greenhouse-gas emissions for international flights and buy carbon credits to offset emissions. This mandatory expense will raise flight costs—and give an unelected global agency the power to tax an entire industrial sector without any democratic input from those being taxed.
The Trump administration can stop this U.N.-imposed aviation tax. The administration last fall delayed a vote by the International Maritime Organization on a measure that attempted to tax global shipping. Now it can help protect aviation.
The administration has made clear that the U.S. will cut funding to many U.N. agencies, a decision President Trump’s voters widely support. The U.N., however, has found a workaround to maintain its power: effectively taxing the aviation industry and, by extension, consumers—despite having no democratic mandate to do so. Using climate change as the justification, the U.N. aims to control manufacturing, transportation and commerce. [Boldface added]
Aviation accounts for only 2.5% of global greenhouse-gas emissions, and this policy will impose significant costs on the industry. It is also likely to favor larger aviation companies, putting budget airlines at a disadvantage.
Further, the quantity available of noncarbon and low-carbon aviation fuels is insufficient, and the push for biofuels could increase global food prices. As part of this policy, the ICAO is encouraging the use in civil aviation of hydrogen, a highly flammable fuel. This could raise insurance costs—and the physical risk—of flying.
The ICAO is neither a democratically elected government nor a regulated corporation. This policy would give an unelected, unregulated international bureaucracy significant control over businesses.”
The author discusses that an outside power taxing the American colonies was an issue giving rise to the American Revolution and how few journalists question the practice today. She concludes with:
“The lack of democratic objection to this taxation by a global institution is astounding. It marks a disturbing shift from the values that shaped modern democracies.”
