05/11/2023 – Climate- Science.press

SI KINSELLA vs. SOUTH FORK WIND, BOEM, et al.

Si Kinsella is a resident of Suffolk County New York, a seaside community that is a staging area for South Fork Wind, a 132 MW, 15-turbine project located 35 miles offshore. He is representing himself on behalf of his neighbors.

From MasterResource

By Sherri Lange — May 10, 2023

Ed. Note: Si Kinsella is a resident of Suffolk County New York, a seaside community that is a staging area for South Fork Wind, a 132 MW, 15-turbine project located 35 miles offshore. He is representing himself on behalf of his neighbors. While not asking for damages, Kinsella is suing to ensure that the ecological protocols are met and that the project’s economics are fairly represented. Kinsella is asking Injunctive Relief: Disclose, Dismantle, Remove, and Restore.

“Mr. Kinsella repeats that the case is not about the construction methods of South West Wind, but rather is about the failure of BOEM (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management), to uphold legal principles of environmental review and oversight, water quality assurance, due process, and compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Relying on fraudulent materials, the permit was granted full sway.”

Citing fraudulent representations and permits to South Fork Wind by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), plaintiff Si Kinsella states:

Disturbingly, the case against BOEM concerning South Fork Wind proved beyond a reasonable doubt that BOEM acted in the interests of a private developer against U.S. interests. It appears the administration has handed over management of U.S. offshore resources on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf to a law firm representing foreign offshore wind developers.

I last wrote about Si Kinsella’s now well-known legal challenge to South Fork Wind:

“Mr. Kinsella (profile in Appendix A) claims egregious levels of disregard for process, legalities, and public health and environmental concerns. Defendants at District Court, District of Columbia are the Department of the Interior, and Honorable Deb Haaland, US Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, and US Environmental Protection Agency, and Honorable Michael S. Regan.”

Even more egregious levels of disregard for legalities and public health and environmental concerns are now evident. More hands appear in the cookie jar.

Si Kinsella’s recent message to supporters:

A storm is brewing in Washington, D.C. It concerns the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM)^[1] and its environmental review of South Fork Wind. Since my last South Fork Wind update (November 16, 2022), the nature and extent of BOEM’s fraudulent representations have been receiving more attention, especially by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Questions are being asked. Why did BOEM fraudulently represent groundwater quality as “good” and conceal harmful PFAS contamination; materially misstate the project’s socioeconomic impact by excluding the single largest financial item, the cost of $2 billion; falsely state population-level effects on Atlantic Cod; leave out a viable alternative (Sunrise Wind), that intervenors did discuss during the state review; ignore procurement irregularities; and rely on an inaccurate purpose and needs statement? BOEM acknowledged receiving detailed information on these issues but failed to address them and did not require South Fork Wind to correct the inconsistencies. Instead, BOEM falsified the review to cover up the project’s many failings. The case against BOEM is fraud.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is arguably the second highest court in the land (second only to the U.S. Supreme Court). Before the Court is a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, asking the Court to issue an order mandating that the lower court reverse a decision. If the Court of Appeals believes a Petition lacks merit, it may deny it without an answer. However, in this case,^[2] the Court ordered BOEM and South Fork Wind to respond to the Petition (which they did on March 27, 2023).

The D.C. Circuit must give a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus preference over ordinary civil cases. The last time the D.C. Circuit heard such a petition was in 2020, regarding Michael T. Flynn making false statements to FBI agents (denied)^[3] and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton involving a deposition request (granted).^[4]

Today’s required reading is the Reply to Federal Defendants’ Response to the Petition (attached). The Reply is not long. It is worth reading because it provides context (you’ll understand when you read it). Note that the Petition uses Federal Defendants, principally BOEM but includes the EPA and Department of the Interior.

Exhibits are available at www.oswSouthFork.info/boem.

Please see the Organization Chart, “Org Chart” (attached). It shows the hierarchy of those responsible for approving and overseeing U.S. history’s most significant construction program in largely undeveloped environments on the Outer Continental Shelf (up to 45.3 million acres, Exhibit 5). It shows that Deputy Secretary of the Department of the Interior, Tommy Beaudreau, earned $2.4 million in partnership income at Latham & Watkins (reported in 2020). According to Mr. Beaudreau’s Nominations Report (2020), he received compensation from many offshore wind companies, including Ørsted and DE Shaw.

DE Shaw owned South Fork Wind (formerly Deepwater Water Wind South Fork) before selling it to Ørsted. In 2021, BOEM approved South Fork Wind based on a fraudulent environmental review. The Director of BOEM, now Elizabeth Klein (see below), also worked for Latham & Watkins but now reports to the Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management, Laura Daniel-Davis, who also worked for Latham & Watkins. In this case, the three partners representing South Fork Wind work at Latham & Watkins.

Earlier this year, I had cause to file a complaint against those Latham & Watkins partners for knowingly providing false information (in this instance, lying) to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Latham & Watkins is a major law firm advising offshore wind developers. Disturbingly, the case against BOEM concerning South Fork Wind proved beyond a reasonable doubt that BOEM acted in the interests of a private developer against U.S. interests. It appears the administration has handed over management of U.S. offshore resources on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf to a law firm representing foreign offshore wind developers.

For specific details about this case and the underlying facts, read Exhibit 11.

Finally, although it has been kept quiet, you may have heard that the Director of BOEM, Amanda Lefton, abruptly resigned (on January 19, 2023).^[5] I cannot say for sure, but it may have had something to do with being explicitly named in reference to (seven) allegations of fraud.^[6] Amanda Lefton resigned soon after testimony (Exhibit 11) supporting the fraud allegations was filed in a related case (before the same court).^[7] Also, I’m sure it was a coincidence that Supervisor Peter Van Scoyoc and Councilwoman Sylvia Overby announced they would not seek re-election that same week.

An update on recent developments regarding EMF emissions will follow soon, as well as PFAS contamination.

A few paragraphs from the Reply to Federal Defendants.

In July 2022, Petitioner filed a Complaint against Federal Defendants–– the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of the Interior (DOI), and Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) (22- v-02147, ECF 1). The Complaint alleges reckless violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and violation of petitioner’s Constitutional rights to due process.

On November 2, 2022, Petitioner filed (as of right) First Amended Complaint (id., ECF 34-2) that includes eight new individuals working for BOEM and new claims regarding seven instances where BOEM falsified material facts in its environmental review. BOEM’s fraudulent representations benefited the developer to the public detriment. The proposal is for an offshore wind farm with onshore transmission facilities.

USCA Case #22-5317 Document #1994449 Filed: 04/12/2023 Page 4 of 22, referencing original Claims alleged in Complaint (July 20, 2022)

Claim Violation Federal Defendants’ failure to––

1 NEPA Include adverse environmental impacts

2 NEPA Assume responsibility for environmental analyses

3 NEPA Evaluate and verify information

4 CZMA Verify Federal Consistency Certification

5 NEPA Specify an underlying purpose or need

6 NEPA Consider viable alternatives

7 OCSLA Guarantee safety and environmental safeguards

8 OCSLA Ensure proper environmental safeguards

9 OCSLA Ensure consistency with maintenance of competition

10 EO 12898 Comply with Executive Order: environmental justice

11 US Constitution: Comply with Due Process Clause

12 FOIA Failure to comply with FOIA & NEPA

New claims alleged in First Amended Complaint (November 2, 2022)

Claim Violation

Federal Defendants’ Fraudulent statements regarding––

13 FRAUD Adverse population-level impacts on Atlantic cod

14 FRAUD Adverse socioeconomic impact: Project Cost ($2 bn)

15 FRAUD Water quality: PFAS Contamination

16 FRAUD The BOEM’s Purpose and Needs Statement

17 FRAUD The Sunrise Wind Alternative

Mr. Kinsella repeats that the case is not about the construction methods of South West Wind, but rather is about the failure of BOEM (Bureau of Energy Management), to uphold legal principles of environmental review and oversight, water quality assurance, due process, and compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Relying on fraudulent materials, the permit was granted full sway.

A few more paragraphs outlining the denial to Justice and obfuscation of issues.

Petitioner argues that there was no hearing on Federal Defendant’s Motion to Transfer (ECF 11) is to understate the district court’s prejudicial practice of denying Petitioner the opportunity to be heard in response to motions filed by Federal Defendants five times in two months (from September 13 through November 10, 2022).
The district court’s abuse of discretion allowed the developer, SFW, to complete (unlawful) onshore construction. (Our emphasis)
Petitioner was denied the opportunity to present his case at a hearing “[A] reasonable choice by plaintiff … cannot be overturned by the District Judge without giving plaintiff an opportunity to present facts that bear on convenience of the parties and witnesses, facts that would at least seem to involve the question what witnesses are in contemplation … in view of the nature of the action.” Fine v. McGuire, 433 F.2d 499, 501-02 (D.C. Cir. 1970). It “is [an] error that requires prompt correction by this court” (id., at 500). Petitioner respectfully seeks this Court to correct that error now.
The district court neither considered nor allowed Petitioner to address Federal Defendants’ deficient environmental review. This complaint asks why BOEM:

fraudulently represented groundwater quality as “good[,]” and concealed harmful onsite PFAS contamination; materially misstated the project’s socioeconomic impact by excluding the largest financial item (the cost of $2 billion); falsely stated population-level effects on Atlantic Cod; left out a viable alternative (Sunrise Wind) that intervenors did discuss during the state review; ignored procurement irregularities; and relied on an inaccurate purpose and needs statement? (Id.) This case involves more than mere procedural mistakes reviewable under the APA.

Federal Defendants and SFW acknowledged receiving detailed information on these issues (above) but failed to address them. Instead, they falsified the review to cover up the project’s failings. This case alleges fraud. (Our emphasis) The filings reveal repeated attempts to relocate the hearings, making filings and rebuttals even more difficult for the complainant, and other misdemeanors of fraudulent materials.

CONCLUSION

As Mr Kinsella states, recent earlier referenced compensations, and COI issues, attempts to “disappear” the claim, have markedly tarnished the undertakings to protect the developer. As many now state, time is nigh to name names.

However you wish to color this case: the consumer loses, the environment loses. Internal preferential treatments contrary to the Sherman Act (Anti Trust Laws, bid rigging) are tied to serious consequences. It is clear to this reader, that procurement is a huge responsibility with the wind turbine offshore permitting process: and few have the high-level privilege and power of offering or abetting, or challenging, these lucrative contractual benefits (Permits).

DOJ has strong medicine: fines and jail time.

It will be most interesting to see how the Kinsella case progresses across these murky waters, but as it seems now increased clarity is ensuing, and likely restitution. As we noted in our previous article, Kinsella is asking Injunctive Relief for: Disclosure, Dismantling, Removal, and Restoration.

The importance of this legal challenge cannot be overestimated. With the proliferation of anticipated “landings,” and substations, and cabling issues, for a vast array of offshore projects, this case will stand tall, and perhaps hinder or impact other fraudulent permitting.

Indeed, the permitting of all aspects of offshore wind on the Eastern Seaboard appears precipitous, giving development access to all manner of invasive and dangerous actions, including harassment permits for hundreds of marine animals, sonar and seismic testing permits that we know kill, and harm.

The most judicious action would be to completely halt all permits, all construction under way, all testing of the ocean floor, and undertake lengthy studies referencing the failures of Europe: we cannot find a single environmental harm study over 15 years for offshore actual numbers of marine animals killed, birds, bats. They all say the evidence is paltry, and obscure, while acknowledging massive holes in understanding of the complexity. Studies do acknowledge massive bird and bat kills, and disruption to coastal communities.

A study from Science Direct states:

We propose that OWF (Offshore Wind “Farms”) development in the MS (Mediterranean Sea) should be excluded from high biodiversity areas containing sensitive and threatened species and habitats, particularly those situated inside or in the vicinity of Marine Protected Areas or areas with valuable seascapes. In the absence of a clearer and comprehensive EU planning of wind farms in the MS, the trade-off between the benefits (climate goals) and risks (environmental and socioeconomic impacts) of OWF could be unbalanced in favor of the risks.

There is little question that the entire eastern seaboard contains sensitive species and habitats. (And industrial wind is of no benefit to climate, weather, but that is a story for another day.)

There is no comprehensive study plan for offshore wind in the USA. Nor anywhere really. It’s a scramble, almost incoherent rush to profits, at the expense of valuable seascapes, people, water quality, wildlife, marine life. The enormity of these errors will cause untold grief.

And we predict endless “studies” will be undertaken to envision how we got there.

As Matt Ridley says:

Madness of our worship of wind: They despoil our glorious countryside, add £6 billion a year to our household bills and are arguably the most inefficient solution to our energy crisis. So why is the Government planning to make it even easier to build them?

God speed, Mr. Simon Kinsella.

Prioritise methane to tackle GHG emissions

Whilst the world wrestles with the economic costs and societal implications of the push for Net Zero CO2 emissions, recent observations of our atmosphere are offering a much more targeted, cheaper and cost-effective way of limiting greenhouse gas emissions.

From Net Zero Watch

Satellite observations have revealed that two major fossil fuel fields in Turkmenistan are emitting vast quantities of methane – 4.4 million tonnes a year – which because methane is 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide means a global warming effect greater than that of the UK, and most other countries.

The environmental intelligence agency Kayrros reveal in the Guardian details of the “mind-boggling” methane emissions based on data released by NASA last year. It seems that Turkmenistan has been venting the methane rather than burning off the methane. Burning off, or flaring, can be detected by satellite but until now pinpointing precise sources of methane emission has not been possible.

Turkmenistan’s Methane Emissions. Image courtesy of NASA, JPL, Caltech.

Antonine Rostand president of Kayrros is quoted as saying, “Methane is responsible for almost half of short-term (climate) warming.”

Taking these findings into account alongside the recent suggestion that ozone-depleting substances are responsible for about a third of the warming leads to a simple yet startling conclusion.

It is that the quickest and most cost effective way to tackle the majority of greenhouse gas emissions is to go after methane and ozone-depleting substances emissions. Using satellites the hot spots of those outpourings can be readily pinpointed. This way tackling the much more difficult task of reducing conventional carbon dioxide emissions and their contribution to global warming can be considered in a less frantic and more realistic manner.

Feedback: david.whitehouse@netzerowatch.com

What’s Wrong With „All Cars Shall Be Electric“

So, while the EPA may limit tailpipe emissions, it will transfer many of those emissions to power plants.

From Science Matters

By Ron Clutz

First “Common Good Capitalism” is an Oxymoron

Donald J. Boudreaux explains this newly minted term and that it really means imposing choices in the marketplace. His AIER article is What’s Called “Common Good Capitalism” Would Work Against the Common Good. Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

The foundation upon which the case for so-called “common good capitalism” rests is rickety at best. As I explained in my previous column, the empirical claims used to justify this ill-defined version of capitalism range from questionable to downright false, while much of the economic reasoning deployed by “common good capitalists” is a nest of confusion. These flaws alone are enough to fully discredit the case for “common good capitalism.”

Yet “common good capitalism” is marred by an even deeper problem: it rejects the liberalism from which true capitalism springs, the absence of which makes impossible the operation of a dynamic market order that maximizes the prospects of individuals to achieve as many as possible of their goals.

“Common good capitalists” have in mind an economic system profoundly different from that which is championed today by liberal scholars. What each “common good capitalist” wants is an economic system engineered to serve his or her preferred set of concrete ends. Gone would be the liberal freedom of individuals to choose and pursue their own ends. Under “common good capitalism,” everyone would be conscripted to produce and consume in ways meant to promote only the ends favored by “common good capitalists.”

Note the irony. The economic system that, say, Oren Cass claims to advocate as a means of promoting the common good is, in reality, a means of promoting only the good as conceived by Oren Cass (which, for him, consists largely of an economy with more manufacturing jobs and a smaller financial sector). The hubris here is undeniable. “Common good capitalists” not only presume to have divined which concrete ends are best to guide the actions of hundreds of millions of individuals, nearly all of whom are strangers to them, but also are so confident in their divinations that they advocate pursuing these with the use of force.

The liberal doesn’t object to attempts to persuade others to adopt different and, hopefully, better ends. By all peaceful means, do your best to persuade me to embrace, as the lodestar for my choice of concrete ends, Catholic Social Teaching, economic nationalism, Marxism, veganism, or whatever other teaching or -ism you believe best defines the common good. But do not presume that your sincere embrace of a specific system of concrete values provides sufficient warrant for you to compel me and others to behave as if we share your particular values.

To the extent that the state intrudes into market processes in order to redirect
these toward the achievement of particular ends, it replaces market
competition and cooperation with command-economy dirigisme.

Income earners are not allowed to use the fruits of their creativity and efforts as they choose. Instead, consumption ‘decisions’ will be directed by government officials. The result will be a reallocation of resources achieved through the use, mostly, of tariffs and subsidies. And by so redirecting consumption expenditures, the pattern of production will obviously also be changed from what would prevail in a free market. (In fact, the specific goal of most “common good capitalists” seems to be the achievement of a particular manner of production — for example, more factory jobs — than would arise with markets left free.)

The capitalist economy, by its very nature, is not and cannot be
a tool for achieving particular concrete outcomes.

The capitalist economy, instead, is the name that we give to that ongoing, ever-evolving, organic order of production and exchange that arises spontaneously whenever individuals are free to pursue diverse peaceful ends of their own choosing and to do so in whatever peaceful ways they think best. That the results serve the common good is clear, if by “common good” we mean the highest possible chance of as many individuals as possible to achieve as many as possible of their own individually chosen goals. But let the state attempt to constrain and contort economic activity in the pursuit of a particular set of “common” concrete ends that everyone is compelled to serve, and capitalism disappears. It is replaced by what is more accurately called “[fill in the blank]’s-particular-notion-of-the-good statism,” with the blank filled by the name of whichever “common good capitalist” happens currently to be in power.

A Case In Point: Murphy’s Law Applies to Electric Cars and Trucks

Forcing Consumers to Purchase Electric Vehicles: A New Low for the Biden Administration by Jonathan Lesser at Real Clear Energy. Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

If electric vehicles are so wonderful,
why are consumers and businesses being forced to buy them?

The US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new emissions standards for vehicles, released earlier this month, require manufacturers to increase overall fuel efficiency by over 25% by 2026, effectively mandating that EV’s make up two thirds of car sales. The EPA claims this will provide a total of over $1 trillion in benefits by 2055, reduce crude oil imports by 20 billion barrels, and reduce CO2 emissions by 10 billion tons.

What’s not to like? Just about everything.

Ruinous Economic Impacts

Let’s start with the economic impacts, which will be ruinous. First, the price of EVs will increase; that’s basic economics. The new rules will require that about two-thirds of the vehicles manufacturers sell are EVs. Given that most consumers do not purchase EVs, the best way to do that is to raise prices on internal combustion (ICE) vehicles until they are more costly than EVs. (Today, the reverse is true, with the average EV costing around $65,000, while the average ICE vehicle costs around $48,000.) Increasing provides an umbrella under which EV prices can be raised, too. So, if a consumer or business wants to purchase a new vehicle, they effectively will be forced to buy a more costly EV.

Battery Demand Over the Top

Second, increasing the demand for EVs will increase the demand for the materials to manufacture batteries, which are the single largest cost of an EV. Prices for rare earths, for example, have increased between 60% and 400% since 2020. Prices for lithium, the basic ingredient in most EV batteries, have increased by about 400%. Moreover, the US continues to prevent development of new mines to supply those materials. Instead, China has a stranglehold on them, and lax environmental rules to boot.

Electric Power Mostly Carbon

Then there is the electricity needed to charge those EVs, along with the charging stations in homes, apartment buildings, and on highways. Claims that this electricity will actually reduce emissions are based on huge predicted increases in wind and solar energy development. Yet, the US Energy Information Administration projects that, by 2050, wind and solar will provide only about 40% of electricity supplies. Consequently, much of the electricity needed to charge those millions of EVs will be provided by natural gas and even coal.

So, while the EPA may limit tailpipe emissions,
it will transfer many of those emissions to power plants.

Inflated Electricity Bills

Electricity costs will also increase, negating the anticipated savings from “refuelling” those EVs. That’s why the federal government has provided subsidies for wind and solar energy development for 45 years and why so many states implemented green energy mandates: developers of wind and solar could not, and still cannot, compete on price alone, despite proponents’ claims.

No Measurable Impact on Climate

But let’s suppose those hurdles magically are overcome. The environmental justification for the EPA rule is nonetheless absurd. The claimed reductions in CO2 emissions will have no measurable impact on world climate. Reducing CO2 emissions by 10 billion tons between 2027 and 2055 sounds like a lot. But world CO2 emissions were 34 billion metric tons in 2021 alone. So, over 28 years, the EPA’s proposed rule will reduce CO2 emissions by the equivalent of about four months of world CO2 emissions. And world emissions continue to increase because developing nations, especially China and India, have no intentions to restrict their economies.

Why Impose EVs?

The basic economic impacts, along with the negligible climate benefits, raise a simple question: why is the Biden Administration pursuing this EV windmill-tilting exercise? By effectively forcing consumers and businesses to purchase vehicles they do not want, the Administration will impose yet more damage on American’s standard of living, reducing mobility and raise costs.

That can’t possibly be their goal, right?

If only arm-twisting were prohibited beyond the ring.

The Price Of Virtue Signalling

Millions of customers, we are told, have opted for “green energy deals” in the mistaken belief that they are doing their bit to save the planet. But how many would actually buy green energy if they had to pay the true cost of it?

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

At the moment, of course, the subsidies paid out to wind farms and other renewable schemes are spread over everybody’s bills. A rough calculation shows the cost of these subsidies, including ROs, CfDs, FIT and the Capacity Market, along with the extra costs incurred by the National Grid in coping with intermittent wind and solar power, to be in the region of £16 billion a year. Last year renewable generation amounted to 129 TWh, so subsidies equated to £124/MWh.

Assuming average household electricity consumption of 5000 KWh, it would mean a surcharge of £620 per home, if all their power was green.

I suspect very few would actually opt for green energy if they had to pay this much!

Thorough analysis by Clintel shows serious errors in latest IPCC report

We are sorry to conclude that the IPCC has done a poor job of assessing the scientific literature. All countries rely on the IPCC reports to support their climate policies and most of the media blindly trust its claims.

From Watts Up With That?

Clintel-The-Frozen-Climate-Views-of-the-IPCC-online-version Herunterladen

Amsterdam, 9 May 2023

* IPCC hides good news about disaster losses and climate-related deaths
* IPCC wrongly claimed the estimate of climate sensitivity is above 2.5°C; it is more likely below 2°C
* IPCC misleads policy makers by focusing on an implausible worst-case emissions scenario
* Errors in the AR6 report are worse than those that led to the IAC Review in 2010

The IPCC ignored crucial peer-reviewed literature showing that normalised disaster losses have decreased since 1990 and that human mortality due to extreme weather has decreased by more than 95% since 1920. The IPCC, by cherry picking from the literature, drew the opposite conclusions, claiming increases in damage and mortality due to anthropogenic climate change. These are two important conclusions of the report The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC, published by the Clintel Foundation.
The 180-page report is – as far as we know – the first serious international ‘assessment’ of the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report. In 13 chapters the Clintel report shows the IPCC rewrote climate history, emphasizes an implausible worst-case scenario, has a huge bias in favour of ‘bad news’ and against ‘good news’, and keeps the good news out of the Summary for Policy Makers.
The errors and biases that Clintel documents in the report are far worse than those that led to the investigation of the IPCC by the Interacademy Council (IAC Review) in 2010. Clintel believes that the IPCC should reform or be dismantled.

With the recently published Synthesis Report, the IPCC finished its sixth assessment cycle, consisting of seven reports in total. An international team of scientists from the Clintel network has analysed several claims from the Working Group 1 (The Physical Science Basis) and Working Group 2 (Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability) reports. This has now led to the report The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC.

In every chapter the Clintel report documents biases and errors in the IPCC assessment. The errors are worse in the WG2 report than in the WG1 report. Given the political relevance of what is known as “Loss and Damage” (at the yearly COP meetings, countries currently negotiate donations to a Loss and Damage fund) one would expect a thorough review of the relevant literature. However, Clintel shows that the IPCC has totally failed in this respect. For example, a review article on the subject, published in 2020, showed that 52 out of 53 peer reviewed papers dealing with “normalised disaster losses” saw no increase in harms that could be attributed to climate change. The IPCC highlighted the single paper that claimed an increase in losses. That paper is – unsurprisingly – flawed, but its cherry picking by the IPCC suggests they found its conclusions irresistible.

Climate-related deaths
“We are on a highway to climate hell”, said UN-boss Guterres recently. But an in-depth look at the mortality data shows that climate-related deaths are at an all-time low. Well-known economist Bjorn Lomborg published that important information in a 2020 peer-reviewed paper, but the IPCC, again, chose to ignore it.
The strategy of the IPCC seems to be to hide any good news about climate change and hype anything bad.

Erasing climate history
The Working Group 1 report is not free from bias and misleading conclusions either. The report documents problems in every chapter the Clintel team reviewed. The IPCC has tried to rewrite climate history by erasing the existence of the so-called Holocene Thermal Maximum (or Holocene Climate Optimum), a warm period between 10,000 and 6000 years ago. It has introduced a new hockey stick graph, which is the result of combining cherry-picked proxies. And it has ignored temperature reconstructions that show more variability in the past, such as the well-documented Little Ice Age.

The IPCC claims there is an acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise in recent decades. Clintel has shown this claim is flawed, because the IPCC ignores decadal variability in sea level. We also show that its sea-level tool – made available for the first time – shows a mysterious and improbable jump upward in 2020.

Climate sensitivity
Canadian economist Ross McKitrick has pointed out that all global climate models used by the IPCC show too much warming in the troposphere, both globally and in the tropics (where models predict a ‘hotspot’). This probably indicates some fundamental problems in the way that these models simulate the climate system.

A ’spectacular’ result of the IPCC AR6 report was the rise of the lower bound for the climate sensitivity likely range from 1.5°C to 2.5°C, therefore claiming that low values for climate sensitivity are now unlikely. The Clintel report shows this rise is not justified. The Clintel report suggests that observed warming and other evidence indicates that the true figure is more likely to be below 2°C than above 2.5°C. This also means that the best estimate for climate sensitivity, which the IPCC says is 3°C, is not justified.

On top of that, the IPCC is ‘addicted’ to its highest emissions scenario, so-called RCP8.5 (or now SSP5-8.5). In recent years, several papers have demonstrated that this scenario is implausible and should not be used for policy purposes. Deep inside the WG1 report, the IPCC acknowledges that this scenario has a ‘low likelihood’ but this very important remark was not highlighted in the Summary for Policymakers, so these important audiences are unaware of the issue. RCP8.5 is the scenario most often referred to in the IPCC report.

IAC Review
Back in 2010, errors in the WG2 report of the Fourth Assessment led to the investigation of the IPCC by the U.N. Interacademy Council (IAC). This review recommended, amongst other things, that “[h]aving author teams with diverse viewpoints is the first step toward ensuring that a full range of thoughtful views are considered.” This important recommendation is still being ignored by the IPCC. Worse, we document that Roger Pielke Jr, a scientist with considerable expertise in these areas, is regarded as a kind of ‘Voldemort’ by the IPCC, and they deliberately avoid mentioning his work or even his name. This leads to biased conclusions.

Reform
We are sorry to conclude that the IPCC has done a poor job of assessing the scientific literature. All countries rely on the IPCC reports to support their climate policies and most of the media blindly trust its claims. The Clintel report The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC shows that this trust is not justified.
In our view the IPCC should be reformed, and should include a broader range of views. Inviting scientists with different views, such as Roger Pielke Jr and Ross McKitrick, to participate more actively in the process is a necessary first step. If, for some reason, such inclusion of different views is unacceptable, the IPCC should be dismantled.

Our own conclusions about climate – based on the same underlying literature – are far less bleak. Due to increasing wealth and advancing technology, humanity is largely immune to climate change and can easily cope with it. Global warming is far less dangerous to humanity than the IPCC tells us.

The report can be downloaded here.

The press release (in English) can be downloaded here in pdf.
Dutch press release here.
Hungarian press release here.

ABOUT CLINTEL
The Climate Intelligence foundation (Clintel) was founded in 2019 by emeritus professor of geophysics Guus Berkhout and science journalist Marcel Crok. Clintel’s main objective is to generate knowledge and understanding of the causes and effects of climate change, as well as the effects of climate policy. Clintel published the World Climate Declaration, which has now been signed by more than 1500 scientists and experts. Its central message is “there is no climate emergency”.

US Has Had An “Historic Winter” As “All Western States Have Seen Record Snowfall”

Highest April 1st snow cover recorded this year

From NoTricksZone

By P Gosselin on 9. May 2023

CTY dig10p 2/10/10 The Blade/Dave Zapotosky Mannoleto Gilmore, 14, uses a snow shovel to clear the snow on the family car parked on Delaware St. in Toledo, Ohio, Wedneday, February 10, 2010.

By Christian Freuer, EIKE
(Translated, edited by P. Gosselin)

The western US has had an historic winter. From record-breaking cold spells to unprecedented amounts of snow, this has been a memorable cold season – and one that runs counter to the prophecies of the AGW party.

Starting with the cold – and according to data from the warmth-addicted NOAA – the US has set 7 all-time low temperature records so far this year (through April 24) compared to just one heat record, while 321 monthly lows have fallen in April alone (also through April 24) compared to 66 heat records.

Highest April 1st snow cover recorded this year

Regrading snow, in the official books going back to 2001, the largest area ever covered with snow/ice in the western US at the beginning of April so far was 2019’s 1,030,820 sq km, but this year that figure was far exceeded, with satellite imagery showing that more than 1,149-960 sq km of the West was covered with snow and ice on 1 April.

By comparison, the average snowpack in the western US at the end of March is 242,000 square miles.

According to NSIDC data, snowpack this season was well above the April 1 average in all western states. In the table below, South Dakota, Nebraska and Arizona lead the way with 350% of the average, followed closely by Nevada:

Source: NSIDC

All western US states have seen above-average snowfall; in fact, all have set records:

Meanwhile across the pond, the official UK low of -7.4°C was recorded on April 27 in Loch Glascarnoch, Scotland. This broke the previous low of -6.1°C recorded in 1956 in Glenlivet. It’s been quiet for Britain’s climate alarmists, as record cold blanketed the country.

Royal Dilemma: The People who Most Support Ditching the Monarchy are Climate Alarmists

A hilarious dynamic has emerged in Commonwealth nations, in which the most committed anti-monarchists also want King Charles to help them win the climate war.

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

A hilarious dynamic has emerged in Commonwealth nations, in which the most committed anti-monarchists also want King Charles to help them win the climate war.

Charles Is Not Your Climate King

Angely Mercado
Published 4 days ago: May 6, 2023 at 7:00 pm

…

It’s true that, compared to other public figures or wealthy celebrities, Charles has a pretty impressive resume of caring about the environment. He’s been championing environmental causes since the 1970s and has been touting crunchy practices like composting for decades. In 2021, as Charles was travelling to the UN climate summit, the Washington Post branded him “the 21st century’s first eco-king.”

But Charles III is not your climate king. He is a wealthy man who takes private jets and was born into a rich ruling family. He’s now the figurehead of a nation facing rising income inequality and more risks and deaths from climate change-related extreme weather. Any actions he’ll take on climate as king will be cosmetic, at best. His job as royalty will be to maintain the status quo — which is the last thing we need as the world keeps getting hotter.

…

As the head of the royal family, Charles III will unfortunately be called to political neutrality. He can support his preferred causes, but he is limited in straight-up calling out the fossil fuel companies and politics that have made our climate crisis possible.

…

King Charles III is inheriting the throne during a pivotal time for global climate action. It’s a huge responsibility, but he is not among those on the frontlines of the problems. People displaced by wildfires and victims of heat waves throughout the UK don’t need more words — they need action that Charles won’t be able to take on as king.

…Read more: https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2023/05/charles-is-not-your-climate-king/

The idea of Conservatives being opposed to ditching the royals might seem strange to Americans, but its only strange until you take a closer look at the slimy rogues gallery of recycled neo-communists who are drooling over the opportunity to become our first president, and the partisan constitutional settlements being offered by our far left anti-royalists.

The constitutional settlements being offered by predominantly left wing Aussie anti-royalists bear no resemblance to the US constitutional settlement. For example, in 1999 Australians were offered a puppet presidential Republic, an emasculated figurehead presidency, which would just have been an opportunity for failed former leaders to be appointed by their friends to an easy job with lots of perks, where they could continue sponging off the public purse. Strangely this plan for a Republic didn’t appeal to the Australian public.

Charles might be a climate clown, but his presence as a mostly powerless figurehead in the political systems of commonwealth nations blocks the emergence of something worse – the ascension to high office, of all the despised unwanted politicians we long ago rejected at the ballot box.

If you think this is a bad situation for conservatives, the dilemma for climate activists is even more acute. They are desperate for King Charles to speak out about his climate beliefs, because they believe royalist conservatives in Australia and elsewhere might listen to Charles’ green ravings, like some do in England. Yet at the same time, being mostly communists or far left socialists, ditching the royals and installing a left wing partisan constitution is a priority for them.

It’s going to be very interesting to see how all this plays out.

Personally I think Charles will crack, and restart his ranting about the need for climate action. How can the king stay silent, when he clearly believes the fate of the world hangs in the balance?

Perhaps when Charles politicisation of the throne makes keeping the monarchy intolerable for everyone, we’ll just have to accept whatever insipid, partisan republican settlement is offered, just to get away from the mad climate king.

Green apprenticeships celebrated in honour of the Coronation

Six green apprenticeships have been hand-picked by industry experts to mark the Coronation in recognition of their sustainability credentials, the Department for Education has announced today (4 May 2023).

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t Ian Magness

In honour of His Majesty The King’s Coronation, the apprenticeships have been selected for their contribution to creating a low carbon economy by ensuring the country’s workforce is equipped with the skills needed to support the transition to net zero.

The official Coronation emblem will be used by employers and Government to promote the six apprenticeships, which include Low Carbon Heating Technician, Sustainability Business Specialist and Countryside Worker. The apprenticeships are the gold-standard for green skills training, encouraging more people to take up the opportunity to gain the skills to build an exciting career in the green industry while meeting the skills needs of employers and boosting economic growth, one of the Prime Minister’s 5 priorities.

Education Secretary Gillian Keegan said:

As we work towards our net zero goals, it has never been more important to prioritise green skills and protect our natural environment. In recognition of the critical role education and skills play in responding to climate change, these green apprenticeships have been selected in honour of His Majesty The King’s Coronation.

These gold-standard, sustainable apprenticeships offer people the chance to embark on exciting new careers in industries from forestry to construction, and contribute to creating a more sustainable economy.

The six apprenticeships are:

Countryside Worker (level 2)
Forest Craftsperson (level 3)
Low Carbon Heating Technician (level 3)
Installation Electrician and Maintenance Electrician (level 3)
Sustainability Business Specialist (level 7)
Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability Practitioner (level 4)

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/green-apprenticeships-celebrated-in-honour-of-the-coronation

I’m sure Sustainability Specialists, Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability Practitioners and Forest Craftspersons are just what the UK economy needs!

Oxford University’s Our World in Data falls for renewables industry spin

Campaigning group Net Zero Watch has called on Oxford University’s Our World in Data (OWID) site to withdraw its webpage on the cost of renewable energy.

From Net Zero Watch

Campaigning group Net Zero Watch has called on Oxford University’s Our World in Data (OWID) site to withdraw its webpage on the cost of renewable energy.

In a letter to OWID’s director Max Roser, NZW’s Andrew Montford explains that the site is putting its reputation at risk by ignoring the highly transparent UK data in favour of numbers that are not replicable, and most likely to be based on “hearsay”.

Mr Montford said:

The UK is almost unique in having a high penetration of renewable energy and freely available financial accounts data. A series of reviews of this information confirms that the cost of offshore wind power is high, and hardly coming down at all. It is hard to comprehend why Our World in Data would ignore this hard data in favour of unsubstantiated spin from the renewables industry. Their page on the subject should be revised before anyone else is misled.”

——————

From: Andrew Montford

To: Dr Max Roser

11 May 2023

Dear Dr Roser

Our World in Data (OWID) is usually a rather reliable source of information, so I wanted to draw your attention to what I believe is an uncharacteristically flawed article on your website. This is ‘Why did renewables become so cheap so fast?’, which examines the levelised cost of renewable energy.

Firstly, I should point out that the levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) isn’t actually data at all. In simple terms, LCOE divides the lifetime costs of a generator by its lifetime output, but neither of those figures are known until the generator closes down at the end of its life. So while the Capital Expenditures (capex) element of lifetime cost is knowable at the start, the lifetime Operational Expenditure (opex) and the output have to be modelled. So whether a site called Our World in Data should be discussing LCOE at all is worthy of consideration.

Where LCOE is discussed, the data used as input needs to be grounded in reality, the modelling assumptions need to be made clear, and caveats spelled out. This is not the case for the sources you cite. For example, while widely cited, the assumptions used by Lazard are demonstrably false. For example, for offshore wind, the version of the report you cite (version 13) claims a capital cost of £2.3-$3.5m/MW, roughly half the cost of offshore windfarms in the UK, and a third of the cost of the only (admittedly experimental) offshore windfarm in the US. As I have pointed out elsewhere, the assumptions for capacity factor and opex are similarly divorced from reality.

You also cite the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), whose figures are similarly problematic, notably because they convert all their numbers into US dollars, giving them a large and entirely spurious downwards trend as a result of the appreciation of the dollar against most other currencies.

It’s not clear where Lazard and IRENA are getting their input figures from, but it’s unlikely to be anything that could reasonably be called ‘data’. IRENA is supposed to be global in nature, and Lazard are vague about whether their estimates are for the US or for the world. Either way, the majority of the financial inputs cannot be data because such information is not available for most of the world: word of mouth and/or developer announcements seem the most likely sources. In the UK, developer announcements are typically 15-20% lower than outturn cost.

The clear exception to this rule is the UK, where financial data is freely available for all offshore windfarms and many large onshore ones (as well as a few solar parks). This then is the only reliable data for estimating the levelised cost of renewable energy. I refer you to the paper by Aldersey-Williams et al. (2019) on the LCOE of offshore wind, which presents a very different story to the one in your article, and which has been replicated by others.

By basing your article on figures that can only be based on hearsay, rather than on empirical data, you are risking your hard-won reputation as a reliable source. I would advise you to revise the article accordingly.

With best regards

Andrew Montford
Director, Net Zero Watch

Day: May 11, 2023

SI KINSELLA vs. SOUTH FORK WIND, BOEM, et al.

Like this:

Prioritise methane to tackle GHG emissions

Like this:

What’s Wrong With „All Cars Shall Be Electric“

First “Common Good Capitalism” is an Oxymoron

A Case In Point: Murphy’s Law Applies to Electric Cars and Trucks

Inflated Electricity Bills

Like this:

The Price Of Virtue Signalling

Like this:

US Has Had An “Historic Winter” As “All Western States Have Seen Record Snowfall”

Like this:

Royal Dilemma: The People who Most Support Ditching the Monarchy are Climate Alarmists

Like this:

Green apprenticeships celebrated in honour of the Coronation

Like this:

Oxford University’s Our World in Data falls for renewables industry spin

Campaigning group Net Zero Watch has called on Oxford University’s Our World in Data (OWID) site to withdraw its webpage on the cost of renewable energy.

Like this:

Like this:

Like this:

First “Common Good Capitalism” is an Oxymoron

A Case In Point: Murphy’s Law Applies to Electric Cars and Trucks

Inflated Electricity Bills

Like this:

Like this:

Author

Like this:

Like this:

Like this:

Like this:

Like this:

Campaigning group Net Zero Watch has called on Oxford University’s Our World in Data (OWID) site to withdraw its webpage on the cost of renewable energy.

Like this: