Mining the planet for โ€œrenewableโ€ energy

This election year, several critical issues dominate voter concerns. Illegal immigration across unsecured borders by migrants, criminals, sex traffickers, and terrorists. Anti-police policies reduced prosecution of criminals and rising crime. Unprecedented prices for food, clothing, housing, and other necessities.

From CFACT

By Paul Driessen

This election year, several critical issues dominate voter concerns. Illegal immigration across unsecured borders by migrants, criminals, sex traffickers, and terrorists. Anti-police policies reduced prosecution of criminals and rising crime. Unprecedented prices for food, clothing, housing, and other necessities.

Parental roles in education and sex changes for children. Threats to our republic and democracy from unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats who use their powers to persecute, prosecute, silence, and even imprison opponents and control our lives.

Also crucial control over energy โ€“ the lifeblood of our civilization, jobs, health, and prosperity.

Will America shut down coal, gas, and nuclear electricity generation before it has sufficient reliable replacements? Will we have electricity when we need it, or only when itโ€™s available,  especially after weโ€™re forced to convert gasoline cars and gas stoves, furnaces, and water heaters to electric models?

What will families pay for that electricity and everything we eat, drink, build, and use? Where will we get plastics, paints, pharmaceuticals, and thousands of other products made from oil and gas they want to lock in the ground? What will happen to our jobs, health, living standards โ€“ and personal choices about where we live, what we eat, what car we can drive and how far, whether we can fly places for vacation?

Weโ€™re told a great energy and economic transformation is underway โ€“ and is essential to prevent a โ€œclimate crisis.โ€ In reality, the crisis exists in computer models, headlines, and politicized science but not in actual temperature and weather records.

In reality, there is no energy transformation. In 2023, wind and solar power generated 2.7% of the worldโ€™s primary energy; 81.5% came from fossil fuels. Between 1965 and 2023, North America and Europe cut their fossil fuel consumption almost in half, but over the same period, the rest of the world consumed seven times more than those two regions reduced their use. Emissions went up even more because China, India and other developing countries require minimal pollution controls on power plants and vehicles.

In reality, a transition to an all-electric economy with no fossil fuels means millions of acres of Americaโ€™s wild, scenic, and agricultural lands would be covered with wind turbines, solar panels, transmission lines, and warehouses filled with batteries that can spontaneously erupt in flames.

In reality, we donโ€™t know whether there are enough accessible metal and mineral deposits on Planet Earth to extract all the raw materials required to manufacture the turbines, panels, batteries, transmission lines, electric vehicles, transformers, and other equipment the energy transformation would require โ€“ just for the United States, much less for the entire world.

We donโ€™t know how many billions of tons of rock would have to be mined, processed, and disposed of; how many millions of acres would be impacted; how many millions of tons of toxic air and water pollution would be emitted; what human rights would be violated to get those metals and minerals.

One of the most basic and vital metals for the energy transformation is copper. Average worldwide ore concentrations (0.04%) mean miners would have to remove some 40,000,000 tons of overlying rock and extract, crush, and process nearly 25,000,000 tons of ore to get 110,000 tons of copper โ€“ enough for just the first 30,000 megawatts of President Bidenโ€™s offshore wind plan.

Worse, mining is essentially banned in the United States โ€“ and the Biden Administration has vetoed world-class mines that could have met US needs for copper (and other metals) for decades to come. And the problem isnโ€™t just President Biden or the Biden Administration. Itโ€™s governors like Gavin Newsom and Gretchen Whitmer, and countless activists and mostly Democrat politicians who support these policies.

Recent studies question whether mining companies can even produce enough copper just for the electric vehicles people are told they must buy โ€“ much less for wind and solar power, to say nothing of a full US (or global) energy transformation. Again, thatโ€™s just the copper.

A 2022 International Energy Agency report examines the need for essential metals and minerals in energy transitions. Onshore wind installations, the report says, require nine times more materials than combined-cycle gas-generating plants to produce the same amount of electricity. Offshore wind installations require fourteen times more. (These IEA numbers do not include materials for transmission lines or backup power for windless-sunless periods.)

The IEA says its projections are โ€œhighly dependentโ€ on how quickly and stringently the world actually tries to reach zero greenhouse gas emissions in power generation and all energy uses, on which wind, solar, battery, and other technologies dominate, and on whether countries also try to utilize low-carbon (natural gas) or no-carbon (batteries) equipment in mining, materials processing, manufacturing and transporting wind turbines, solar panels, batteries, vehicles, and other technologies.

However, the IEA calculates demand for aluminum, copper, cobalt, graphite, iron, nickel, lithium, rare earths, concrete, and other โ€œgreenโ€ energy materials is expected to skyrocket by 5, 20, 40, 50 or more times current global requirements by 2040.

The Agency says numerous โ€œchallengesโ€ to actually acquiring those materials include actually finding producible deposits, plus land use, water scarcity and pollution, air pollution, toxic mining waste management, corruption and bribery, worker and nearby resident health and safety, and child labor.

Meeting these challenges, the IEA says, will require โ€œsystematic approaches,โ€ the โ€œdevelopment of institutions and the rule of law,โ€ โ€œinclusive legal frameworks,โ€ โ€œresponsibleโ€ and โ€œrobustโ€ pollution and waste management frameworks, โ€œsustainable practices,โ€ โ€œinternational coordination,โ€ โ€œcapacity building and knowledge sharing,โ€ greater โ€œtransparencyโ€ and, ultimately, โ€œinternational minerals governance.โ€

These actions will all help foster โ€œsustainable and responsible supply chains that contribute to a low-carbon economyโ€ worldwide, the IEA assures us.

But will these wishful terms survive collisions with the real world? Developing nations view coal, oil, and gas as their key to jobs, modernity, and prosperity. China, Russia, and their allies perceive the Westโ€™s fixation on climate change and green energy as opportunities to control US and EU supply chains, geo-political options, and military-economic capabilities.

The biggest wind energy project in the USA will soon blanket 1,600 square miles (1.25 times Delaware) of New Mexico to generate 3,500 MW about 30% of the year. The Palo Verde nuclear plant in Arizona generates 4,200 MW from 6 square miles, almost 24/7/365.

A Bloomberg research team says the world will need at least $200 trillion to stop global warming by 2050. Others estimate $275 trillion!

How can we head this economy-and-environment-killing craziness off at the pass?

Wise decisions at the ballot box are essential, of course. But state and local governments should enact laws requiring that utilities explain how they will generate wind and solar replacement power on windless winter nights before they shut down a single coal, gas, or nuclear power plant โ€“ or get approval for a single wind or solar project. (Those are just a few of the actions they can take.)

They should also demand full details on where raw materials will come from, and at what dollar, human rights and environmental costs โ€“ to state and local communities โ€ฆ and our planet.

Americaโ€™s jobs, health, living standards, and right to choose our homes, cars, and food depend on it.

Seeing Barren Island Corals โ€“ and Fish.ย  Part 1.

I had such a good weekend, over at Great Keppel Island completing a PADI Advanced Open Water course with Hayley and Ines from Keppel Dive. We managed five dives over the two days, but I only had my camera with me for the last dive, when we dove Barren Island Reef South.

From Jennifer Marohasy

ย Byย jenniferย 

I had such a good weekend, over at Great Keppel Island completing a PADI Advanced Open Water course with Hayley and Ines from Keppel Dive.   We managed five dives over the two days, but I only had my camera with me for the last dive, when we dove Barren Island Reef South.

We stepped into the water right on midday and it was a sunny day โ€“ so there was no shortage of sunlight, but down 10 metres everything was a haze of blue.

Water absorbs light in the longer wavelengths, so by ten metres down everything is a haze of blue, unless I have the camera light on and the coral is in the foreground.   Only then, will the red corals at close range look red โ€“ because other wise the water will have absorbed all the red in the visible spectrum from the sunlight and also from my camera light.  I need to get close to the corals and the fish and I need to have my light on, to see their colours.

That juvenile Red Emperor up close but with my light turned off.

Karen Klemp, in a comment at my last blog post, has suggested that I canโ€™t see the corals from 150 metres in the air because I may not have the correct camera settings.

In fact, when visibility is only about 8 metres under the water and the corals are down about 10 metres it is just not going to be possible to see the corals from an aerial survey whatever your camera settings.  It is not possible to see the corals until you get into the water and go down some few metres.

Once you are down ten metres, where the corals are at Barren Island Reef, it is best to turn on your light, even if it is a sunny day, if you want to see the true colour of the corals.

A macro-setting on the camera is necessary to see the detail of the corallites, and with my light on, it is possible to see come of the colour.

While I was mostly focused on what I needed to do to pass the PADI Advanced Open Water course โ€“ including tying knots underwater and lifting โ€˜lost equipmentโ€™ to the surface with a harness etcetera, etcetera โ€“ all the while I was also on the lookout, scanning and making some assessment of the state of the corals.

I dived some of these same reefs in April and you may remember Secret Cove, Wreck Beach and Bald Rock where particularly badly bleached โ€“ most of the corals, especially the branching Acropora spp. were stark white.

Now there is colour back in many of the same Acropora spp. but there is also a lot of mortality.   I would hazard a guess โ€“ that across these five dives and including corals from the two dives that I did about ten days ago at Outer Rock โ€“ perhaps one third of the area of coral, perhaps one third of the coral cover is now dead or dying from the bleaching.

That is a lot of coral.   This last summer has not been good for many of the corals, for coral cover, at the Great Barrier Reef.   If we are to know the natural cycles of death and regeneration, then we need to acknowledge that not every summer is the same.

Coming up at the end of the dive, Barren Island Reef on Sunday afternoon.

Temperature Alarmism: WSJ Fail (Doug Sheridan corrects)

Itโ€™s an election year. The mainstream media (including the news side of the WSJ) is in the tank for climate alarmism, forced energy transformation, and a Biden reelection. Reader beware!

From Master Resource

By Robert Bradley Jr.

โ€œItโ€™s an election year. The mainstream media (including the news side of the WSJ) is in the tank for climate alarmism, forced energy transformation, and a Biden reelection. Reader Beware!โ€

โ€œMillions of Americans Brace for Dangerous Heat Wave, Record-Breaking Temperatures,โ€ wrote Gareth Vipers for the Wall Street Journal (June 18, 2024). โ€œTriple-digit temperatures are expected across much of the Midwest, mid-Atlantic and New England.โ€

Doug Sheridan graded the news article:

Last week, after a  news article warned of almost 70 MM people coming under threat of extreme heat in the US Midwest and Northeast, we posted our intention to audit the accuracy of the article and forecast by examinating the actual temps recorded after the fact. Hereโ€™s a link to that June 18th post. 

Well, last week has come and gone, and weโ€™ve completed the audit. Itโ€™s not pretty. While we had hoped it would show reporting and forecasts in 2024 improved over prior years, we were disappointed. Below is a summary of the results of the audit, with temp data per :

โ€” Only four of 14 weather stations in seven Midwestern and Northeastern states over the five days incurred a single *record* high. Three were highs of 96, 96 and 98 F at Manchester-Boston Regional airport on Jun 18, 19, and 20. Another high was set at Midway Airport in Chicago on the 20th. The remaining highs at all stations averaged just 88.8 Fโ€ฆ almost 9 degrees *below* the average of the stationsโ€™ record highs.

โ€” Notably, four of the 14 stationsโ€”Wausau WI, Peoria IL, Mt Pleasant MI, and Greenfield MAโ€”recorded at least one day in which the high didnโ€™t even reach the historical *average* temp for the station. That certainly doesnโ€™t comport with the existence of widespread extreme heat.

โ€” For the remaining 76 non-record-breaking measurements, the seven large urban stations averaged highs of 90.5 F over the five days, 7.4 degrees below the average of record highs for those same stations. This compares to average recorded highs of 86.3 F for the seven small-town weather stations, a full 10.5 degrees below their average record highs and 4.2 degrees lower than the large urban stations.

โ€” Remarkably, for three of the five daysโ€”the 20th, 21st and 22ndโ€”the average highs across all 14 stations were closer to the historic daily *average* temps than to the record temps for the day.

โ€” Evidence of a heat-island effect might exist in the data. To wit, across all observations, the seven large urban stations recorded highs 1.1 F above the seven small-town stations in the same seven states. Whatโ€™s more, no (ie, zero) record highs were recorded in the small townsโ€ฆ compared to four record highs in the large urban locales. Kinda suspicious, no?

โ€” Not a single station on a single day (80 observations in all) recorded a temp of โ€œtriple-digitsโ€ as the WSJ article warned. Zero!

Conclusion

If we had to hand out a grade for the combined efforts of the WSJ reporting and the underlying forecasts, it would be a D or D-minus. You see, a five-day period in which the average high hits just 88.4 F simply doesnโ€™t justify the โ€œDangerous Heat Waveโ€ piece that was published in the WSJ. Period.

Of course, itโ€™s a long summer, and weโ€™ll post more audits as it heats up. Maybe those will show reported forecasts to be more accurate. Until then, stay tunedโ€ฆ safeโ€ฆ and cool.

โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€“

Itโ€™s an election year. The mainstream media (including the news side of the WSJ) is in the tank for climate alarmism, forced energy transformation, and a Biden reelection. Reader beware!

Federal Judge sides with Louisiana and strikes down Joe Bidenโ€™s illegal assault on American energy

On Monday, July 1,ย U.S. Federal Judge James Cain Jr. of the Western District of Louisiana, issued a preliminary injunction in Louisianaโ€™s favor for the Stateโ€™s lawsuit against President Joe Biden and the United States Department of Energy over the unlawful decisions to ban new liquefied natural gas exports to non-free trade agreement countries.

Gavel, judge hammer. Close up of wooden hammer with gold details. Concepts of law and auction.

From Watts Up With That?

From the Louisiana Office of the Attorney General Liz Murrill

On Monday, July 1, U.S. Federal Judge James Cain Jr. of the Western District of Louisiana, issued a preliminary injunction in Louisianaโ€™s favor for the Stateโ€™s lawsuit against President Joe Biden and the United States Department of Energy over the unlawful decisions to ban new liquefied natural gas exports to non-free trade agreement countries.

Judge Cainโ€™s order lifts the LNG export ban effective immediately. 

In his ruling, Judge Cain said, โ€œIt appears that the DOEโ€™s decision to halt the permit approval process for entities to export LNG to non-FTA countries is completely without reason or logic and is perhaps the epiphany of ideocracy.โ€

Judge Cain also asked attorneys for the federal government, โ€œSo why the change of the past normal practice? And why now?โ€

The decision by President Biden and his Department of Energy from back in January ignores the clear text of the Natural Gas Act and departs from decades of agency policy. Just six months ago, the Department of Energy even acknowledged, โ€œThere is no factual or legal basisโ€ for halting approval of LNG exports.

Shortly after that announcement, Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill led a coalition of 16 states in filing the lawsuit to stop the ban.

The State of Louisiana was joined by the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

โ€œThis is great news for Louisiana, our 16 state partners in this fight, and the entire country. As Judge Cain mentioned in his ruling, there is roughly $61 billion dollars of pending infrastructure at risk to our state from this illegal pause. LNG has an enormous and positive impact on Louisiana, supplying clean energy for the entire world, and providing good jobs here at home. The people of Louisiana are proud to power this nation and the world. A major victory for American energy,โ€ said Attorney General Liz Murrill. 

download No.72-PIOrder.pdf

H/T Steve Milloy

UBS on Green Energy: From โ€œA Wave of Capitalโ€ to โ€œSluggish Rolloutโ€ in Just 4 Years

I wonder how investors who bet on UBSโ€™ 2020 imminent green energy boom hype feel today?

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

I wonder how investors who bet on UBSโ€™ 2020 imminent green energy boom hype feel today?

Power prices to surge amid sluggish rollout of clean energy: UBS

Angela Macdonald-Smith Senior resources writer
Jul 1, 2024 โ€“ 5.01pm

The sluggish buildout of clean energy generation will drive up wholesale power prices far more than expected by the end of the decade, leaving households with little chance of bill relief beyond this yearโ€™s pause.

Analysts at UBS now expect prices to peak at $104 per megawatt hour by 2029, 20 per cent higher than this yearโ€™s forecast and almost 50 per cent more than 2023.

โ€ฆ

โ€œDelay in the buildout of transmission networks and renewable generation drive the continued increase in prices, particularly during peak net-demand hours during the day,โ€ he wrote, pointing to delays in the development of projects such as Snowy 2.0 and the Central-West Orana Renewable Energy Zone in NSW.

โ€ฆRead more:ย 

https://www.afr.com/companies/energy/slow-clean-energy-rollout-means-20pc-bill-surge-this-decade-ubs-20240701-p5jq2y

Back in 2020 it was a very different story;

UBS: A โ€˜wave of capitalโ€™ is about to flow into renewable energy

December 17, 2020 | Sam Jacobs

Australiaโ€™s wholesale electricity prices are falling as more renewable energy sources enter the mix, UBS says.

And over the next decade, the ongoing renewables rollout will help cap the cost of electricity below $70 per megawatt hour (MWh) by 2030.

While the policy stance around renewables remains a source of debate, UBS said the reality on the ground is that government support will drive โ€œfurther significant penetration from renewablesโ€ over the next two to three years.

โ€œState government policies supporting net-zero emissions will attract a wave of new capital into renewables over the next 10 years in our view,โ€ analyst Tom Allen and his team said.

โ€ฆRead more:ย 

https://stockhead.com.au/energy/ubs-a-wave-of-capital-is-about-to-flow-into-renewable-energy/

Imagine betting your life savings on the fickle promises of politicians.

Just as well UBS, which manages $1.5 TRILLION in assets, are renowned global investment experts. Otherwise some people might start to wonder if they were just making it up as they go.

The Rejection of Environmentalism is a driving force behind the surging โ€œFar Rightโ€ vote

In the largest turnout since 1981, French voters chose the โ€œFar Rightโ€ National Rally party in a record vote of 33 per cent. It is the first round of voting with the second on July 7th, but The Washington Post is already comparing the potentially โ€œshockingโ€ French election result with the 2016 Brexit win in the UK. The Guardian said the unthinkable has become plausible.

Marine Le Penย 

From JoNova

By Jo Nova

Le Pen has weaponized โ€˜punitiveโ€™ environmental policies, and voters seem to like that

In the largest turnout since 1981, French voters chose the โ€œFar Rightโ€ National Rally party in a record vote of 33 per cent. It is the first round of voting with the second on July 7th, but The Washington Post is already comparing the potentially โ€œshockingโ€ French election result with the 2016 Brexit win in the UK. The Guardian said the unthinkable has become plausible.

French elections: Why is the rejection of environmentalism a driving force behind Franceโ€™s far-right vote?

By Matthieu Goar, Le Monde

After long neglecting environmental issues, the far-right party has made the denunciation of allegedly โ€˜punitiveโ€™ environmental policies into its new electoral weapon.

 The former presidential candidate railed against โ€œBrussels,โ€ which โ€œforces you, almost overnight, to change your boiler for โ‚ฌ15,000,โ€ against the โ€œauthoritarian reductions to agricultural landโ€ and against the โ€œheartless European Commission.โ€

โ€œDonโ€™t they have as their objective the reduction of human activity as a whole?โ€ she asked, before connecting the issue to her obsession with French peopleโ€™s daily lives, a strategy that has brought the RN to the threshold of coming to power. โ€œItโ€™s always the same logic of degrowth, which leads them to ban the sale of internal combustion engines in 2035, and thus deliberately program the sacking of our automotive industry and dependence on China,โ€ she continued.

Long downplayed or mocked, environmental issues are now a core part of the RNโ€™s political strategy.

Pierre Haski, in the Guardian: โ€œThis is a real tragedyโ€

Macron is history, Le Pen is triumphant. What do โ€˜reasonableโ€™ French voters like me do now?

โ€ฆ I always had the naive idea that โ€œreasonableโ€ people, from the right as well as from the left, would never let them win. โ€ฆI woke up this morning to a different country, one in which the Le Pen clan is at the gates of power.

We can also wonder why this country, with its many assets, has generated enough anger and resentment among its citizens to produce an election result that is more likely to damage its economy and social cohesion than solve real problems. We can also question a French political elite that was so blind it let the far right prosper in large corners of a society that felt forgotten and despised.

Reasonable people live in the cities of course, and delusional people farm the land.

All of this is true, and is being discussed everywhere now in France, among friends, colleagues and in our family circles. Everyone is looking in the mirror and wondering what to do next Sunday in the second round. At the very least, weโ€™ll have to learn to live in a divided land where the National Rally controls small towns and vast areas of rural France, while the โ€œreasonableโ€ people have the upper hand in major cities including Paris. This is a real tragedy.

Imagine learning to live in a โ€œland dividedโ€?

Indeed, according to CarbonBrief  this is Marine Le Pens tragic manifesto โ€” something about protecting the standard of living:

Their original policies (in French): Rassemblement National.

PS: Forgive me, I forgot to mention the obvious, but it needs to be said: โ€œFar Rightโ€ and โ€œExtreme Rightโ€, as applied to a third of the population, are just the fake labels of the word-smithing liars on the left. Sleepy voters in-the-middle may be fooled by this cheap name-calling tactic, scared of voting for something โ€œextremeโ€. But liars are vulnerable โ€” every time we point out the lie, they pay the price.

Photo Macron: Defense Visual Information Distribution Service

The New York Times Is Right, Finally; Climate Change Is Not Threatening Island Nations

The New York Times (NYT) recently posted an article, titled โ€œA Surprising Climate Find,โ€ which explains how island nations like the Maldives and Tuvalu are not, in fact, in danger of sinking under the seas due to climate change. This is true; a fact Climate Realism has repeatedly discussed. Atolls in particular are known to grow with rising water levels, this has been known for years if not decades.

From ClimateRealism

By Linnea Lueken

The New York Times (NYT) recently posted an article, titled โ€œA Surprising Climate Find,โ€ which explains how island nations like the Maldives and Tuvalu are not, in fact, in danger of sinking under the seas due to climate change. This is true; a fact Climate Realism has repeatedly discussed. Atolls in particular are known to grow with rising water levels, this has been known for years if not decades.

The NYT climate reporter, Raymond Zhong, explains that as โ€œthe planet warms and the oceans rise, atoll nations like the Maldives, the Marshall Islands and Tuvalu have seemed doomed to vanish, like the mythical Atlantis, into watery oblivion.โ€

This is an exceptionally common claim from the climate alarmist media, and some of the nations themselves that are benefitting from massive aid packages and โ€œreparationsโ€ from wealthier countries; money not be used to help their people relocate from the โ€œsinkingโ€ islands, but rather to build infrastructure and boost tourism. In fact, the NYT promoted this falsehood as late as April 2024, with a story, titled, โ€œWhy Time Is Running Out Across the Maldivesโ€™ Lovely Little Islands.โ€œ

In his most recent piece Zhong writes:

โ€œOf late, though, scientists have begun telling a surprising new story about these islands. By comparing mid-20th century aerial photos with recent satellite images, theyโ€™ve been able to see how the islands have evolved over time. What they found is startling: Even though sea levels have risen, many islands havenโ€™t shrunk. Most, in fact, have been stable. Some have even grown.โ€

It is true that the islands are not sinking, but Zhong is wrong when he says this fact has only been discovered โ€œof late.โ€ His own article references a study published in 2018, which found 89 percent of islands in the Pacific and Indian Oceans increased in area or were stable, and only 11 percent showed any sign of contracting. So just three months after the NYT published an article claiming the Maldives were disappearing beneath the waves, the paper is now reversing itself based on research that existed six years before the April article was published. Since, Climate Realism has covered the claim many times, including with regard to Tuvaluan โ€œrefugees,โ€ looking at tropical storms, and examining other island refugee claims, one wonders whether the NYTโ€™s fact checkers were asleep on the job when the paper published its false story in April.

The facts about atolls growth and demise are not newly discovered. Scientists have known for decades, if not more than a hundred years, that atoll islands uniquely change with changing sea levels. Charles Darwin was the first to propose that reefs were many thousands of feet thick, and grow upwards towards the light. He was partially correct, though reality is more complicated than his theory.

In 2010, as discussed in the Climate Realism post โ€œNo, Rising Seas Are Not Swallowing Island Nations,โ€ studies found that Tuvalu and Kiribati were growing, as well as Micronesia, and some had grown dramatically. Likewise in 2015, the same group of researchers reported that 40 percent of islands in the Pacific and Indian Oceans were stable, and another 40 percent had grown.

Zhong correctly says that ocean currents and waves can cause erosion, but also โ€œbring fresh sand ashore from the surrounding coral reefs, where the remains of corals, algae, crustaceans and other organisms are constantly being crushed into new sediment.โ€

Climate at a Glance: Islands and Sea Level Rise, also confirms the fact that in Tuvalu in particular โ€“often a poster child for islands supposedly threatened by sea level riseโ€”โ€œeight of Tuvaluโ€™s nine large coral atolls have grown in size during recent decades, and 75 percent of Tuvaluโ€™s 101 smaller reef islands have increased as well.โ€

The only โ€œsurprisingโ€ discovery in this story is that the climate desk for the New York Times was allegedly not aware of these facts before now. This information is not new. It could be, of course, that the NYT neglected to report the truth about island nationsโ€™ status previously simply because it did not conform to the alarming climate narrative they have been trying to push, but as the data has gotten too strong to ignore, they were forced to admit the truth with regard to growing islands in the face of rising seas.

New Study: 1979-2013 Southern Ocean And Southeast Pacific Cooling Driven Byโ€ฆWarming?

Scientists attempt to explain why approximately one-third of the global oceanโ€™s sea surface temperatures cooled since the late 1970s.

From NoTricksZone

Byย Kenneth Richard

Scientists attempt to explain why approximately one-third of the global oceanโ€™s sea surface temperatures cooled since the late 1970s.

The 50-70ยฐS Southern Ocean and 160ยฐW to 80ยฐW southeastern Pacific cooled by about -0.35ยฐC (-0.117ยฐC per decade) from 1979-2013 (Yao et al., 2024). (The cooling also continued to 2019, but the authors chose to use 2013 as their end point.)

In the paper the scientists expend a great deal of effort to โ€œargueโ€ that warming in the North Atlantic forced 35+ years of cooling from 50 to 70ยฐS and 160ยฐW to 80ยฐW.

โ€œWe argue that North Atlantic warming is decisive for driving the observed multidecadal SST cooling of the southeastern Pacific sector.โ€

However, they simultaneously acknowledge both (a) internal variability and (b) increases in cloud cover leading to reductions in downwelling shortwave radiation can explain the cooling in this region. These would appear to be much more plausible explanations for multi-decadal cooling than the warming-forces-cooling mechanism they propose.

Image Source:ย Yao et al., 2024

A Supreme Court victory over bureaucratic overreach

Today, the Supreme Court ruled, on a crucial matter of first impression, that presidents are immune from prosecution for engaging in their official duties.

This was a welcomed decision that will put up broad guideposts to keep the three branches of government from encroaching on each other.

Formal group photograph of the Supreme Court as it was been comprised on June 30, 2022 after Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined the Court. The Justices are posed in front of red velvet drapes and arranged by seniority, with five seated and four standing. Seated from left are Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justices Samuel A. Alito and Elena Kagan. Standing from left are Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Credit: Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States

From CFACT

By Craig Rucker

Today, the Supreme Court ruled, on a crucial matter of first impression, that presidents are immune from prosecution for engaging in their official duties.

This was a welcomed decision that will put up broad guideposts to keep the three branches of government from encroaching on each other.

The Supreme Court similarly took action last Friday to ensure executive agencies stay within their constitutional lane when it overturned what has become known as the Chevron deference.  This will have broad implications for issues of climate, energy, the environment, and just about everything else.

CFACTโ€™s friends and supporters know that federal agencies such as EPA, the Department of Energy, and the Bureau of Land Management routinely far exceed their legislative mandates in pursuit of radical goals that are not supported by law.

We posted both the Supreme Court summary and the entire decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo to CFACT.org.

Loper Bright overturns Chevron v. The Natural Resources Defense Council, ending the doctrine that courts should defer to regulatorโ€™s interpretation of the law wherever ambiguities in the law exist.

For decades, this โ€œChevron deferenceโ€ has left a gaping hole in our constitutional system of checks and balances wide enough to drive a regulatory freight train through.

Loper Bright empowers courts to judge for themselves what our laws say, do not say, and what legislators actually meant when they wrote them.

The Court narrowed its decision by holding that ending the Chevron deference will apply primarily to future regulatory action rather than providing wholesale relief from past regulatory abuse.

You can also read the Courtโ€™s decision granting states at least temporary relief from EPAโ€™s plan to limit emissions such as ozone that drift across state lines.

Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost said, โ€œThis is a significant victory for statesโ€™ sovereignty and the rule of law. This plan, if implemented, would have imposed undue regulatory burdens on states โ€“ and the EPA doesnโ€™t have the power to do that.โ€

The press quoted me saying, โ€œThe Supreme Courtโ€™s 1984 Chevron v. NRDC decision set the stage for an accelerated expansion of federal regulatory power the likes of which America never experienced before. Todayโ€™s decision to overturn it is a welcomed development, though it will likely be met with hostility from those in government who feel the latitude theyโ€™ve been given to interpret vague laws as they see fit is something, like nobility, they are forever entitled to.โ€

โ€œGovernment is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem,โ€ Ronald Reagan famously said in his first inaugural address.

CFACT welcomes judicial decisions that limit government and curb the power of unelected bureaucrats to usurp the powers the Constitution expressly assigns to Congress.

Should More Scientists Offer their Service as Our Green Leaders?

PHD student Sanam Mahoozi asks whether we should all follow Mexicoโ€™s example and elect scientist leaders like former German Chancellor Angela Merkel to guide us through the climate crisis.

Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

PHD student Sanam Mahoozi asks whether we should all follow Mexicoโ€™s example and elect scientist leaders like former German Chancellor Angela Merkel to guide us through the climate crisis.

Can Scientist Leaders Help Countries Fight Climate Change More Effectively?

Sanam Mahoozi
Contributor
Jun 29, 2024,01:33pm EDT
Updated Jun 30, 2024, 02:21am EDT

In early June, Mexico made history by electing its first-ever female president, Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo, a scientist with a background in physics and advanced degrees in energy engineering.

Her victory has since sparked a discussion about whether leaders with scientific expertise can have a positive impact on pushing forward climate policies worldwide.

In the past, the combination has been a boon for environmental causes.

For example, Margaret Thatcher, the former UK Prime Minister, was a trained chemist who raised awareness about global warming in a powerful speech at the United Nations in 1989 back when a lot of people werenโ€™t taking the issue that seriously.

Then there is Angela Merkel, the former Chancellor of Germany, who with a doctorate in quantum chemistry, played a significant role in advocating for the 2015 Paris Agreement.

โ€ฆ

Letโ€™s see what Rachel Kyte, professor of practice in climate policy at the Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford said about this topic in an interview with Forbes via email.

For women, โ€œwe can look at a number of leaders who have a science background, if not climate science, who have been able to lead their countries into ambition on climate action.โ€

โ€œMargaret Thatcher and Angela Merkel come immediately to mind. They were able to ask questions of the scientists and understand its implications for action, unrelated to the ideological position of their parties,โ€ whether conservative, religious or liberal.

โ€ฆ

Letโ€™s see what Dr. Peter Gleick, member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, co-founder and Senior Fellow of the Pacific Institute said about this topic in an interview with Forbes via email.

โ€ฆRead more:ย 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sanammahoozi/2024/06/29/can-scientist-leaders-help-countries-fight-climate-change-more-effectively/

Scientific knowledge isnโ€™t an automatic guarantee of political competence. The disastrous mishandling of the Peter Ridd academic freedom case demonstrates that groups of scientists are just as prone to making bad decisions as anyone else.

Peter Riddโ€™s James Cook University โ€œDramatic Drop in Student Enrolmentโ€ โ€“ Watts Up With That?

Angela Merkel was also a political incompetent, in my opinion. She might have been a motivated advocate of green policies, but her green policies were largely responsible for Germanyโ€™s energy crisis.ย Merkelโ€™s 2011 decision to shut down Germanyโ€™s nuclear reactorsย increased Germanyโ€™s dependence on Russia.

Germanyโ€™s Energy Crisis: The Perils of Delusional Virtue Signaling โ€“ Watts Up With That?

here was plenty of warning Russia was an unreliable energy partner. President Trump tried to warn Germany about the consequences of its reckless energy policy in 2018, when Merkel was still in charge. The German diplomats laughed in Trumpโ€™s face.

Margaret Thatcher is an interesting case. While it is true Thatcher had a big hand in promoting the climate issue in the early days, in her 2002 memoir, Statecraft: Strategies for a Changing World (New York: HarperCollins), she expressed dismay at how concern about climate change had been used as an excuse to promote global tyranny, and criticised exaggerated claims of scientific certainty. It is truly sad that greens who cite Thatcher as a right wing green leader consistently fail to provide a more complete picture of her views.

โ€ฆ The doomstersโ€™ favorite subject today is climate change. This has a number of attractions for them. First, the science is extremely obscure so they cannot easily be proved wrong. Second, we all have ideas about the weather: traditionally, the English on first acquaintance talk of little else.

Third, since clearly no plan to alter climate could be considered on anything but a global scale, it provides a marvelous excuse for worldwide, supra-national socialism. All this suggests a degree of calculation. Yet perhaps that is to miss half the point. Rather, as it was said of Hamlet that there was method in his madness, so one feels that in the case of some of the gloomier alarmists there is a large amount of madness in their method.

Indeed, the lack of any sense of proportion is what characterizes many pronouncements on the matter by otherwise sensible people. Thus President Clinton on a visit to China, which poses a serious strategic challenge to the US, confided to his host, President Jiang Zemin, that his greatest concern was the prospect that โ€œyour people may get rich like our people, and instead of riding bicycles, they will drive automobiles, and the increase in greenhouse gases will make the planet more dangerous for all.โ€

It would, though, be difficult to beat for apocalyptic hyperbole former Vice President Gore. Mr Gore believes: โ€˜The cleavage in the modern world between mind and body, man and nature, has created a new kind of addiction: I believe that our civilisation is, in effect, addicted to the consumption of the earth itself.โ€™

And he warns: โ€œUnless we find a way to dramatically change our civilisation and our way of thinking about the relationship between humankind and the earth, our children will inherit a wasteland.โ€

But why pick on the Americans? Britainโ€™s then Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, has observed: โ€œThere is no greater national duty than the defense of our shoreline. But the most immediate threat to it today is the encroaching sea.โ€ Britain has found, it seems, a worthy successor to King Canute.

The fact that seasoned politicians can say such ridiculous things โ€“ and get away with it โ€“ illustrates the degree to which the new dogma about climate change has swept through the left-of-centre governing classesโ€ฆ.Read more:ย 

https://www.amazon.com/Statecraft-Strategies-Changing-Margaret-Thatcher/dp/0060199733ย (pp. 449โ€“50)

The Forbes author also quotes our old friend Peter Gleick as an authority, which is pure comedy. Gleick was forced to resign as chair of the AGU scientific ethics committee, after he was outed for using a social engineering computer hacker trick, impersonating the identity of a real Heartland Institute officer, to obtain unauthorised access to internal documents. To add to the mess, Gleick included a fake document with the leaked stolen documents, which he claimed was forwarded to him by an โ€œanonymous sourceโ€.

In the original leak, Gleick did not clearly differentiate the fake โ€œanonymous sourceโ€ document from the real documents he stole from Heartland.

Unbelievably, Gleick is still a member of the US National Academy of Sciences โ€“ which in my opinion begs the question of what level of immorality or depravity is required to get someone ejected from that organisation.

I donโ€™t know what kind of Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo will make. But having a background as a scientist offers no reassurance that she will be a competent leader. The signs in my opinion are ominous โ€“ in 2019, while serving as leader of Mexico City, Claudia introduced a raft of radical green policies. If Claudia turns out to be another green policy obsessive like Angela Merkel, Mexico could be about to experience some German style energy price pain.