02/06/2025 – Climate- Science.press

Oceans Inhale and Exhale Carbon Dioxide, Since Forever

It could be that all the extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere – the steady increase year on year, reported since 1958, despite all the airplanes grounded through covid it kept on increasing – is a consequence of the oceans breathing out a bit more, and nothing to do with you and me.

From Jennifer Marohasy

By jennifer

The amount of carbon sequestered in the oceans was meant to increase with the apparently significant increase in atmospheric levels because of industrialisation, except that observations, actual measurements, suggest that there has been no long-term increase. The oceans might be breathing carbon dioxide in, and out, to their own rhythm that has nothing to do with you and me – or all the windfarms.

It could be that mankind is irrelevant to the cycles of ocean warming, that dictates atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide.

The Earth’s oceans contain somewhere in the vicinity of 50 times more carbon than the atmosphere. The global carbon ocean reservoir is about 38,000 gigatons of carbon, while the atmosphere contains only 730 gigatons. In the atmosphere carbon is present as carbon dioxide, which is just 0.04% of the atmosphere by dry weight.

Carbon dioxide is a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, and there is constant exchange of carbon dioxide between the atmosphere and the ocean. This exchange has been described as inhale and exhale, since forever.

The ocean takes up carbon dioxide through photosynthesis by phytoplankton, as well as by simple dissolution, that is carbon dioxide dissolves in water. Carbon dioxide reacts with seawater, creating carbonic acid (H2CO3). Carbonic acid releases hydrogen ions, which combine with carbonate in seawater to form bicarbonate (HCO3-).

The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the oceans varies with latitude. At high latitudes/towards the poles the ocean will absorb/store more carbon dioxide and more easily, because of the lower temperatures.

An overall increase in ocean temperatures, especially at the poles where they vary according to long cycles, could mean more exhaling relative to inhaling of carbon dioxide, over the year over the Earth. That is not what the dominant paradigm has theorised. But it is what the measurements show.

Ocean temperatures also vary seasonally. Concentrations of bicarbonate peak in surface seawaters in April at the latitude of Hawaii, which is also the time of year when atmospheric carbon dioxide is highest as measured at Mauna Loa. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide vary seasonally, as does the sea surface temperature, at the latitude of Hawaii, which is the main site for monitoring global change in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide.

I will be discussing all of this with Sydney University Professor Ivan Kenney on 25^th February, by Zoom. There will be just 100 places if you want to be a part of this discussion, so make sure you are registered for my Mail chimp specifically tick the box ‘New Theory of Climate’ here: https://jennifermarohasy.com/subscribe/

This zoom is part 2 of a discussion I began with Bill Kininmonth last year, more information about that here,

Oceans Warm Atmosphere with Meteorologist William Kininmonth – Audio and Summaries – Jennifer Marohasy

Ivan Kennedy is an emeritus professor in the School of Life and Environmental Sciences at the University of Sydney. His 2023 research paper – entitled ‘The Seasonal Keeling Oscillation in Atmospheric pC02 is Caused by Variation in Seawater Surface Temperature’ published in the journal Examines in Marine Biology and Oceanography – will be distributed to those who register for the zoom a few days before the discussion.

Seasonal variability in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide and long-term trends will be the focus of this discussion with Ivan planned for Tuesday 25^th February at noon Brisbane time (Australian Eastern Standard Time, AEST – an hour later in Sydney because of daylight saving and the day before in Texas because of datelines etc.). The link will be in the Mailchimp, for those subscribed to ‘New Theory of Climate’, and I will send it out next Tuesday. That is the plan.

Trump’s Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement Won’t Hurt the Climate

President Donald Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement. Cue the leftwing meltdown.

Though everyone knew the withdrawal was coming, the left and the “international community” are still decrying America’s alleged abdication of leadership on climate.

From Watts Up With That?

By Chris Johnson

President Donald Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement. Cue the leftwing meltdown.

Though everyone knew the withdrawal was coming, the left and the “international community” are still decrying America’s alleged abdication of leadership on climate.

But toothless agreements window dressed with international summits and photo ops are not the same as leadership. The truth is America has led the world in reducing emissions for years not because of the Paris Agreement, but because innovation and the free market facilitate the deployment of cheaper and cleaner energy.

Let’s review the record.

In recent decades, America has achieved unprecedented — and unexpected — energy production thanks to fracking and horizontal drilling. Since the early 2000s when these twin technologies began to be deployed much more expansively, U.S. natural gas production has more than doubled. By 2016, hydraulically fractured gas wells accessed through horizontal drilling accounted for nearly 70% of all oil and natural gas wells.

While the left may clutch its pearls at the increased production of a fossil fuel like natural gas, this clean energy source has been a main driver of U.S. emissions reductions.

Over the past 15 years when America has massively increased natural gas output, the U.S. reduced carbon emissions more than any other country. We can see this year by year.

For example, from 2022 to 2023, America offset dirtier coal energy generation with natural gas. As coal declined by 121.9 terawatt hours of electric generation over that time, natural gas increased by 118.9 terawatt hours. At the same time, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions declined 1.9%. Notably, 80% of the U.S. carbon emissions reductions were driven by the electric power sector — precisely where natural gas has an outsized impact.

Notice what didn’t cause those emissions reductions? The Paris Agreement. The American energy sector — powered by innovation and good-old-fashioned free market economics — has been driving down carbon emissions cheaply and effectively before the Paris Agreement was a twinkle in climate activists’ eyes. And it will continue to reduce carbon emissions long after President Trump’s decision to withdraw.

The Paris Agreement is far from the panacea some activists claim it is. It isn’t even a particularly effective tool to rally nations toward greater climate success. In the middle of the allegedly climate-conscious Biden administration, none of the world’s biggest emitters — America included — had reduced their emissions in accordance with the Paris goals. Apparently, the $1 trillion regulatory and subsidy regime erected by President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act had little bang for the buck. What Agreement supporters forget is that no number of high-profile international accords can make command-control tactics work — or instill other nations with the ambition to fulfill their empty promises.

The Paris Agreement is the definition of bureaucratic failure, conflating meetings, busyness, and lofty goals as success. Its only achievement is to make climate ideologues and green jetsetters feel good about themselves as they fly to international conferences.

It’s no wonder President Trump withdrew. Talk is cheap. What matters is success. On that metric, the Trump administration is set to actually achieve what Paris Agreement signatories only write on paper.

Trump entered office promising to deregulate the fossil fuel industry, increase permitting for natural gas extraction, approve the construction of energy facilities like natural gas export terminals, and re-establish American energy dominance.

By leaning into America’s carbon advantage and exporting clean American energy abroad, he will boost the U.S. economy, supplant dirty energy from nations like Russia and Venezuela with a clean American alternative, and lower emissions both at home and abroad, all without the jaw-dropping price tag of the failed Biden-era green agenda. We should combine these steps with efforts to actually hold the biggest polluters accountable (which are being discussed by President Trump’s cabinet). This approach would be the antithesis of the Paris Accords’ America-last strategy.

Of course, some are urging President Trump to go further and not just withdraw from the Paris Agreement but also back out of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This may seem like an easy choice, seeing as the UNFCCC, like so many UN bodies, acts contrary to American interests. But that’s exactly why America must remain in the UNFCCC.

Climate treaties will be formed whether or not the U.S. is involved, and the UNFCCC will continue to operate as a forum for those negotiations. Staying in the UNFCCC costs America nothing while allowing Trump and his appointees to keep a seat at the table, hold the UN accountable, and counter any deal that would put America at a disadvantage. While the UNFCCC can be harmful, it’s only the Paris Agreement that’s impotent.

The breathless alarm over the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement is overwrought. When President Trump withdrew from the Paris Climate Accord during his first administration, America went on to cut carbon emissions to the lowest level in 25 years. Re-embracing the power of natural gas in his second term, he’ll do it again.

So instead of the UN and international climate activists judging the U.S., we should remind everyone that if you want to put climate first, you should actually put America first.

Chris Johnson is a GOP strategist who organizes the next generation of conservative leaders. He also serves as a senior advisor to the National Federation of College Republicans, focusing on energy issues.

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.

NGO’s emerge as The Shadow Government

Hands up who is still reeling with the news that USAID had 50 thousand million dollars of political and media influence? The annual budget of $50 billion dollars in the hands of unaccountable activist NGOs buys a lot of “journalists”, editors and teenage protestors. Suddenly a lot of odd repeated patterns around the world make more sense.

From JoNova

By Jo Nova

It turns out the Non-Government Organizations were really The Government

The word for that is GONGO — a government organised non-government organization — at once, an impossible thing and also a tautology.

Today we found out that news outlets like Politico, and the New York Times were being given millions of dollars from the US government.

Benny Johnson says:

This is the biggest scandal in news media history: No employee at Politico got paid yesterday. First time ever the company missed a pay period. This is a crisis. Now we learn Politico — a “news company” — which spent the last 10 years trying to destroy the MAGA Movement was being massively funded by USAID.

It seems some $27 million dollars went to Politico during the Biden years — and that’s just the subscriptions (not the USAID). Truly, Politico charges as much as $10,000 for a single “Politico Pro” subscription — and so the taxpayers fork out big bucks to pay for politicians “work expenses”, and the money ends up covering the salaries of journalists who are working hard to deceive the hapless taxpayers.

As ZeroHedge reminds us, Politico went in hard in the 2020 election to cover for the Hunter Biden laptop from hell.

They also point out that the Blob has many other ways to keep newspapers toeing the line…

It’s not just the subscriptions: there are huge “ad contracts”, dinner parties DC throws itself under the guise of “media conferences”, sponsorships, etc. all paid for by taxpayers. Once done with Politico look at its spawn Axios, founded by Politico veterans

Hypernormalisation. pic.twitter.com/Dh5Vg4wtnd

— rick.h (@rickyhewitt_dev) February 5, 2025

Schadenfreude at Its Finest: Climate Grifters Cry Over Trump’s Grant Freeze

From Watts Up With That?

By Charles Rotter

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-02-04/-it-s-surreal-trump-s-freeze-on-climate-money-sows-fear-and-confusion

Oh, the humanity! The wine and cheese set over at Bloomberg has been thrown into full-blown hysteria because—brace yourselves—President Trump turned off the spigot of taxpayer cash that funds their sacred climate cult. Their headline reads like a lost script from The Handmaid’s Tale: “It’s Surreal: Trump’s Freeze on Climate Money Sows Fear and Confusion”.

“Surreal”? What’s surreal is that these people think they have some divine right to an endless fountain of taxpayer money to fund their political activism disguised as “science.” Imagine a world where these people actually had to produce something of value rather than leech off the federal government. Terrifying, right?

A “Crisis” for the Climate Industrial Complex

Let’s set the scene: Trump waltzes back into office and, in a move that should have shocked exactly no one, hits the brakes on the Biden-era climate boondoggles like the Inflation Reduction Act (which, ironically, reduced inflation about as effectively as a gasoline shower puts out a fire). Millions of dollars in grants—aka your hard-earned money—suddenly vanish from the pockets of climate non-profits, academics, and other assorted grifters who had built their entire existence around government handouts.

Bloomberg describes this as “confusion and panic.” Oh no! You mean these self-proclaimed geniuses who claim they can control the global temperature to within a fraction of a degree 100 years from now couldn’t foresee a Trump policy move that was as predictable as the sunrise? Not so bright after all, are they?

The World’s Saddest Sob Stories

The article parades out a cast of characters who are struggling to cope with the horrors of not being able to suckle at the federal teat. Let’s meet a few:

Alex Bomstein of the Clean Air Council, a nonprofit that apparently exists to ensure perpetual panic over air quality. He whines that his organization has been given “mixed messaging” about whether their taxpayer-funded cash flow is actually getting turned off. Imagine the horror of having to operate like a normal business, unsure if revenue will be guaranteed forever.
Dominika Parry, CEO of 2C Mississippi, is devastated that her $gazillion climate grant might not materialize as expected. Because when you think “Mississippi,” your first concern is clearly whether its climate nonprofit sector is fully funded.
David Funk, the president of an “energy consulting firm” in Washington state, had to furlough employees because the Department of Agriculture wouldn’t give him free money. Perhaps he could explore this new concept called “selling a service people want to pay for.”
Laurence Smith, a professor at Brown University, says a postdoc under him couldn’t access her salary. Let’s see if we’ve got this right: A researcher who relies entirely on government grants now finds herself in financial limbo because… the government stopped the grants? Almost like relying on endless taxpayer money is a bad career plan.

The Real Tragedy: Elites Losing Control

The real source of Bloomberg’s outrage isn’t about “science” or “the planet.” It’s that Trump is threatening the power structure these people have built. This isn’t about climate change—it’s about ensuring a permanent class of bureaucrats, nonprofits, and academics who depend on government cash to enforce their political will.

The article even admits that part of the panic is over how to “navigate grant-proposal language around climate change and DEI” since references to “environmental justice” might no longer win them easy government money. They’re terrified that the political winds have shifted, and they’ll have to find new ways to trick bureaucrats into handing over cash.

Trump’s Masterstroke: Freezing the Cash Flow

The reason this move is so effective is that the left built their entire movement on financial dependency. They need government money. By contrast, Trump and his supporters don’t need a federal grant to believe in their ideas. When Trump shuts off the money hose, the left panics because they realize their institutions can’t survive without it.

Bloomberg’s solution? More lawsuits! Because if democracy doesn’t give them what they want, there’s always the judiciary.

Conclusion: Glorious, Delicious Tears

This article is a masterpiece of unintended comedy. It’s a beautiful thing to watch people who have spent years lecturing the rest of us about “sustainability” suddenly find themselves unsustainable. The whole climate industry, it turns out, is just another bloated government-dependent bureaucracy. Without government cash, they’re toast.

Environmental researchers are still trying to figure out how to navigate grant-proposal language around climate change and DEI in light of the executive orders. Applications that previously would have benefitted from a focus on helping disadvantaged communities, environmental justice or inclusivity — seen as demonstrating broad impact — suddenly could be undermined by the same references.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-02-04/-it-s-surreal-trump-s-freeze-on-climate-money-sows-fear-and-confusion

So grab some popcorn, folks. The schadenfreude is strong with this one.

Professor Stefan Rahmstorf And Thermodynamics

The scientist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) is an oceanologist and studied physics before his specialist training. He is therefore familiar with thermodynamics and its 2nd law, which states that with every change of state, the “disorder” increases, also known as entropy. This is reflected in warming. Growing entropy is a basic characteristic of our universe; without investing work, everything tends towards disorder.

From NoTrickZone

By P Gosselin

By Frank Bosse

KlimaNachrichten
(Translated, edited by P. Gosselin)

You are probably familiar with this phenomenon. Growing entropy also prevents perpetual motion machines; every working machine also generates friction and thus heat and inevitably a loss of useful energy. So what does all this have to do with Stefan Rahmstorf?

He published the following post on Twitter (now X) on January 14, 2025:

[In English: “Nuclear energy, whether from fusion or fission, has the problem of waste heat, just like fossil fuel energy. It is still small compared to CO2, but it will soon become a relevant warming problem with the growing energy demand by mankind.”]

In his tweet, he complains that nuclear energy generates waste heat and would therefore represent a further relevant problem for our planet, which is warming up due to greenhouse gases.

An astute reader will remember that astrophysicist Professor Harald Lesch also advocated precisely this thesis, even in a lecture to teachers(!). He failed as well to take into account that all converted energy (whether from wind, sun or thermal) ultimately leads to an increase in entropy, i.e. to heat. It all depends on the order of magnitude.

If humanity produces energy by burning carbon (which leads to the production of the “greenhouse” gas CO2), the problem is orders of magnitude higher. It reduces the escape of heat by radiation into space and accumulates its effect in the atmosphere, waste heat does not. This has long been known from the scientific literature.

What was the share of low-CO2 electricity of total consumption in Germany in January 2025?

How much of the total consumption was carbon combustion, the “rest” in the chart? Unfortunately, the average for the month was 61%, or just 39% low-carbon electricity. It fluctuated between an outstanding 9% and a completely inadequate 93% if you analyze the hourly data from “Agora Energiewende”.

In Germany, 90 GW of solar power and 69 GW of low-CO2 wind power have been installed; only around half of the total renewable capacity would have been utilized if the “installed capacity” had also been available.

In reality, however, photovoltaics contributed on average only 2% to total consumption, wind 29%, fluctuating widely between 1.7 and 67%. Renewable energies alone are therefore not really suitable for solving the CO2 emissions problem. The weather at around 50° north latitude is too changeable for this. That would be the logical conclusion of “climate enthusiasts” such as Professors Stefan Rahmstorf and Harald Lesch.

And why then completely counter-physical pretexts against the likewise low-CO2 generation of electricity by nuclear power, regardless of the weather? We don’t know. We only know that they are talking nonsense in order to oppose low-CO2 technologies, which were also recommended by the “Climate Council” IPCC, 6th Assessment Report, Working Group III as a necessary supplement for renewable energies.

Doubters of the greenhouse effect are sometimes rightly accused of denying the climate problem. But what are Rahmstorf, Lesch and Co. doing when they reject everything except green energies, which alone are probably only very inadequately capable of solving the climate problem (as shown in January 2025), by swearing about physics?

They are very effectively obstructing the solution to the problem. In the end, it makes little difference to the outcome whether you don’t want to see the challenge or only accept it inadequately with the help of bogus arguments.

Ebb Tide in Texan Oilfields

To recap, peak oil was supposed to happen in 2005. Then the tight oil boom started and the civilisational party went on for another 20 years. That boom began in North Dakota but reached its full flower in the Permian Basin of Texas. One county in Texas though suggests the party is over.

From Watts Up With That?

David Archibald

Figure 1: Howard County Oil and Gas Production

Gas production is converted to its energy equivalent in barrels of oil at the rate of 6,000 cubic feet of gas per barrel of oil. Production peaked 18 months ago in July 2023.

Meanwhile Texas’ total oil production continued to rise:

Figure 2: The 11 largest oil-producing counties in Texas and total production in Texas

The explanation for Howard County’s departure from the pack is found in the following graph of the evolution in the ratio of gas production to oil production. To have such an abrupt change of trend, from a meandering rise changing to a straight-line decline in oil production accompanied by a blowout in the gas to oil ratio means that there is an underlying process that is happening county-wide:

Figure 3: Howard County Gas/Oil Ratio 2010 – 2024

In these tight oil fields, the pressure that drives oil out of the ground comes from thermal cracking of longer chain hydrocarbons. Because of the lack of permeability, the oil generated is trapped in the rock at higher than hydrostatic pressure. Some methane is also produced and is in solution in the oil. After being drilled and fracked and brought into production, the pressure in the reservoir starts falling and at some stage falls below the bubble point at which gas comes out of solution and forms bubbles. The tiny bubbles of methane are slipperier than oil and so travel through the rock faster. In turn this means that gas is produced preferentially to oil and the pressure decline in the reservoir accelerates in a positive feedback loop.

It seems that the bubble point in Howard County was reached in July 2023. Since that break of trend, Howard County’s oil production rate has been declining 150,000 barrels per day or 40% per annum:

Figure 4: Howard County Daily Oil and Gas Production

Howard County’s oil production tipped over into decline 18 months ago while gas production went sideways. Gas production is now also declining rapidly.

The relationship seen between the gas/oil ratio and production trend in Howard County also holds for some of Texas’ other major producing counties. The methodology can also used as a predictive tool, starting with Midland County.

Figure 5: Midland County Gas/Oil Ratio 2010 – 2024

While not as definitive as Howard County, the gas/oil ratio in Midland County has broken its lower bound.

Figure 6: Midland County Oil and Gas production 2010 – 2024

Midland County’s oil and gas production profiles have diverged whereas in Howard County oil production fell as gas production went sideways.

Figure 7: Midland County Daily Oil Production 2010 – 2024

Howard County’s production decline for the last 12 months has been 40% or 151,000 barrels per day. Applying a decline of 30% per annum to Midland County’s production profile results in a production decline of 185,000 barrels per day over the next 12 months.

Figure 8: Martin County Gas/Oil Ratio 2010 – 2024

Martin County is the second largest oil-producing county in Texas after Midland. This chart of Martin County’s gas/oil ratio shows a clear break of uptrend.

Figure 9: Martin County Oil and Gas Production 2010 – 2024

As is seen in Midland County profile, gas production has diverged from oil production with gas production increasing due to a high gas/oil ratio despite falling oil production.

Figure 10: Martin County Oil Production 2010 – 2024

Now that Martin County’s oil production has tipped over into decline and applying a annual decline rate of 30%, production is projected to decline 190,000 barrels per day over the next 12 months.

Summary

President Trump has undertaken to increase US oil production by three million barrels per day. That is a heroic undertaking given that he is facing a headwind of a half million barrel per day decline from three counties in Texas alone.

My advice to the President is to start talking about a plutonium breeder reactor rollout combined with synthetic fuel production by applying the Bergius process to the country’s coal reserves. Energy for the electrolysis to produce the necessary hydrogen for the Bergius plants would come from the nuclear reactors. Everyone would be happy in that there would be nuclear, hydrogen and coal all in the one solution.

The President’s pick for Energy Secretary, Chris Wright, is particularly promising in that he is invested in a plutonium breeder reactor startup called Oklo. This suggests that he has a complete understanding of what is needed.

David Archibald is the author of The Anticancer Garden in Australia.

First Hydrogen CfDs Awarded

The first three CfDs have been announced for the Hydrogen Allocation Round 1.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

https://register.lowcarboncontracts.uk/?search=hydrogen

The first three CfDs have been announced for the Hydrogen Allocation Round 1.

All prices are at 2022 prices, so at current prices they range from £213 to £242/MWh. As with other CfDs, the hydrogen producers will be given a guaranteed, index linked price.

But on top of that is the cost of transporting the hydrogen to where it can be used or stored. The LCCC give an estimated cost for this – at Cromarty, for instance, it is £24.37/MWh.

So in total, the total cost of hydrogen will be up to £266/MWh. In comparison the wholesale price of natural gas is around £34/MWh.

It is expected that the cost of this subsidy will be added to gas bills.

Hydrogen Allocation Round 1 offered contracts to eleven producers, with a total capacity of 125 MW, and output of around 500 GWh a year, just 0.07% of the UK’s total gas consumption.

The subsidy varies relative to changes in the market price of gas, but at current levels would amount to around £120 million a year.

The three have 31.8 MW capacity

Null and void?

Laws in every state govern wills and the transfer of estates and property upon a testator’s death. For example, Virginia statutes provide that “any individual may make a will,” except testators who are unemancipated minors or “of unsound mind.”

From CFACT

By Paul Driessen

Unsound mind generally means not having mastery of one’s mental faculties, which could include being enfeebled enough that the testator is easily subject to improper influence by others, especially someone who would benefit from provisions of the will.

Virginia law considers someone to be of unsound mind if his or her cognitive capacity is totally impaired, meaning the person is incapable of acting rationally or understanding conversations, instructions or decisions. In other jurisdictions, impairment may not have to be “total.” Wills executed by such persons are rendered invalid, null and void.

How might these guidelines apply in other circumstances – decisions by President Biden, for instance?

Joe Biden’s declining mental and physical capabilities were apparent to many even before his election and inauguration. His Delaware basement campaign, to avoid awkward encounters with reporters and citizens, raised many questions. During his presidency, family, White House staff, legacy media, Democrats in Congress and others worked hard to hide, obfuscate, defend and excuse his infirmities, even as they became harder to deny.

Millions wondered just when President Biden became cognitively incapable of leading the United States and Free World. His inability became so obvious during the June 2024 Biden-Trump debate that Democrat Party leaders pushed the 46th president out of the race. But what about before that?

An article published shortly before President Trump’s 2025 inauguration revealed that House Speaker Mike Johnson knew Mr. Biden was no longer “in charge” of the White House, presidency or country long before his cognitive incapacities were finally acknowledged by those whose jobs, prestige or political agendas depended on him being “the best Biden ever.”

During a January 2024 Oval Office meeting with President Biden, the Speaker particularly wanted to discuss a Biden Executive Order that blocked liquefied natural gas exports to Europe. Russia’s war with Ukraine, the likelihood of renewed European dependence on Russian gas if US LNG exports were terminated, and the extent that would enrich Putin’s war machine made this a serious national security issue. Johnson wanted to know WHY Biden had signed the EO just weeks earlier.

“I didn’t do that,” Biden insisted. But in fact, he had.

Johnson suggested that Biden’s staff print the EO, so that the two of them could read it together. Biden finally, but vaguely, acknowledged signing the order. But as PJ Media columnist Matt Margolis noted, it soon “became evident that the President had no grasp” of actually having signed the EO, or of the implications of having done so.

“I thought, we’re in serious trouble. Who is running the country?” Margolis quoted Johnson. “I don’t know who put the paper in front of him, but he didn’t know,” either, Johnson added.

“This exchange underscores a chilling reality,” Margolis wrote. We had a president who not only was “struggling to remember critical decisions” but was also “unable to engage fully in high-stakes discussions with national security implications.” Biden was clearly “not fully in charge.”

When did that incapacity actually set in? And what does that imply for dozens, perhaps hundreds, of executive actions, regulatory sign-offs and presidential signatures enacting legislation into law?

Are they still valid? Or have some (or many) been rendered null and void, because President Biden was no longer in control of his mental faculties? Or because he was enfeebled enough that he was subject to improper influence by staffers who were pursuing agendas even more radical than the president would have agreed to, had he actually been “in charge,” including staffers who might benefit from certain presidential decisions?

Executive Orders can be reversed by EOs signed by a successor president. President Trump did that with a flurry of signatures during his first week in office. Formal rulemakings must go through a more lengthy and thorough process but can still be undone or rewritten by another administration.

That will certainly be the case with the Obama EPA’s “Endangerment Finding,” declaring that plant-fertilizing, planetary-life-giving carbon dioxide “endangers human health and welfare.”

However, the Biden Administration promulgated 3,248 final rules and regulations – a record 107,262 Federal Register pages. They reflect President Biden’s determination to exert federal control over nearly every aspect of climate change, “equity and social justice,” economic and environmental issues, and our daily lives – including “efficiency” rules for cars, stoves, dishwashers, furnaces and water heaters.

Many of these rulemakings will undoubtedly be examined and reversed under the Congressional Review Act. Others will fall outside its purview and require more than Trump Executive Orders.

And what about Biden’s pardons, many of them murderers and hardened criminals; others convicted offenders like his son; still others people who haven’t yet been charged or convicted of crimes but were given preemptive pardons, in case prosecutors later decide no one should be above the law?

Still more complicated will be legislation, such as the multi-trillion-dollar, pork-laden, Green-New-Deal-subsidizing Inflation Reduction Act, the $1-trillion infrastructure law, the Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors (CHIPS) and Science Act, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and many others signed by Mr. Biden.

If they merit revision or recission, must Congress and President Trump go through an entire legislative process – and overcome almost certain Democrat “resistance” – to change or cancel them?

Or do some of these Biden Era laws (and regulations and pardons) fall within the parameters of a wills and estates “unsound mind” analog? If so, at what point was President Biden too cognitively impaired to know what he was agreeing to or signing? Who makes that determination, and on what basis?

It’s definitely a case of first impression, and the outcomes are far from easy, ensured or predictable. But it’s also another way for President Trump and Republicans to reexamine extreme Biden Era decisions.

I went to law school, was licensed in two states, practiced mostly legislative and regulatory law, even wrote a couple of Supreme Court briefs. But mostly I’ve been a policy wonk – pondering, developing, promoting, opposing, and implementing or rejecting public policies.

The Biden cognitive issue reminds me of humorist Will Rogers’ answer to the threat of World War I German U-boats that were savaging Allied shipping. Rogers proposed that the US Navy “heat the Atlantic Ocean to the boiling point. Then, when the ocean gets too hot for them German subs to stay underwater, they’ll have to come to the surface” and we can “pick ‘em off one by one.”

Of course, he averred, some admirals were likely to ask how they were supposed to boil the ocean. Rogers had an answer. “I leave that to the technicians. Myself, I’m a policy man.”

Like Will Rogers, I’m just presenting policy ideas. It’s up to President Trump, Congress, courts and neuropsychologists to figure out how to implement them.

Whales and Offshore Wind: Trump Time (Wojick has built a case)

The all-of-government approach to climate by Podesta-Biden-Harris covers the science agencies too. Climate hype, all the time, as well as nonstop cheerleading toward politically correct, economically incorrect government-enabled energies. It is now time for reversal, including with environmental issues concerning dilute, intermittent, fragile, and invasive wind and solar.

From Master Resource

By Robert Bradley Jr.

“Many of these 41 CFACT articles were sent to key NOAA whale protection people when published over a period of 2.5 years. All have been carefully ignored, an ongoing deception. Trump has promised action.” ( – David Wojick, CFACT)

David Wojick, Ph.D., senior advisor to the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), [1] has chronicled the whale death/offshore wind connection since the issue arose in mid-2022. His “New Year’s retrospective” provides a listing of this work. He begins:

Many of these 41 CFACT articles were sent to key NOAA whale protection people when published over a period of 2.5 years. All have been carefully ignored, an ongoing deception. Trump has promised action.

——————————-

1. Capping marine mammal harassment constrains offshore wind

https://www.cfact.org/2024/12/09/capping-marine-mamma-harassment-constrains-offshore-wind

2. The California offshore wind environmental impact statement is full of holes

https://www.cfact.org/2024/12/02/the-california-offshore-wind-environmental-impact-statement-is-full-of-holes

3. Feds must rethink authorizing harassment of whales by offshore wind

https://www.cfact.org/2024/08/14/feds-must-rethink-authorizing-harassment-of-whales-by-offshore-wind

4. Offshore wind whale deaths indicated by statistical analysis

https://www.cfact.org/2024/07/22/offshore-wind-serial-whale-deaths-indicated-by-statistical-analysis

5. Feds say “damn the whales” in the Gulf of Maine

https://www.cfact.org/2024/07/01/feds-say-damn-the-whales-in-the-gulf-of-maine

6. Freedom advocates are the Right Whale’s best hope

https://www.cfact.org/2024/06/03/freedom-advocates-are-the-right-whales-best-hope

7. Offshore wind cumulative impact issue analysis

https://www.cfact.org/2024/05/13/offshore-wind-cumulative-impact-issue-analysis

8. Boston Globe’s whale protection contradiction

https://www.cfact.org/2024/04/02/boston-globes-whale-protection-contradiction

9. Dominion Energy’s absurd reply to CFACT’s whale protection lawsuit

https://www.cfact.org/2024/03/26/dominion-energys-absurd-reply-to-cfacts-whale-protection-lawsuit

10. CFACT calls for banning offshore wind monopiles in favor of suction buckets to save whales

https://www.cfact.org/2024/03/11/cfact-calls-for-banning-offshore-wind-monopiles-in-favor-of-suction-buckets-to-save-whales

11. CFACT blasts offshore wind multiple-site assessment as ridiculous

https://www.cfact.org/2024/03/06/cfact-blasts-offshore-wind-multiple-site-assessment-as-ridiculous

12. CFACT says offshore wind violates Clean Air and Clean Water Acts

https://www.cfact.org/2024/03/04/cfact-says-offshore-wind-threatens-air-and-water-quality

13. Offshore wind has a big up and down week

https://www.cfact.org/2024/02/01/offshore-wind-has-a-big-up-and-down-week

14. Fed’s first multi-site offshore wind EIS is ridiculous

https://www.cfact.org/2024/01/16/feds-first-multi-site-offshore-wind-eis-is-ridiculous

15. NAS study raises concern over offshore wind harming endangered whales

https://www.cfact.org/2023/12/01/nas-study-raises-concern-over-offshore-wind-harming-endangered-whales

16. Offshore wind is systematically violating the Marine Mammal Protection Act

https://www.cfact.org/2023/09/28/offshore-wind-is-systematically-violating-the-marine-mammal-protection-act

17. A tale of two whale protection groups

https://www.cfact.org/2023/09/18/a-tale-of-two-whale-protection-groups

18. Offshore wind a greater threat to whales than oil

https://www.cfact.org/2023/08/07/offshore-wind-a-greater-threat-to-whales-than-oil

19. The whale killing study the Feds are afraid to do

https://www.cfact.org/2023/07/11/the-whale-killing-study-the-feds-are-afraid-to-do

20. NOAA proposes massively cruel offshore sonar survey

https://www.cfact.org/2023/06/05/noaa-proposes-massively-cruel-offshore-sonar-survey

21. Feds play shell game with wind / whale impacts

https://www.cfact.org/2023/05/23/feds-play-shell-game-with-wind-whale-impacts

22. Feds admit offshore wind can kill whales!

https://www.cfact.org/2023/04/27/feds-admit-offshore-wind-can-kill-whales

23. NOAA proposes hammering 208% of vanishing Right Whales

https://www.cfact.org/2023/04/24/noaa-proposes-hammering-208-of-vanishing-right-whales

24. Ignoring dead whales, NOAA proposes another site survey off New Jersey

https://www.cfact.org/2023/04/05/ignoring-dead-whales-noaa-proposes-another-site-survey-off-new-jersey

25. Proposed House Resolution calls for offshore wind moratorium

https://www.cfact.org/2023/03/31/proposed-house-resolution-calls-for-offshore-wind-moratorium

26. Whale death confusion abounds and some is deliberate

https://www.cfact.org/2023/03/10/whale-death-confusion-abounds-and-some-is-deliberate

27. Offshore wind impact probe proposed

https://www.cfact.org/2023/02/20/offshore-wind-impact-probe-proposed

28. Whale hell looms in Massachusetts

https://www.cfact.org/2023/02/16/whale-hell-looms-in-massachusetts

29. Feds push ignorance defense for whale killing by offshore wind development

https://www.cfact.org/2023/01/30/feds-push-ignorance-defense-for-whale-killing-by-offshore-wind-development

30. Evidence says offshore wind development is killing lots of whales

https://www.cfact.org/2023/01/23/evidence-says-offshore-wind-development-is-killing-lots-of-whales

31. The silly giant scale of US offshore wind development

https://www.cfact.org/2023/01/07/the-silly-giant-scale-of-us-offshore-wind-development

32. Ten whale groups slam Atlantic OSW

https://www.cfact.org/2022/12/21/ten-whale-groups-slam-atlantic-osw

33. Official Coalition Comments on BOEM right whale offshore wind strategy

https://www.cfact.org/2022/12/05/official-coalition-comments-on-boem-right-whale-offshore-wind-strategy

34. Dominion’s silly denial of the great threat to whales

https://www.cfact.org/2022/10/22/dominions-silly-denial-of-the-great-threat-to-whales

35. NOAA says Right Whales are “desperately endangered”

https://www.cfact.org/2022/10/18/noaa-says-right-whales-are-desperately-endangered

36. How to kill whales with offshore wind

https://www.cfact.org/2022/09/27/how-to-kill-whales-with-offshore-wind

37. Wishes and secrets fill Dominion’s offshore wind Plan

https://www.cfact.org/2022/09/21/wishes-and-secrets-fill-dominions-offshore-wind-plan

38. Dominion hides OSW threat to whales

https://www.cfact.org/2022/09/15/dominion-hides-osw-threat-to-whales

39. Threat to endangered whales gets LOUDER

https://www.cfact.org/2022/07/26/threat-to-endangered-whales-gets-louder

40. Are the Feds hiding the Virginia endangered whales?

https://www.cfact.org/2022/07/22/are-the-feds-hiding-the-virginia-endangered-whales

41. Virginia’s offshore wind proposal threatens endangered whales

https://www.cfact.org/2022/07/13/virginias-offshore-wind-proposal-threatens-endangered-whales

[1] David Wojick, independent consultant and senior advisor to CFACT, is a civil engineer with a Ph.D. in logic and analytic philosophy of science. He specializes in science and technology issues in energy and the environment. Wojick has served on the faculty of Carnegie Mellon University and the staﬀ of the Naval Research Laboratory. Many of his articles for think tanks, trade associations, businesses, and government agencies can be found here.

The “Collapsing Gulf Stream” Scare is Back—Again

Ah, the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) collapse—our old friend. Like a horror movie franchise that refuses to die, the idea that the Gulf Stream is about to shut down and plunge Europe into an icy apocalypse has returned. This time, the BBC is breathlessly warning that “the chance of it happening is growing”. But before you start knitting survivalist-grade wool socks, let’s take a moment to review how many times we’ve heard this story before—and why it never seems to pan out.

From Watts Up With That?

By Charles Rotter

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn938ze4yyeo

A Climate Catastrophe… Someday, Maybe, Possibly

According to the BBC, AMOC is supposedly “getting weaker,” but they immediately admit that direct measurements have only been taken since 2004—meaning we have barely two decades of actual data. Now, call me old-fashioned, but when you’re talking about an ocean system that has been operating for millions of years, 20 years of data is like trying to predict a person’s entire life based on a single Tuesday morning.

And what’s their big evidence? Ocean floor sediments and a “cold blob” in the Atlantic. That’s right, they’re looking at dirt samples and a patch of water that isn’t warming like the rest of the ocean, and somehow, this is supposed to spell doom for civilization.

This wouldn’t be so bad if they admitted the uncertainty. Instead, the article plays a game of “it’s probably not happening, but it totally could!” For instance, the IPCC says they have “medium confidence” that AMOC will not collapse this century. But some other scientists say, well, maybe it could! As one of them warns, we “maybe need to be worried”.

What kind of science is this? It sounds more like a horoscope than a serious climate analysis.

Fear-Mongering 101: Every Climate Scare is the Last One

Here’s where it gets really interesting. The article includes dire warnings that “even the most likely scenario” could lead to disastrous storms and colder European winters. But haven’t we been told for decades that global warming was supposed to make winters warmer? How many times have we heard that skiing in the Alps would be a thing of the past? Now, suddenly, the UK is going to be plunged into Arctic conditions.

It’s the ultimate climate fear two-for-one special: No matter what happens—hotter, colder, wetter, drier—it’s all climate change, and it’s all your fault.

Of course, this isn’t the first time we’ve heard these predictions. The same scare popped up in The Day After Tomorrow (2004), based on theories that had been bouncing around for decades before that. In 2015, similar claims made headlines, only for scientists later to admit that “the jury is still out” on whether AMOC is actually slowing down.

Then, just last month, a new study showed that—wait for it—the North Atlantic Current is actually stable. So, despite all the apocalyptic speculation, the real-world evidence just isn’t there.

The Real Agenda: Cut Emissions, No Matter the Cost

At the end of the article, we get to the real point. The only way to “reduce these risks,” scientists insist, is to cut greenhouse gas emissions. That’s right—whether the planet is warming or cooling, whether AMOC is speeding up or slowing down, the answer is always the same: more regulations, more taxes, more restrictions on energy use.

It’s almost as if the climate narrative isn’t really about science at all, but about controlling human activity.

Conclusion: No, the UK Won’t Freeze Over Anytime Soon

If history is any guide, this latest AMOC scare will soon fade away, just like all the previous ones. Then, in a few years, another set of scientists will “discover” the same threat all over again, and the cycle will repeat.

So, before you panic-buy thermal underwear and start hoarding firewood, remember: Climate doom predictions are like bad fashion trends—they always come back, but they never quite deliver on their promises.

HT/Darren K

Day: February 6, 2025

Oceans Inhale and Exhale Carbon Dioxide, Since Forever

Like this:

Trump’s Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement Won’t Hurt the Climate

Like this:

NGO’s emerge as The Shadow Government

It turns out the Non-Government Organizations were really The Government

Like this:

Schadenfreude at Its Finest: Climate Grifters Cry Over Trump’s Grant Freeze

A “Crisis” for the Climate Industrial Complex

The World’s Saddest Sob Stories

The Real Tragedy: Elites Losing Control

Trump’s Masterstroke: Freezing the Cash Flow

Conclusion: Glorious, Delicious Tears

Like this:

Professor Stefan Rahmstorf And Thermodynamics

Like this:

Ebb Tide in Texan Oilfields

Like this:

First Hydrogen CfDs Awarded

Like this:

Null and void?

Like this:

Whales and Offshore Wind: Trump Time (Wojick has built a case)

Like this:

The “Collapsing Gulf Stream” Scare is Back—Again

A Climate Catastrophe… Someday, Maybe, Possibly

Fear-Mongering 101: Every Climate Scare is the Last One

The Real Agenda: Cut Emissions, No Matter the Cost

Conclusion: No, the UK Won’t Freeze Over Anytime Soon

Like this: