Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
The New EPA chief has just tracked down another $2 billion handed out to a 2-bit nothing climate entity at the last minute. It’s only a tiny part of the Monster Swamp but it captures the spirit of bald-faced looting that was The US bloated Government.
Just another $20 billion dollars for the Climate Swamp
The New EPA chief has just tracked down another $2 billion handed out to a 2-bit nothing climate entity at the last minute. It’s only a tiny part of the Monster Swamp but it captures the spirit of bald-faced looting that was The US bloated Government.
The US voters voted to cut government spending on November 5th, so the obvious thing for Democrats to do was — the exact opposite. In the last days of the Biden pillage-n-steal campaign about $20 billion dollars was “allocated” to the EPA and parked in a bank account. Presumably in the hope of keeping the NGO activists of “climate” alive through the dark days of Trumpian hell. It may also have been a way to pay off friends, or stash funds for nice post-Trump career opportunities, who knows? But it was all a bit of a panic, and the aid was jetting out through a fire hose. So much so, that, one community group with only a $100 in revenue, was given two whole billion dollars.
The funds were set aside at an outside financial institution — Citibank — before Biden left office and part of a larger, $20 billion pot of money the former president’s EPA received through the Inflation Reduction Act to dole out to climate groups.
“It’s extremely concerning that an organization that reported just $100 in revenue in 2023 was chosen to receive $2 billion,” EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin told the outlet, referring to Power Forward Communities’ latest tax filings. “That’s 20 million times the organization’s reported revenue.”
The $2 billion was part of a $20 billion dollar spray that was supposed to go towards eight different NGO’s with instantly forgettable names like Power Forward Communities, and the Climate United Fund. In the world of teenage protestors, and B-grade scientists it’s a massive amount of money. Think how many hack modelers someone could employ to churn out meaningless papers with headlines like “Climate change is making crocodiles hotter”?
In theory, some of the money was supposedly going to “decarbonize” low income houses, which nearly as useless. In the end, a few poor people get to pay tax to employ a bureaucrat who spends their own money buying them a solar panel they wouldn’t have bought, which achieves nothing they didn’t have cheaper twenty years ago, but flows right on through to improve the solar stock options of some friends of the bureaucrats. It’s just a form of servitude. The poor get green electrons they didn’t want, and the only lives that are enriched are in the bureaucracy and insiders at the stock exchange.
To truly appreciate the soul sucking nature of the looting it’s worth revisiting the words of the young EPA staffer two months ago, who casually bragged about the wild spending of “$50 billion dollars” in the last days of the Biden era bonfire:
” It truly feels like we’re on the Titanic and we’re throwing, like, gold bars off the edge”
Project Veritasgot undercover footage of Brent Efron (seen in the video below), who gloated that the money was being stuffed into NGO’s as “an insurance policy against Trump”. He giving it to NGO’s was so much better than spending it on government programs, because that way, it’s harder for the Trump administration to get it back. (We can see how much they care about the voters.)
He went on to say that he might work for one of these places “it would be really cool”. So the EPA worker and his colleagues were potentially stashing the money for their future careers. There’s a word for that…
Fortunately, the new head of the EPA, Lee Zeldin, has the receipts, and wants the money back:
“The financial agent agreement with the bank needs to be instantly terminated, and the bank must immediately return all of the gold bars that the Biden administration tossed off the Titanic,” he argued…
The saying “like Gold Bars off the Titanic” will become legend, so if you missed this video in early December, watch it now. It really is something…
Comments under the video
@DrekJS27: When can we start sending people to jail for this?
@mec4142: Oh so there’s money but not for Hawaii, or Florida or North Carolina or Tennessee or the long forgotten Ohio. This is sickening.
Elon Musk’s DOGE crew continues to shine a light on how our federal government operates, and it is exposing more climate grift than even the most cynical among us could have imagined. The latest involves the EPA giving failed Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams $2 billion to expand “clean energy by prioritizing housing, equity, and resilience.”
Elon Musk’s DOGE crew continues to shine a light on how our federal government operates, and it is exposing more climate grift than even the most cynical among us could have imagined. The latest involves the EPA giving failed Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams $2 billion to expand “clean energy by prioritizing housing, equity, and resilience.” Her organization, Power Forward Communities, says it will install heat pumps, solar panels, EV chargers, and other “green” technology. Does Abrams have any expertise in this field? No. In fact, her organization incorporated itself with $100 in the bank just months before receiving $2 billion of our tax money. The Washington Free Beacon also reported this week that the man Biden put in charge of the EPA’s “Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund” funneled $5 billion to his former employer, something called the Coalition for Green Capital.
The climate grifters are being exposed, and the EPA is trying to claw these billions of dollars back. But how deep does the corruption go? We’re bringing in Steve Milloy of the Energy and Environmental Legal Institute, an EPA transition team member in Trump’s first term, to get a handle on it. The Heartland Institute’s Anthony Watts, H. Sterling Burnett, Linnea Lueken, and Jim Lakely will also cover some of the Crazy Climate News of the Week, including a look at NOAA data showing the second-biggest month-to-month temperature drop since 2009.
Join us LIVE at 1 p.m. ET in the chat, where you can have some fun with fellow viewers and get your questions answered from the best climate and energy experts streaming anywhere.
The core mission here is crystal clear: refocus the federal government’s enforcement powers on regulations that are actually authorized by law—meaning those pesky, made-up rules conjured by unelected bureaucrats are about to get the axe. The order directs agency heads, working hand-in-hand with their Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) Team Leads and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), to scour every regulation under their purview.
Folks, hold onto your hats because today, February 20, 2025, is a red-letter day for freedom-loving Americans everywhere! President Donald J. Trump has just dropped a bombshell of an Executive Order titled Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President’s “Department of Government Efficiency” Regulatory Initiative—and it’s nothing short of a masterstroke. Published on the White House website last night (February 19, 2025, at 22:26 EST), this move is a full-throttle charge toward dismantling the bloated, overreaching administrative state that’s been choking the life out of our economy and personal liberties for far too long. Here at Watts Up With That, we’re all about cutting through the noise and getting to the meat of what matters—and this EO is a sizzling steak of good news for anyone who values limited government, constitutional principles, and a legal landscape primed for real reform.
The core mission here is crystal clear: refocus the federal government’s enforcement powers on regulations that are actually authorized by law—meaning those pesky, made-up rules conjured by unelected bureaucrats are about to get the axe. The order directs agency heads, working hand-in-hand with their Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) Team Leads and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), to scour every regulation under their purview. If it doesn’t pass the smell test of constitutional legitimacy or align with the Trump Administration’s pro-freedom, pro-growth agenda, it’s toast. This isn’t just a tweak—it’s a top-to-bottom housecleaning of the regulatory swamp, and it’s long overdue.
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:
Section 1. Purpose. It is the policy of my Administration to focus the executive branch’s limited enforcement resources on regulations squarely authorized by constitutional Federal statutes, and to commence the deconstruction of the overbearing and burdensome administrative state. Ending Federal overreach and restoring the constitutional separation of powers is a priority of my Administration.
What’s got me especially pumped is the sheer audacity of the intent: “commence the deconstruction of the overbearing and burdensome administrative state.” That’s not just a policy goal; it’s a battle cry! For years, we’ve watched federal agencies balloon into mini fiefdoms, issuing edicts that strangle small businesses, jack up costs for families, and push dubious climate agendas with zero accountability. Now, with DOGE unleashed (and yes, I’m loving the acronym nod to a certain meme coin—it’s peak Trump energy), we’re seeing a real push to restore the constitutional separation of powers. Congress makes the laws, not some desk jockey in a cubicle with a rubber stamp. Hallelujah!
Sec. 2. Rescinding Unlawful Regulations and Regulations That Undermine the National Interest. (a) Agency heads shall, in coordination with their DOGE Team Leads and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, initiate a process to review all regulations subject to their sole or joint jurisdiction for consistency with law and Administration policy. Within 60 days of the date of this order, agency heads shall, in consultation with the Attorney General as appropriate, identify the following classes of regulations: (i) unconstitutional regulations and regulations that raise serious constitutional difficulties, such as exceeding the scope of the power vested in the Federal Government by the Constitution; (ii) regulations that are based on unlawful delegations of legislative power; (iii) regulations that are based on anything other than the best reading of the underlying statutory authority or prohibition; (iv) regulations that implicate matters of social, political, or economic significance that are not authorized by clear statutory authority; (v) regulations that impose significant costs upon private parties that are not outweighed by public benefits; (vi) regulations that harm the national interest by significantly and unjustifiably impeding technological innovation, infrastructure development, disaster response, inflation reduction, research and development, economic development, energy production, land use, and foreign policy objectives; and (vii) regulations that impose undue burdens on small business and impede private enterprise and entrepreneurship. (b) In conducting the review required by subsection (a) of this section, agencies shall prioritize review of those rules that satisfy the definition of “significant regulatory action” in Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993 (Regulatory Planning and Review), as amended. (c) Within 60 days of the date of this order, agency heads shall provide to the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Office of Management and Budget a list of all regulations identified by class as listed in subsection (a) of this section. (d) The Administrator of OIRA shall consult with agency heads to develop a Unified Regulatory Agenda that seeks to rescind or modify these regulations, as appropriate.
And here’s where it gets even juicier: the legal muscle behind this move. The EO lands hot on the heels of seismic shifts in administrative law, thanks to the Supreme Court’s 2024 Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo decision. For decades, the Chevron doctrine—born in 1984—gave agencies a free pass to interpret ambiguous laws however they pleased, with courts bowing to their “expertise.” Loper Bright flipped that script, axing Chevron deference and putting judges back in the driver’s seat to interpret statutes without kowtowing to agency spin. As the Americans for Prosperity Foundation noted, this EO is Trump’s opening salvo to leverage that ruling, directing agencies to rethink rules that might not hold up under stricter judicial scrutiny. It’s a one-two punch: the Court cleared the path, and now Trump’s swinging the deregulatory sledgehammer.
Loper Bright famously overturned the Chevron Doctrine, which had previously directed courts to defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous laws, even if that interpretation was not the best reading of the law. The administrative state was built on the back of these questionable legal interpretations, and Loper Bright opens the door for the public, agencies, and courts to restore the scope of agency authority to its proper statutory limits.
The details are just as thrilling. Agency heads are tasked with reviewing all regulations—joint or solo—for “consistency with law and Administration policy.” That means no more sneaky “guidance documents” or backroom rule-making that dodges public scrutiny. The Loper Bright effect amplifies this: without Chevron to shield them, agencies can’t bank on courts rubber-stamping their overreach. Every rule now faces a tougher test—does it square with the plain text of the law Congress wrote? If not, it’s fair game for the chopping block. The EO even defines “enforcement action” broadly, covering any move that affects your rights or property, so agencies can’t wiggle out by slapping a different label on their power grabs. This is precision-engineered to stop the nonsense cold, with a legal backbone that’s freshly forged in the post-Chevron era.
Now, let’s talk impact. For those of us who’ve been banging the drum on climate realism—like the good folks reading Watts Up With That—this could be a game-changer. How many times have we seen the EPA or other agencies twist science into knots to justify job-killing regs based on shaky climate models? With this EO, those rules are under the microscope. If they’re not grounded in solid statutory authority or they clash with Trump’s America-First priorities, they’re history. Imagine a world where energy policy gets unshackled from green dogma and we can drill, mine, and build again without jumping through endless hoops. The Loper Bright shift only turbocharges this—courts won’t just nod along to agency excuses anymore. That’s the vision here, and it’s electrifying.
And here’s another layer of brilliance in this EO: it’s not just about slashing unlawful rules—it’s about making sure every regulation that sticks around actually pencils out. The order mandates that agency heads, in coordination with DOGE Team Leads and the OMB, conduct a rigorous cost-benefit analysis for regulations under review. No more vague hand-waving or feel-good justifications—every rule has to prove its worth, dollar for dollar, against the burden it imposes on businesses, families, and the economy. This is a direct shot at the kind of pie-in-the-sky climate regs we’ve railed against here at Watts Up With That, where costs soar into the billions while benefits remain speculative at best. With Loper Bright already tightening the legal screws, this cost-benefit hammer ensures that only rules with real, measurable merit survive the cut. It’s practical, it’s pro-growth, and it’s a win for taxpayers who’ve footed the bill for bureaucratic excess for too long.
Of course, the usual suspects will cry foul. The beltway crowd and eco-alarmists will wail about “deregulatory chaos” or some such gibberish. But let’s be real: the chaos has been the last few decades of unchecked bureaucratic sprawl. This EO isn’t about anarchy—it’s about accountability, supercharged by a legal framework that’s finally tilting back toward the Constitution. With Loper Bright in play, agencies can’t hide behind “reasonable interpretations” of vague laws—they’ve got to prove their rules hold water. And with Trump’s first-term track record—slashing regs at a historic pace—he’s got the chops to make this stick.
So, what’s next? The wheels are already turning. Agency heads are on the clock to get cracking, and the DOGE teams are ready to sniff out the waste and fraud, with Loper Bright as their legal tailwind. We’ll be keeping a hawk’s eye on how this plays out—because if Trump’s first term taught us anything, it’s that he delivers on deregulation like nobody else. Remember his 2-for-1 rule that ended up axing five regs for every new one? This is that on steroids, with a Supreme Court ruling that’s got his back.
To every patriot out there: raise a glass tonight. This Executive Order is a bold step toward reclaiming our government from the clutches of the deep state, putting power back where it belongs—with the people—and it’s got the legal heft of Loper Bright to make it stick. It’s a win for liberty, a win for prosperity, and—dare I say it—a win for common-sense science over ideological nonsense. Stay tuned to Watts Up With That as we track this revolution in real time. The DOGE is off the leash, and it’s about to shake things up big-time!
The exhibit shows since 1947 GMT warmed by 0.8 C, from 13.9 to 14.7, as estimated by Hadcrut4. This resulted from three natural warming events involving ocean cycles. The most recent rise 2013-16 lifted temperatures by 0.2C. Previously the 1997-98 El Nino produced a plateau increase of 0.4C. Before that, a rise from 1977-81 added 0.2C to start the warming since 1947.
As shown in the synopsis below, the paper analyzes multiple oceanic oscillations during the years 1954 to 2019 in order to compare with solar cycles of sunspots 19 through 24 occurring during that time frame. The title is stated as a question, and the conclusion provides this answer (in italics with my bolds).
Finally, did Schwabe cycles 19–24 influence the ENSO events, PDO, and AMO indexes in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans? Yes, it has been found a wide range correlation coefficient from 0.100 to about 0.500 statistically significant (p < 0.05) with lag times from few months to over 2 years between the Schwabe cycles and the ocean indices chosen here. These results could be a potential source to improve predictive skills for the understanding of ENSO, PDO and AMO interannual and decadal fluctuations. Better predictive models are imperative given that El Niño or La Niña has vast impacts on lives, property, and economic activity around the globe, especially when dramatic peaks of El Niño occur. The new cycle 25 has started and could have a major oceanic swing follow suit, and the next El Niño would be in around 2023–2024 according to historical events and results presented here.
Given that the paper was drafted before submitting in February 2022, and publication in October that year, the forecast of a 2023-24 El Nino was confirmed in a remarkable way.
The cyan line represents SST anomalies in the Tropics and shows the major El Ninos, 2015-16, 2019-20 and 2023-24. Note all three events included pairs of major NH summer warming peaks. The synopsis below consists of excerpts in italics with my bolds to present the broad strokes of the analyses and findings. (Note: The paper includes detailed analyses and many references to supporting studies, and interested readers can access them by linking there.)
Context
The surface-subsurface layers of the ocean that interact with the lower atmosphere alternately release and absorb heat energy. The work of Zhou and Tung (2010) reported the impact of the TSI on global SST over 150 years, finding signals of cooling and warming SSTs at the valley and peak of the SS cycles. Schlesinger and Ramankutty (1994) report a global cycle of 65–70 years for SST that is affected by greenhouse anthropogenic gases, sulphate aerosols and/or El Niño events, but they did not imply any external forcing such as the SS. There have been other studies on how solar radiation variability could affect temperature; recently, Cheke et al. (2021) have studied those solar cycles of SS that would affect the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) indexes.
There are well known oceanic events that show periodicity with low or high frequencies: 25–30 and 3–7 years, respectively. These include the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), and Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO), as well as El Niño or La Niña. During El Niño events, the surface and subsurface lose energy to the atmosphere and the opposite occurs during La Niña; these events have a periodicity of 3–7 years. The Interdecadal oscillations have a series of impacts, e.g., the PDO gives rise to teleconnections between the tropic and mid-latitudes, and the effects include:
1) ocean heat content, 2) the lower and higher levels of the trophic chain including small pelagic fisheries (tuna and sardines); 3) biogeochemical air-sea CO2 fluxes; 4) the frequency of La Niña/El Niño.
The interactions between decadal oscillations PDO/IPO and AMO may also affect ocean heat content. All these low and high frequency oceanographic events have a direct impact on local, regional, and global climate patterns, and there is growing evidence from many studies that the driving source of energy is the sun.
Thus, whatever affects the solar irradiation falling on the surface of the oceans, including volcanic eruptions (Fang et al., 2020), and cloudiness for example, it would affect the gain or loss of heat content of the oceans. The cited works tried to find the physical reasons for these connections, but they remained unknown or difficult to explain.
The work reported here investigates how fluctuations of sunspots over time (1954–2019) may cross-correlate with low and high frequency oceanic events such as the sea surface temperature (SST), anomalies (SSTA), Oceanographic El Niño Index (ONI), Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI), Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) in the central and east equatorial Pacific Ocean; and PDO, as well as on the AMO in the North Pacific and Atlantic basins. The hypothesis is that even small variations of the TSI can be reflected in these tele-connected indexes.
Discussion
Fig. 1. Behaviour of monthly counts of SS, ONI, MEI, PDO and AMO. The Indexes start at t = 0, 12, 24 and 36 months (panels a, b, c, and d respectively). The SS series starts at t = 0 in the four panels. The left vertical axis gives the values for the Indexes, and SS counts at the right vertical scale. The end of each Schwabe cycle is marked by vertical dashed lines.
Maxima in the PDO, AMO, ONI, and MEI series were offset by 0, 12, 24 and 36 months (Fig. 1, panels a, b, c, and d respectively), with the SS series starts at t = 0 in the four panels. It has been reported that the lag times for responses of some Indexes to SS cycles (SS) are around 12–36 months (see fig. 1 of Hassan et al., 2016), and Fang et al. (2020) have reported that ENSO responds with a 2–3 years of lag time after a major volcanic eruption. From 1954 to the present time, each sunspot cycle from 19 to 24 has occurred with a period of around 11 years (Hathaway, 2015), which is slightly less than the 11.2 years reported by Dicke (1978). The highest SS activity is seen in cycle 19 with around 250 SS/month, followed by <150, and at cycle 21 around 200, before decreasing steadily over cycles 22 to 24 to just over 100 SS/month. Cycle 24 is the lowest contemporary value of SS activity that is comparable only to cycles 12–15 (around 1880–1930) and is the lowest in the last 200 years (Clette et al., 2014).
Fig. 12. Sunspots monthly counts curves per cycle. Red and blue lines represent El Niño and La Niña events. Note that Cycle 24 finished on December 2019 (National Weather Service, 2020).
The SSTA in El Niño 1 + 2 region cross-correlated with SS many times, especially during descending phases of all cycles except SS 22 with cc-ρ up 0.389 (SS 24) and main lag times from 5 to 13 months. The SS cycles (20 and 24) during cold phase PDO showed alternate cross-correlation reaching a maximum 0.389 and negative −0.314 (p < 0.05). During the ascending phase in El Niño 1 + 2 region (blue bars, Fig. 5a) the cc-ρ peaked at 0.393 (p < 0.05). In the cycles 19 and 24 the highest cc-ρ were found, −0.460 and 0.394 (p < 0.05) respectively. These coefficients coincided with the largest (over 2 years) and most intense (<−1.5C) La Niña during 1954–1955, and 2010–2012 (Fig. 12).
It must be noticed that during cycle 21 two big events El Niño (1983–1985) and La Niña (1984–1985) were registered as well as in cycles 23 and 24 with coefficients just around 0.2. The highest coefficients would mean an influence up to 21.2% and 15.5% of the SS on the SSTAs in El Niño 3.4 region. These results would suggest the cross-correlations are stronger in El Niño 3.4 region due to the less dispersing oceanographic-meteorological conditions than in El Niño 1 + 2 region. Also, these findings would suggest that during the cold phase of PDOs (see NOAA, 2016), the cc-ρ in El Niño 3.4 region tends to be higher, as the solar energy reaching the ocean surface increases as the cloudiness tends to decrease significantly during prolonged periods around or over in El Niño 3.4 region (Porch et al., 2006).
The sun cycle 19 is the most intense since the last 100 years, the contrary is the cycle 24 (NWS, 2021). In general, the ascending phase of the SS cycles takes a shorter time than descending phase, therefore the slope of the curve is steeper (Fig. 12); then the increasing change of the TSI influences in a clearer way the studied indexes. It seems that during the ascending phases, El Niño events are prone to develop as TSI increases (as well as UV radiation does, NWS, 2021), while during plunging SS phases, when the TSI tends to diminish (see Formula (1)), could lead to La Niña events, like the 2020–2022 occurrence (Ormaza-González, 2021).
Most of the La Niña events occur during the descending phase or just when approaching or leaving the valley or minimum SS counts (Fig. 12) when the TSI decreases and reaches the minimum (Scafetta et al., 2019). La Niña 2020–2022 is a good example, the lowest SS counts (<2 counts/months) occurred during extended periods when reaching the valley of the SS 24. The valley of SS 24 has had an extended period of close to 3 years, during which there have been weeks and months without sunspots, before the SS 25 started in December 2020.
The weakest sunspot cycle (SS 24) over the last 100 years (NWS, 2021) has had four La Niña events: 2007–2009, 2010–2012, 2016–2017, and 2020–2022 (Fig. 12), it is the only cycle with that number of La Niña events.
Conclusions
Over the studied period 1954–2019, sunspot numbers decreased from a monthly maximum between 225 (SS 21) to a minimum around 20–25 (SS 24). The SS 24 had 913 days without SS counts until December 2019 (Burud et al., 2021), being this cycle the weakest since 1755; and the SS 25 will probably be weaker than or like SS 24 (Ineson et al., 2014; Chowdhury et al., 2021; NASA, 2021a, NASA, 2021b). Thus, the Earth has been receiving slightly decreasing solar energy over this almost 7-decade period.
On the ocean surface the influence of sunspots could chiefly be due to UV energy fluctuation (Ineson et al., 2014) as this radiation penetrates down to 75–100 m depth in the water column (Smyth, 2011). van Loon et al. (2007) suggested that even though SS cycles produce weak changes on the Total Solar Irradiation (TSI) of about 0.07% (Gray et al., 2010), these can still produce decadal and millennial impacts on global thermohaline circulation (Bond et al., 2001; Gray et al., 2016).
The ONI Index showed to be poorly cross-correlated with cc-ρ values <0.100, only twice approached to −0.200. On the other hand, the MEI registered around ±0.200 through all cycles and predominant lag times within 12 months. The SOI showed cross-correlations with SS cycles (19–21, and) averaging a coefficient of 0.200 with lags times range of 9–34 months. The SOI temporal behaviour has also been associated with SS and it could enhance or affect the oceanographic Indexes of the equatorial Pacific (Higginson et al., 2004). [The Multivariate ENSO Index does not only consider the SST Anomaly but also sea-level pressure and other variables.]
The MEI index could have been influenced from 7.3% up to 23%. The MEI correlated in all ascending and descending phases of SS cycles. The SOI had similar cross-correlation coherence to those oceanographic indexes during ascending and descending phases. These results would provide evidence on how SS affects the studied Indexes during the ascending/descending phases of their cycles. In some cycles, the impact will be stronger and in other weaker depending on intensity and behaviour in time of the cycle.
Finally, did Schwabe cycles 19–24 influence the ENSO events, PDO, and AMO indexes in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans? Yes, it has been found a wide range correlation coefficient from 0.100 to about 0.500 statistically significant (p < 0.05) with lag times from few months to over 2 years between the Schwabe cycles and the ocean indices chosen here. These results could be a potential source to improve predictive skills for the understanding of ENSO, PDO and AMO interannual and decadal fluctuations. Better predictive models are imperative given that El Niño or La Niña has vast impacts on lives, property, and economic activity around the globe, especially when dramatic peaks of El Niño occur. The new cycle 25 has started and could have a major oceanic swing follow suit, and the next El Niño would be in around 2023–2024 according to historical events and results presented here.
The debate over environmental justice has been overtaken by the term “environmental racism” — the claim that minority communities suffer disproportionately from pollution because of systemic racism. While it is true that some communities face more significant environmental challenges, blaming these disparities entirely on race oversimplifies the issue and leads to ineffective policy solutions.
The debate over environmental justice has been overtaken by the term “environmental racism” — the claim that minority communities suffer disproportionately from pollution because of systemic racism. While it is true that some communities face more significant environmental challenges, blaming these disparities entirely on race oversimplifies the issue and leads to ineffective policy solutions.
Instead of focusing on the socioeconomics that exists in all races and infrastructure investments, advocates push race-based narratives that divide Americans rather than solve problems. Poverty — not race — is the most significant factor determining environmental hardship. If we want solutions, we need policies prioritizing economic growth, job creation and affordable energy for all Americans, regardless of background.
Many environmental justice policies, such as the Green New Deal and the electric vehicle mandates, are framed as solutions for marginalized communities. Do these policies help struggling families? The answer is no.
Take EV mandates, for example. Advocates say that promoting electric cars will create a cleaner environment and benefit lower-income communities. Here’s the problem: EVs remain too expensive for most working-class Americans. Even with government subsidies, the high upfront costs and limited charging infrastructure make EV ownership impractical for low-income families. A study in Nature Communications found that public EV charging stations are overwhelmingly in wealthier areas, leaving lower-income communities behind.
Wealthy urban professionals who can afford private home chargers benefit the most, while working-class Americans struggling to afford their next car payment are left out. Rather than closing economic gaps, these policies exacerbate the financial woes of struggling communities while benefiting those already financially comfortable.
Another significant flaw in race-based environmental policies is their crippling effect on blue-collar jobs of Americans of all races. Regulations targeting carbon emissions and pollution may seem reasonable, but they often eliminate stable employment opportunities for working-class Americans. Industries such as coal, manufacturing and oil have long provided good-paying jobs for Americans of all backgrounds. However, overzealous climate policies have led to the shutdown of these industries, leaving thousands unemployed.
According to the Heritage Foundation, aggressive environmental mandates drive up energy costs and eliminate job opportunities, disproportionately hurting low-income families. If policymakers want to help disadvantaged communities, they will balance economic growth with sustainability rather than forcing entire industries out of existence.
The popular narrative assumes that pollution and environmental degradation uniquely target minority communities, but this ignores that low-income White communities suffer just as much — if not more. Look at Appalachia, where predominantly White, working-class families struggle with economic collapse, contaminated drinking water, and a lack of basic infrastructure. These coal-mining towns have been devastated by environmental policies that kill local industries without offering viable alternatives.
Is this “environmental racism”? Of course not — because it’s not about race. The sooner we acknowledge that socioeconomics, not systemic racism, is the root of environmental inequality, the sooner we can enact effective, unifying policies rather than divisive, race-based rhetoric.
Instead of prioritizing racial narratives, we should implement income-based solutions that uplift all disadvantaged communities — regardless of race. Instead of pouring billions into EV subsidies that primarily benefit the wealthy, we should invest in better public transportation options such as buses, subways and trains for working-class Americans. Expanding public transit would reduce the number of gas-powered cars on the road, lowering emissions without imposing financial hardship on those who can least afford it.
Policymakers should prioritize affordable, reliable energy solutions rather than forcing costly mandates that drive up electricity bills. This means investing in natural gas, nuclear energy and clean-coal technologies — energy sources that provide cheap, abundant power without devastating the job market or increasing financial burdens on low-income families.
Additionally, environmental policies must support job creation rather than destroy industries. Eliminating traditional energy industries without offering alternatives is not a solution. Instead, we should encourage innovation in clean energy while ensuring that existing industries remain stable and provide employment opportunities for the working class. A balanced approach would allow for environmental progress without sacrificing economic security.
The claim of environmental racism is a political tool used to push race-based policies that fail to address the root causes of environmental hardship. If we are serious about creating a cleaner, more prosperous future, we must shift the conversation away from race and toward practical, income-based solutions.
Case in point: California just flushed $2.2 billion in taxpayer money down the drain on a now-defunct solar plant — money that could have transformed minority communities with real opportunities instead of lining the pockets of green energy grifters. The key to environmental justice lies in economic growth, job creation, and affordable energy — not divisive rhetoric that ignores the realities of socioeconomic factors.
America needs balanced, effective policies that help all working-class families — not one-size-fits-all climate mandates that punish those they claim to support.
Amanda Holden has said that she took 28 flights to Spain during filming for a BBC DIY show, despite the corporation’s Net Zero pledge. The Telegraph has more.
The Britain’s Got Talent judge said she and her co-host Alan Carr would fly out for several days at a time, before returning back for other work and flying out again.
The apparent admission comes just weeks after the broadcaster published its first climate transition plan.
The BBC’s long-term targets include reducing emissions by “at least 90%” by 2050, with Net Zero one of the three pillars of its sustainable strategy.
However, Holden’s claims have raised questions over compliance to the action plan, given that Amanda & Alan’s Spanish Job has only eight half-hour long episodes.
Speaking to The Rest Is Entertainment, Holden, 54, said: “I think we made 28 flights in total, so we were absolutely shattered and I broke at least four sets of nails.
“We fly out backwards and forwards, obviously I’ve got other jobs that I do, so does Alan.
“So we will fly out for three days, come back and do the other work, and fly out 10 days later.
“Also there are times when me and Alan can’t be there together, so you might see me relaxing on the beach or going to the spa, and Alan might be bashing down a wall and that’s because our schedules weren’t able to work together.”
The comments come despite Tim Davie, the BBC’s Director-General, previously saying: “This will be a huge collective effort.
“It won’t be easy, but we must act, and act now, to reduce our environmental impact.”
A BBC spokesman said the 28 flights were made by both Holden and Carr.
Stop Press: Ed Miliband’s claim that Net Zero will create hundreds of thousands industrial jobs in the UK is vastly overstated, Tony Blair’s think tank, the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change (TBI), has warned. Investing in green technology is unlikely to reverse the long-term decline of British industry and Ministers must not “over-state the job opportunities from green manufacturing”, the think tank said.
Nigel Farage has said he is on a mission to “reindustrialise” Britain, as he accused the Government of having a “miserable” and “declinist” attitude.
Speaking at the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship conference in London, the Reform UK leader said that the country needs to achieve a “180 shift” in its attitude to achieve higher birth rates.
He also claimed on Tuesday that the right-wing of politics in the UK “is not split”.
Taking questions from Canadian psychologist and political commentator Jordan Peterson on stage, Mr Farage told activists: “The right is not split in this country.
While Net Zero is not top of Farage’s priority list, Farage has been a consistent opponent of expensive energy.
Reform tops a YouGov poll for the first time
4 February 2025, 7:38am
There’s reason for cheer at Reform HQ this morning: Nigel Farage’s party is leading Labour in a YouGov voting intention poll for the first time. According to the poll, Reform UK leads on 25 points with Labour in second place on 24 per cent and the Conservatives in third on 21 per cent. Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats are on 14 per cent and the Greens on 9 per cent. While there have been a handful of polls to date putting Reform in the lead, they have so far been regarded as outliers. In response to the poll, Richard Tice, the deputy leader of Reform, said: ‘Much more to come as common sense policies welcomed to save Britain and make us better off’.
Farage’s upstart Reform Party represents a dramatic potential u-turn from decades of bipartisan British Net Zero zealotry.
The current British government is arguably the most extreme green government Britain has ever had, they strongly supports Net Zero and expensive energy. Their energy ideas have frequently featured in WUWT.
A lot of money appears to be lining up behind Farage’s Reform Party, for the first time in its short history. It’s difficult to untangle why this is happening, UK business has made a lot of money from Net Zero.
The issue may be artificial intelligence. In order to stay relevant in today’s global economy, UK business leaders need to embrace artificial intelligence. They may be feeling frustration at the inability of Net Zero to supply the gargantuan energy needs of all the AI capacity they need to build in the near future.
The next UK general election is not due until 2029, so they have a long wait until the British can execute any change in direction. But the momentum for change appears to be growing. A growing number of British people are utterly fed up with green orthodoxy and economic decline, and like the look of what Farage is offering.
California is home to nine international airports, 41 Military airports, 3 of the largest shipping ports in America, as well as more than 30 million registered vehicles, all of which cannot operate without imported foreign oil from other nations like Saudi Arabia, Ecuador, Iraq, Columbia, and Russia. Thus, California is a serious national security risk for America.
California is home to nine international airports, 41 Military airports, 3 of the largest shipping ports in America, as well as more than 30 million registered vehicles, all of which cannot operate without imported foreign oil from other nations like Saudi Arabia, Ecuador, Iraq, Columbia, and Russia. Thus, California is a serious national security risk for America.
The West Coast gasoline, diesel, and aviation fuels market is isolated from other supply/demand centers as California is an energy island isolated from the States East of the Sierra Mountains. The Sierra Mountains are a natural barrier that prevents the State from pipeline access to any excess oil from fracking. As such, the West Coast is susceptible to unexpected outages of West Coast refineries as it is unable to backfill an unexpected loss in supply by quickly supplying additional products from outside of the region.
Newsom’s administration policies and combative approach have led California to a precarious position as the world’s fifth largest economy now exists in a perpetual supply crunch for crude oil, aviation, gasoline, and diesel fuels, leading to high costs, price volatility, and an increased risk of shortages.
California’s aggressive shift towards unreliable solar and wind for electricity, coupled with its move away from fossil fuels, has made the State more vulnerable to fuel shortages and blackouts. This not only affects the daily lives of Californians but also impacts critical infrastructure and industries that are essential for national security.
California continues to reduce in-state oil production, which grows its dependency on other nations for crude oil, to its shrinking in-state refinery capabilities to meet the in-state demands for aviation and vehicle transportation fuels. With a reduction of California refinery capabilities, the State is heading in the direction of growing its importation of manufactured aviation fuels, diesel, and gasoline, and for the oil derivatives that are the basis of virtually every one of the more than 6,000 products in our society.
Governor Newsom continues his personal mission to have renewables of wind turbines and solar panels to replace fossil fuels. Newsom remains oblivious to the fact that renewables ONLY generate electricity, as they are incapable of making any products manufacturing any aviation, gasoline, or diesel fuels or making any of the oil derivatives that are the basis of virtually all the products being used by humanity.
Renewables are incapable of making aviation fuel for commercial, military, and private planes.
Renewables are incapable of making any gasoline for the State’s 30 million vehicles.
Renewables are incapable of making diesel fuel, the second largest fuel used in California.
Shockingly, renewables themselves cannot exist without the parts and components that are made from the oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil.
Asia is the region with the greatest number of future petroleum refineries. As of 2021, there were 88 new refinery facilities in planning or under construction in Asia for manufactured gasoline, diesel, and aviation fuels used by every transportation infrastructure and the military, as well as the manufactured oil derivatives that are the basis of almost every product being used by mankind.
California is a crucial and dynamic part of the United States with immense contributions to the nation, but its current trajectory in energy policy to eliminate fossil fuels without a replacement to support the supply chain demand for products and fuels made from oil and focus on “renewables” that only generate electricity, could pose risks that impact not just the State but potentially the broader national security landscape.
Britain’s National Wealth Fund, which is fully owned by the Treasury, on Wednesday announced a £43.5m investment into Cambridgeshire-based start-up Pulpex, which makes recyclable water bottles out of wood pulp.
The investment will help finance Pulpex’s plan to build its first ever manufacturing plant, near Glasgow, which is expected to produce 50m wooden bottles each year and create 35 jobs in Scotland.
The wood-based bottles have a lower carbon footprint than plastic or glass and Ian Murray, the Scottish Secretary, said the investment would “aid the decarbonisation of our packaging industry and help accelerate our net zero goals as we drive delivery of clean power by 2030”.
The Scottish National Investment Bank, which is fully owned by the Scottish Government, is investing £10m alongside the National Wealth Fund and Pulpex ultimately hopes to raise £62m.
Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, hailed the investment as “welcome news” that was “creating jobs, sustainable growth and opportunity in Scotland”.
For some reason the Telegraph treats this as a serious idea, and not the scandalous waste of taxpayer money.
£62 million for 35 jobs? That’s nearly £2 million a job. It’s utterly crazy.
And Pulpex will need will need to chop down a lot of trees, which will do far more damage to the environment that a bit of carbon dioxide from glass or plastic.
The whole idea is flawed anyway – who is actually going to bother recycling these wooden bottles anyway?
Matt Zwolinski, an academic philosopher and “bleeding heart libertarian” [1] who likes to criticize classical liberalism, promoted an article by Shikha Sood Dalmia on why she, as a former libertarian, is voting for Kamala Harris and not Trump. [2]
“Something is very amiss in the ‘left libertarian’ space where energy/climate activism is not considered authoritarian and a consumer/taxpayer issue for ‘bleeding heart libertarians.”
Matt Zwolinski, an academic philosopher and “bleeding heart libertarian” [1] who likes to criticize classical liberalism, promoted an article by Shikha Sood Dalmia on why she, as a former libertarian, is voting for Kamala Harris and not Trump. [2]
The debate (screenshot below) turned toward authoritarianism on the Left side, mentioning climate/energy issues. [3] At this point I joined in.
Bradley: “So Kamala and the Far Left are not about authoritarianism by small and large measures—and with a smile? And does the global energy/climate issue (global governance vs. CO2) mean anything to you?”
Zwolinski: Global energy means a great deal to me. And climate change denialism is a major problem in both the libertarian and Republican parties.
Bradley: Denialism? Are you familiar with the debate? Let’s start with two questions. One, what arguments made by Patrick Michaels et al in the 1990s for Cato are wrong today? And two, do you advocate global pricing for CO2 that requires ‘border adjustments’ (international tariff governance)?
Zwolinski: I really don’t think arguing about this would be productive for either of us. I’ll pass.
Bradley: Pass? And this issue is important to you, and you accuse me (and the majority of other libertarians) of ‘denialism’? Fact is, you do not want to answer because you do not know science-wise and don’t want to consider what global CO2 policy entails. And why the latter is the very authoritarianism (note, Shikha) that Trump can stop. (His withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord was one of the notable ‘classical liberal’ moments in modern political economy).
———————-
Bradley: Matt: did you block me from this post? We were having a spirited debate but one where I was on top of my points. Your charge of denialism went low and was not scholarly in the least. Response?
Zwolinski: You misremember. I said that I did not want to argue about climate policy with you, and you wouldn’t let it go. I think maybe you have this pattern with people, yes? At any rate, I’m not interested.
Bradley: Using the term ‘denier’, a crude Holocaust reference, to disparage libertarian and conservative critics of climate alarm, is very poor engagement on your part. My two questions deserve an answer rather than a complete duck…. Any suggestions for venue?
Zwolinski: You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that I owe you, my time. I do not. You asked me if I cared about energy policy. I said that I did, and that I thought climate change denialism was a major problem among Republicans and libertarians. Note “Climate change” denialism. That has nothing to do with the Holocaust. Note also – at no point did I accuse *you* of denialism. I had no idea who you were until you popped up on my feed a few days ago. I certainly don’t know anything about your scientific or philosophical positions. Nor am I particularly interested in learning about them, much less debating them with you. Move along.
Bradley: Energy/climate policy under Biden/Harris, now Harris/Walz, is a case study of authoritarianism, statism, fascism, and the Road to Serfdom. Globally too from the elites. Your smear “denier’ is a well-known term that both sides of the climate debate associate with the Holocaust (want links?)….. You said that energy, domestic and global, is of interest. Now you say you have never heard of me or IER, and maybe you do not follow the dozens of free-market think tanks that are eager for Trump opportunities. Maybe you favor activist climate policy, nationally and in California. Shikha Dalmia does, evidenced by her climate panel with four climate activists. Something is very amiss the ‘left-libertarian’ space where energy and climate policy are not seem as authoritarian, fascist, etc. and a consumer/taxpayer issue for ‘bleeding heart libertarians.”
Final Comment
Left libertarians pushing climate alarm and forced energy transformation have a similar pattern: hit and run. Engage and disengage. Duck the in-depth arguments and wall out dissent. The Jonathan Adler case (yesterday) is a case in point. The strange saga of Lynne Kiesling (pretend classical liberal) is another.
All I can do is document for the future. And maybe, just maybe, inspire some real debate and change.
————–
[1] “In The Individualists: Radicals, Reactionaries, and the Struggle for the Soul of Libertarianism (Princeton), Matt Zwolinski and John Tomasi argue that things didn’t have to turn out this way. Zwolinski, a philosopher at the University of San Diego, and Tomasi, a political theorist at Brown, are both committed libertarians who are appalled at the movement’s turn toward a harder-edged conservatism. (They are prominent figures in a faction called ‘bleeding-heart libertarianism.’)”
[2]
[3] Here is my documentation since the link to the exchange has been blocked.
You must be logged in to post a comment.