Day: February 27, 2025

Factchecking BBC Verify’s Energy Bill Claims

The headline alone gives a hint that the article itself is a pile of misleading rubbish!

A more suitable headline would have been “Energy bills are going up because there is more green power”.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t Ian Magness

FACT CHECKING BBC VERIFY!

 The headline alone gives a hint that the article itself is a pile of misleading rubbish!

A more suitable headline would have been “Energy bills are going up because there is more green power”.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crkep1vx3mro

The report begins:

Energy bills will rise by more than expected from April, following an announcement from the regulator Ofgem.

But Labour pledged in its manifesto: “We will save families hundreds of pounds on their bills, not just in the short term, but for good.” It also promised bills would come down by “up to £300 by 2030”.

Responding to the price cap rise, Energy Secretary Ed Miliband said it was due to “our reliance on the fossil fuel markets” and added: “We’re acting to bring down bills for everyone with our mission for clean, home-grown power that we control.”

The government wants to remove nearly all fossil fuels from UK electricity production by 2030.

More power is coming from renewable sources than ever before, so why isn’t this translating into cheaper electricity bills?

It recognises that we have some of the highest electricity prices in the world, and then goes on to say:

The largest, and most variable, component of a UK customer’s electricity bill is the “wholesale” price. This is the cost at which suppliers buy it from the companies that generate it.

Other parts of the bill include “network” costs for operating, maintaining and upgrading the power grid, and “policy” costs, which include government levies to help fund environmental projects.

The main reason for the spikes in electricity bills over the past few years has been changes to wholesale costs. This is linked to an increase in international gas prices.

The main reason why electricity prices are currently high is because the cost of gas – which is what sets the electricity price – is also high,” said a spokesperson from the Climate Change Committee, the government’s independent adviser on cutting emissions.

In the long term, renewables “will be bringing down overall energy bills, and specifically electricity bills, for the UK,” argues Dr Iain Staffell of Imperial College London.

There is an oblique reference to high renewable costs in the past:

Strike prices were expensive, but have fallen considerably, apart from a small rise from 2022-24 linked to global supply chain pressures.

But it is phrased in such a way as to fool readers into thinking that we are no longer paying these prices. There is certainly nowhere in the article that refers to just how much of our high electricity prices is still due to subsidising renewables. Instead they refer to wholesale prices as the largest component of bills, and the CCC’s lie about the cost of gas.

The figures as supplied by OFGEM tell a totally different story.

Since 2015, wholesale costs, (excluding CfD and Capacity Market subsidies, which OFGEM include), have increased their component of the cap from £260 to £399 for a typical household, an increase of 53%. But this is virtually all accounted for by a rise of 52% in RPI.

Prices as at April to June
https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/energy-policy-and-regulation/policy-and-regulatory-programmes/energy-price-cap-default-tariff-policy/energy-price-cap-default-tariff-levels

Of course there have been ups and downs in wholesale costs, but overall they have changed little in real terms. In fact, in reality they have fallen, as the costs shown by OFGEM include the effect of carbon pricing, which should really be seen as yet another subsidy for renewables.

When we look at all the other costs lumped into the price cap, mostly subsidies and network costs, we see they have doubled from £325 to £648. Renewable subsidies alone account for £210, and most of the extra grid costs are related to intermittent renewable generation in one way or another.

Sometimes gas prices go up, as they have done in the last few months. And sometimes they go down. But overall wholesale prices have pretty much followed the RPI.

It is not gas prices or wholesale prices which are responsible for the UK’s sky high electricity prices. It is renewable energy.

It is astonishing, if unsurprising, that BBC Verify can devote a whole report on the topic, without once even mentioning the fact, never mind quantifying it.

Like dropping napalm on the whole Climate Blob: US EPA recommends dropping “endangerment finding”

Most of the climate policies of the United States depend on “the Endangerment Finding”– so President Trump asked the new EPA head to look closely at it. This is the “finding” in 2009 that CO2 endangers the public, and that in turn means the EPA must regulate this “pollutant”. Thereby becoming the perfect excuse to allow the bureaucrats to regulate cars, trucks, planes, gas stoves and anything from hair dryers to home insulation.

From JoNova

By Jo Nova

If CO2 isn’t endangering lives, legally, there’s no reason to outlaw oil and gas

Marc Morano of ClimateDepot calls this the “holy grail” of the climate agenda. Most of the climate policies of the United States depend on “the Endangerment Finding”– so President Trump asked the new EPA head to look closely at it. This is the “finding” in 2009 that CO2 endangers the public, and that in turn means the EPA must regulate this “pollutant”. Thereby becoming the perfect excuse to allow the bureaucrats to regulate cars, trucks, planes, gas stoves and anything from hair dryers to home insulation.

The new EPA head just finished his 30 day consideration and recommends the Whitehouse rewrite the past conclusion entirely.

Ann Carlson of LegalPlanet says undoing the Endangerment Finding …” would mean full-blown warfare against all things climate.”  She describes how the entire bureaucratic edifice crumbles if CO2 is not a pollutant:

If the Administration were to reverse the endangerment finding, greenhouse gases would no longer need to be regulated under the Clean Air Act. Presumably, EPA would then simply move to revoke all of Biden’s major climate rules regulating cars, trucks, power plants, and oil and gas operations.   As Joe Goffman, former Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation under President Biden, told Politico, recently, “taking away the 2009 endangerment finding would really make it almost a virtual formality to take down all the greenhouse rules for CO2 and methane,”

This great news, of course, blows some minds

From Bloomberg

“There is a lot of shocking stuff happening now, but to completely deny climate change and any federal obligation to control the pollution that’s driving it would be shocking and irresponsible,” said David Doniger, senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Environmental advocates contend it also would be illegal. “Climate pollution is air pollution, and it is fueling a crisis,” said Margie Alt, director of the Climate Action Campaign. “There is no scientific basis – none – to claim otherwise.

Ann Carlson of LegalPlanet explains, bless her, that the EPA did all “the Science” and public consultation (after twenty years of indoctrination) to get this endangerment “finding” through in the first places so if Trump doesn’t follow the same process, they’ll get sued. She’s sure Trump would lose “because the science is… overwhelming”. Clearly, she has no idea ten times as many people die of the cold, (or even twenty times as many) or that the entire causal “evidence” for the dangers of CO2 depends on models that pretend the Sun is just a big light-globe. These models ignore the solar-electric field, the magnetic field, UV changes and the solar wind, and then, surprise, get nearly every prediction wrong.

Global warming saves 166,000 lives a year. It’s just a shame CO2 doesn’t cause more warming.

We’re just getting started

Believers are telling themselves all kinds of lies at the moment just to cope with the shock. They’re hoping that individual states will still be able to make self defeating climate rules, they’re warning it could take years for the EPA to get through the proper rule-making process. They’re comforting themselves that other legal doors will open if this one closes: even though teenagers might not be able to sue essential corporations for doing their jobs, “it could revive public nuisance laws” against oil producers. Praise the Lord!

Trump should not only set up a scientific group to investigate whether CO2 causes any harm, he should follow the evidence all the way. If the scientists consider the total cost-benefits of CO2, they’d easily show CO2 is an asset that feeds the poor, restores the forests, and improves life on Earth. Obviously, those companies and countries emitting CO2 are doing the world a favor. Coal, oil and gas plants should get tax deductions for their contributions.

Indeed, airconditioners save 20,000 lives in USA each year, so any products that increase the cost of electricity are the ones endangering lives…

h/t OldOzzie, David of Cooyal in Oz, RickWill, David+Wojick, another ian, Gerry England. 

Guardian: Give Up Kebabs to Stop Global Warming

“… skip two kebabs’ worth of meat a week …” – and flying, decent home heating, and owning an automobile.

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

“… skip two kebabs’ worth of meat a week …” – and flying, decent home heating, and owning an automobile.

UK urged to act now on net zero – and skip two kebabs’ worth of meat a week

Climate Change Committee issues advice to government on meeting carbon emissions target by 2050

Fiona Harvey Environment editorWed 26 Feb 2025 11.01 AEDT

Giving up two doner kebabs’ worth of meat a week will be enough to keep the UK within safe climate limits by the end of the next decade, as more drastic changes in behaviour can be avoided if the government takes action on greenhouse gases from energy, transport and industry, the UK’s climate advisers have said.

People would need to change their behaviour in some ways, such as by eating about 260g less meat each week, but this was likely to happen gradually and in line with health trends. “We are absolutely not saying everyone needs to be vegan. But we do expect to see a shift in dietary habits,” said Emily Nurse, head of net zero at the Climate Change Committee, which on Wednesday published its official advice to the government on meeting the UK’s target of reaching net zero emissions by 2050.

Flights should be more expensive by the 2040s although the sector could still expand by 10% while meeting emission targets, according to the CCC. In contrast to previous advice that no airport expansion could take place without big cuts to carbon elsewhere, it was not prescriptive about where or how the expansion could occur. It did find that a frequent flyer tax would have broad public support, and called on the aviation industry to take responsibility for reducing the resulting climate impact through investments in sustainable fuels and greater efficiency.

Gas boilers will have to go, people will have to use public transport and walk and cycle more frequently, while homes will need to be much better insulated, saving money as well as carbon, the CCC said.

…Read more: 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/26/uk-urged-to-act-now-on-net-zero-two-kebabs-worth-of-meat-climate-change-committee

One of my happy memories from my time in Britain is grabbing a quick kebab with friends while waiting for a taxi after being politely kicked out at closing time. Really took the edge off standing outside in the freezing cold.

How long are you Brits going to continue tolerating this nonsense?

Climate Change Committee Demands Government Impose Radical Lifestyle Changes on UK

The Climate Change Committee, the UK’s official Net Zero advisory body, has told the Government that to hit Net Zero it must impose radical lifestyle changes on the UK population.

From The Daily Sceptic

By Will Jones

The Climate Change Committee, the UK’s official Net Zero advisory body, has told the Government that to hit Net Zero it must impose radical lifestyle changes on the UK population. The Mail has more.

The UK’s drive for Net Zero means millions of Brits face having to install heat pumps in their homes over the next decade, according to the Government’s climate advisers.

The Climate Change Committee said there needed to be around 1.5 million heat pump installations a year in existing homes by 2035 – up from just 60,000 in 2023.

In its [advice on the UK’s] Seventh Carbon Budget, which sets a limit for UK greenhouse gas emissions between 2038 to 2042, the committee also piled pressure on Brits to buy electric cars, fly less and cut their meat and dairy consumption.

The report said, in order to meet the country’s Net Zero ambition, three-quarters of cars and vans and two-thirds of heavy good vehicles (HGVs) would need to be electric by 2040.

At the same time, Brits should be shunning their cars to cycle and walk more, while eating 25% less meat, the committee stated. 

Holidaymakers were warned of more expensive flights as the committee urged the Government to commit to a 17% fall in aviation emissions compared to 2023.

Demand for air travel needed to be managed to curb emissions, with airlines taking responsibility for the costs of decarbonising through sustainable fuels, capturing carbon and electric and hybrid planes, the committee said. [All of which are, being generous, unproven technology.]

That would push up costs, for example increasing the price of a return ticket to Alicante, Spain, by £150 and a round-trip to New York could be £300 more expensive by 2050, according to the report.

Critics of Net Zero policies condemned the report as the committee’s “usual Marxist garbage” and urged Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer to “face down the zealots” as his Labour administration scrambles for economic growth.

The Government is committed to reaching Net Zero – which means reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 100% from 1990 levels – by 2050. 

Under the committee’s “balanced pathway” for reaching this target, the report found achieving Net Zero would cost around £110 billion over the next 25 years.

At an average of £4 billion per year between 2025 and 2050, this translates to around 0.2% of GDP. 

This was estimated to be front-loaded into the first half of the period, peaking at annual net cost of £33 billion in 2029.

For the period between 2025 and 2040, the committee’s figures showed the drive to Net Zero would cost an eye-watering £320 billion.

But the report added, from 2040, the annual net cost would become a saving due to falling technology costs and more efficient use of energy and resources. [Jam tomorrow.]

This would lead to a net saving of around £35 billion in 2050, it said.

In its latest advice, the committee urged the Government to commit to an 87% cut on the UK’s 1990 levels of greenhouse gas emissions by 2040.

It set out what it said was a deliverable and cost-effective route to the greenhouse gas emissions cuts required from 2038 to 2042 to ensure the UK meets Net Zero by 2050.

Around a third of the emissions cuts in the period will have to come from action by households, mainly buying an electric car and a heat pump to replace an old gas boiler.

But personal choices on eating less meat and dairy, and flying, would play a “smaller, but important role”, the committee added.

To cut emissions from meat and dairy production – and free up land for tree planting to absorb carbon – Brits were told they would have to eat 25% less meat by 2040 compared with 2019 levels.

Worth reading in full.

The Climate Change Committee was created by the Climate Change Act 2008 to give the Government independent advice on how to achieve its climate goals. The Government is obliged under the act to create legally binding carbon budgets for each five year period up to 2050 to ensure it is on track. The Government doesn’t have to accept the committee’s advice – though to date it invariably has – but it does have to set a binding carbon budget (this will be the seventh, for 2038-2042) that keeps the country on target. Without repealing or amending the act the Government has very little wiggle room, so it’s worth looking out for what it actually comes up with in the next year or so. We shouldn’t expect it to be much different to what the committee has suggested, though. The point of the committee, after all, is to do the donkey work in figuring it all out. How this fits with ‘going for growth’, though, is anybody’s guess.

Stop Press: BP has announced it will cut its renewable energy investments by more than $5 billion (£3.9 billion) a year and instead focus on increasing oil and gas production, boosting its investments there by about 20% to $10 billion (£7.9 billion) a year.

Reasons Why Regulating CO2 Emissions Needs to be Reconsidered

Today, the Washington Post is reporting the EPA Administrator is considering recommending to the White House that the EPA’s 2009 CO2 Endangerment Finding be rescinded. Let’s look at a few of the reasons why this might be a good thing to consider.

From Roy Spencer, PhD

February 26th, 2025, by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Today, the Washington Post is reporting the EPA Administrator is considering recommending to the White House that the EPA’s 2009 CO2 Endangerment Finding be rescinded. Let’s look at a few of the reasons why this might be a good thing to consider.

The Science

The science of human-caused climate change is much more uncertain that you have been led to believe. The globally-averaged surface temperature of Earth seems to have warmed by 1 deg. C or so in the last century. The magnitude of the warming remains uncertain with a 30% range in different thermometer-based datasets, and considerably weaker warming in global “reanalysis” datasets using all available data types. But whatever the level of warming, it might well be mostly human-caused.

But we don’t really know.

As I keep pointing out, the global energy imbalance caused by increasing human-caused CO2 emissions (yes, I believe we are the cause) is smaller than the accuracy with which we know natural energy flows in the climate system. This means recent warming could be mostly natural and we would never know it.

I’m not claiming that is the case, only that there are uncertainties in climate science that are seldom if ever discussed. The climate models that are the basis for future projections of climate change are adjusted (fudged?) so that increasing CO2 is the only cause of warming. The models themselves do not have all of the necessary physics (mostly due to cloud process uncertainties) to determine whether our climate system was in a state of equilibrium before CO2 was increasing. (And, no, I don’t believe the warming caused the oceans to outgas more CO2 — that effect is very small compared to the size of the human source).

As most readers here are aware, for many years I’ve been saying the science of “climate change” has been corrupted by big government science budgets, ideological worldview biases, and group-think. Even my career has depended upon Congress being convinced the issue is worthy of big budgets.

It is almost impossible for new science to be published in the peer-reviewed literature that in any way runs counter to the current narrative which states that humans are causing a “climate crisis” from our CO2 emissions, a natural consequence of fossil fuel burning. That “peer review” is now in the hands of climate scientists whose research careers depend upon continuing government funding. If the “problem” of global warming were to be much less than previously believed, funding for that research could dry up.

The most alarmist science papers are the ones that get all of the press, which then get exaggerated and misrepresented by the news media. As a result, the public has a very skewed perception of what scientists really know.

As Roger Pielke, Jr. has been pointing out for many years, even the IPCC’s official reports do not claim that our greenhouse gas emissions have caused changes in severe weather. Every severe weather event in the news is now dutifully tied in some inferential way to human causation, but with public opinion of mainstream news outlets at an all-time low, fewer and fewer people take those news reports seriously. Severe weather has always existed, and always will. Storm damages have increased only because of increasing infrastructure and everyone wanting to live on the coast.

And about the only, clear, long-term change I’m aware of is a 50% decline in strong to violent tornadoes since the 1950s.

But you would never know of any good climate news if your main source of information is Al Gore’s books, your favorite environmental think tank (that you contribute to so you can get their yearly calendar), or the mainstream media.

Costs vs. Benefits

If there was no cost to replacing fossil fuels with renewable sources of energy, I might be a little more supportive of regulations which choose winners and losers, rather than letting the marketplace decide. But everything humans do requires energy, and so human flourishing depends upon abundant and affordable energy. We in the developed world might have excess wealth to spend on pricey new forms of energy (although our rapidly increasing national debt argues we don’t have excess wealth to squander), but most of the world’s poor continue to struggle to pay for energy we have in relative abundance… if they even have access to it.

The 2009 Endangerment Finding

The Supreme Court has ruled that CO2 falls under the EPA’s Clean Air Act, and so EPA would need to regulate it if it was considered a threat to human health and welfare. Which it did in 2009.

But this “threat to human health and welfare” business cuts both ways.

For example, I could argue that most premature human deaths are caused, indirectly, by what we eat (or don’t eat). The incidence of obesity and related illnesses continues to rise. So, given the threat of food to human and welfare, why not just outlaw food? Food is a threat to human health and welfare, too.

Clearly we don’t do that because food is necessary for life. But so is CO2.

CO2 is required for photosynthesis, which in turn is required for the food chain on land and in the oceans. NASA-based satellite measurements since the 1980s have documented global greening from increasing CO2. It has been estimated global agricultural productivity has increased by trillions of dollars from crops growing better, with more drought resistance, in a CO2-enriched atmosphere.

I’ve read the technical support document for the 2009 EF. It is full of gloom and doom. Any benefits to more CO2 are downplayed while costs are trumpeted. Its authorship appears to have been heavily influenced by environmental activists, most of whom have their own agendas. Much of the science in it now sounds more like Al Gore’s original alarmist book Earth In The Balance (which referenced me, but couldn’t get my science contributions right) than a balanced assessment of the science of climate change.

Fifteen years since the 2009 Endangerment Finding, we now know much more. None of the scary scenarios originally predicted have actually come to pass, or at a minimum they were greatly exaggerated. Ten-year deadlines to “do something” about the “climate crisis” have come and gone since this mess started in the 1980s… a few times over. Even the IPCC (which only allows alarmist-leaning scientists to participate) has admitted it is unlikely we will experience significant changes in severe weather by the year 2100 that can be tied to increasing CO2.

It makes sense to now reconsider the Endangerment Finding. Let the free market (including consumer preferences) decide which forms of energy we use.

Breaking: EPA Reportedly Urges Trump to Repeal Endangerment Finding, Washington Post Claims

The Washington Post published a report today stating that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has advised the Trump administration to repeal the 2009 “endangerment finding,” which classifies greenhouse gases as a threat to public health and welfare. This finding has underpinned federal emissions regulations for over a decade. The Post suggests that such a move, if enacted, would mark a significant shift in U.S. climate policy. The story relies on unnamed sources, leaving its claims unverified but noteworthy given the potential implications.

From Watts Up With That?

By Charles Rotter

The Washington Post published a report today stating that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has advised the Trump administration to repeal the 2009 “endangerment finding,” which classifies greenhouse gases as a threat to public health and welfare. This finding has underpinned federal emissions regulations for over a decade. The Post suggests that such a move, if enacted, would mark a significant shift in U.S. climate policy. The story relies on unnamed sources, leaving its claims unverified but noteworthy given the potential implications.

The Post article indicates that Trump administration officials are evaluating whether to reverse the endangerment finding, a determination first made under the Obama administration and later used by the Biden administration to impose limits on vehicle and power plant emissions. The report cites “three individuals briefed on the matter” who mention Mandy Gunasekara, a former EPA chief of staff and contributor to Project 2025, and Jonathan Brightbill, a former Justice Department official, as advisors involved in the effort. On his first day in office, President Trump issued an executive order directing EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin to assess the finding’s “legality and continuing applicability” within 30 days, with recommendations submitted to Russell Vought at the Office of Management and Budget. The EPA has not released these recommendations, and spokeswoman Molly Vaseliou declined to comment beyond confirming compliance with the order.

Because the Washington Post bases its account on three anonymous individuals rather than named officials or documented evidence. The absence of specific documentation or on-the-record statements from Gunasekara, Brightbill, or others named in the story leaves the report’s foundation uncertain, though not necessarily inaccurate.

The 2009 endangerment finding, upheld by a 2007 Supreme Court ruling affirming the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, has long been a target for critics of federal climate policy. During Trump’s first term, skeptics petitioned the EPA to repeal it, but the obstructionist bureaucrats at the agency stalled in opposition to Trump, finally, successfully, rejecting the petition on Trump’s last day in 2021, citing legal constraints. This time around the Trump administration has clearly learned from the past.

The current administration’s early actions, including the executive order, suggest a renewed interest in revisiting this issue. Figures like Tom Pyle of the American Energy Alliance and Myron Ebell of the American Lands Council, quoted by the Post, support the idea, arguing it could ease regulatory burdens and facilitate challenges to Biden-era rules.

Reversing the finding would face hurdles. Environmental attorney Sean Donahue, cited in the Post, contends that the scientific record supporting the endangerment determination—built over decades—would likely withstand legal challenges to a repeal. Previous court decisions have reinforced the EPA’s mandate, and any rollback could trigger litigation from environmental groups, but unlike Trump’s first term, Trump will have a DOJ that supports him in litigation.

If successful, repealing the endangerment finding would undermine the legal basis for many existing climate regulations, potentially affecting emissions standards for vehicles, power plants, and other sectors. Critics of the finding, including many contributors to this site, have long questioned its scientific grounding, pointing to massive uncertainties in climate models and historical data.

Without the finding, the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases could be sharply curtailed, shifting the policy landscape significantly.

The Post’s report, if confirmed, could reshape federal climate efforts. Its reliance on anonymous sources, however, warrants caution. The story’s plausibility is supported by the administration’s prior actions and the involvement of known policy advisors, yet the lack of concrete evidence—such as a leaked document or named official—keeps it in the realm of speculation for now. Observers should watch for further confirmation. Until then, this remains an intriguing but unproven claim.

Net Zero Watch ridicules ‘fantasy’ Carbon Budget

Net Zero Watch has ridiculed the Seventh Carbon Budget, which was published today, saying that ‘it doesn’t rise much above the level of fantasy’. The campaigning organisation says that the spending estimates are unaffordable, and are lowballed, because they are based on figures that bear no resemblance to anything seen in the real world.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

London: 26 February 2025
Net Zero Watch ridicules ‘fantasy’ Carbon Budget

Net Zero Watch has ridiculed the Seventh Carbon Budget, which was published today, saying that ‘it doesn’t rise much above the level of fantasy’. The campaigning organisation says that the spending estimates are unaffordable, and are lowballed, because they are based on figures that bear no resemblance to anything seen in the real world.

The Climate Change Committee, which prepares the budget, says that capital expenditure on Net Zero projects will have to rise from around £18 billion today to over £40 billion by 2029, a level of expenditure that will then have to be sustained for a decade. But Net Zero Watch director Andrew Montford says this is unaffordable:

The Chancellor of the Exchequer is already running out of spending headroom. For the Climate Change Committee to commit the country by law to a financial excess on this scale shows that the whole Net Zero project is not grounded in reality.

And Mr Montford has discovered that even these figures are gross underestimates, because the Climate Change Committee is assuming dramatic reductions in the cost of renewable energy, despite the fact that the ongoing trend is upwards.

Andrew Montford said:

The Climate Change Committee are telling us that Net Zero is going to save us money, but it’s clear that they have simply invented numbers that will lead to that conclusion. This report is not worth the paper it’s printed on.

Notes for editors

1. Real-world estimates of the cost of offshore wind (levelised costs) have been prepared by Net Zero Watch from audited financial accounts of windfarms.

2. Strike prices may be slightly lower than levelised costs because they are index linked and because windfarms can earn prices above their strike prices in various ways.

3. Ed Miliband is currently consulting on the possibility of extending windfarm subsidies to 20 years (from the current 15 years). This comes after the introduction of extra subsidies for windfarms in the shape of the Clean Industry Bonus scheme. These two factors are further indications that windfarm costs are rising, not falling.

Amicus Brief Filed in Glen Oaks Village Owners v. City Of New York

Back at the beginning of the year, I had a post titled “New York On The March To Climate Utopia.” The post took note that everything about New York State’s vision for a zero-emissions economy and for “climate leadership” was in the process of falling apart.

From Manhattan Contrarian

By Francis Menton

Back at the beginning of the year, I had a post titled “New York On The March To Climate Utopia.” The post took note that everything about New York State’s vision for a zero-emissions economy and for “climate leadership” was in the process of falling apart. Its contracts for vast offshore wind farms to replace fossil fuel generation had either been completely canceled (the majority) or rebid at much higher and uneconomic prices (the minority). Its two contracted facilities to produce “green” hydrogen to back up the intermittent wind and solar had run into financial difficulties and were likely to fail. It’s one big contracted high-capacity transmission line to bring the imaginary upstate wind and solar electricity to downstate markets had also been canceled, without stated reason but almost certainly because of unworkable economics.

I illustrated the piece with this picture of Wile E. Coyote in the role of New York State, having run off the cliff and about to fall to the bottom of the canyon:

In the few short weeks since that post, you would think that it would be almost impossible for the situation of New York’s utopian climate plans to have gotten any worse. But in fact the situation has gotten worse — much, much worse.

On January 20, President Trump was inaugurated, and he immediately went to work dismantling federal support and subsidies for “green” energy. By this January 20 Executive Order, Trump “temporarily” withdrew all of the Outer Continental Shelf from leasing for wind power projects. That appears to nix most, although perhaps not all, of New York’s offshore wind plans. (Although the pause in leasing is said to be “temporary,” there is no commitment that the leasing will ever resume.).

Also on January 20, Trump signed another Executive Order titled “Unleashing American Energy.” That one, in Section 7, ordered an immediate halt to all disbursements of subsidies to “green” energy projects under the Inflation Reduction Act or Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act:

All agencies shall immediately pause the disbursement of funds appropriated through the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (Public Law 117-169) or the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Public Law 117-58), . . . and shall review their processes, policies, and programs for issuing grants, loans, contracts, or any other financial disbursements of such appropriated funds for consistency with the law and the policy outlined in section 2 of this order.

It is highly likely that New York was relying on receiving many billions of dollars under these Acts to prop up its wind, solar, transmission and green hydrogen schemes. Again, the pause from this EO is only “temporary,” but in all likelihood these funds will never come back during the Trump presidency, and probably ever.

Meanwhile, New York State’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act of 2019 (Climate Act) remains on the books. That statute commands the complete restructuring of New York’s energy economy to reach “net zero” greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, with a most immediate first deadline of 70% of electricity generation from “renewables” by 2030. They never had a credible plan to achieve that, but they pretended they were going to do most of it with the big offshore wind buildout. Now that that is dead, they don’t even have a fake plan.

And also meanwhile, New York City’s statute known as Local Law 97 also remains on the books. That’s the statute that mandates that all residential buildings in excess of 25,000 square feet convert to electric heat by 2030 — the same year that the State’s Climate Act mandates 70% of electricity generation from “renewables,” of which the large majority can only come from non-existent wind and solar. Thus, we have the city mandating a huge increase in electricity demand by 2030 at the same time that the State is mandating dismantling our existing reliable electricity generation with no credible plan to replace it.

Back in 2022, a group of co-op owners and boards in Queens brought a case in the New York State courts seeking to get the City’s Local Law 97 declared invalid as “pre-empted” by the State’s Climate Act. The case goes by the name Glen Oaks Village Owners, Inc. v. City of New York. Since it started, the case has been tied up in motions and appeals. Initially, the trial court (in New York we call that the Supreme Court) dismissed the case, finding no pre-emption. However, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed and ordered the trial court to consider whether there was pre-emption. Rather than going back to the trial court, the City decided to try to appeal to the Court of Appeals, our highest court, to get the dismissal re-instated. The case has just concluded briefing in that court.

On Friday, my co-counsel Cam Macdonald and I filed an amicus brief in this case on behalf of a group of parties including some co-op owners and a not-for-profit called New Yorkers for Affordable Reliable Energy. The amicus brief argues that the Climate Act and Local Law 97 are in irreconcilable conflict because the State via the Climate Act has no plan or ability to provide the electricity that would be needed to enable compliance with the City’s Local Law 97. Here is a quote from our Summary of Argument:

The irreconcilability [of the two laws] arises from the simultaneous mandates in Local Law 97 and the Climate Act. First, Local Law 97 mandates that large residential buildings in New York City convert to electric heat by 2030. Meanwhile, the Climate Act requires 70 percent of the state’s electricity come from “renewables,” also by 2030.

The latter mandate requires replacing always-available fossil fuel electrical generation capacity with intermittent wind and solar electricity generation, Wind and solar cannot provide continuous electricity supply. Intermittency threatens buildings that have converted to electric heat with losing heat for extended periods in the dead of winter.

The Climate Act, and a “Scoping Plan” developed under it, contain no credible plan to provide the additional reliable electricity needed to heat all large New York City buildings, as Local Law 97 mandates.

I don’t yet have a link for this amicus brief, but I will plan to update this post when a link becomes available.

The Court of Appeals has a chance here to save New York City and its residents from their own folly. It may or may not take advantage of the opportunity. If it takes a pass, and reinstates the dismissal of the case, Local Law 97 will still fail within a few years at most. It’s just that, in that scenario, a lot of people stand to get hurt.

NOAA’s Homogenized Temperature Records: A Statistical House of Cards?

For years, climate scientists have assured us that NOAA’s homogenized temperature datasets—particularly the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN)—are the gold standard for tracking global warming. But what if the “corrections” applied to these datasets are introducing more noise than signal? A recent study published in Atmosphere has uncovered shocking inconsistencies in NOAA’s adjustments, raising serious concerns about the reliability of homogenized temperature records.

From Watts Up With That?

By Charles Rotter

For years, climate scientists have assured us that NOAA’s homogenized temperature datasets—particularly the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN)—are the gold standard for tracking global warming. But what if the “corrections” applied to these datasets are introducing more noise than signal? A recent study published in Atmosphere has uncovered shocking inconsistencies in NOAA’s adjustments, raising serious concerns about the reliability of homogenized temperature records.

https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/13/2/285

The study, conducted by a team of independent climate researchers led by Peter O’Neill, Ronan Connolly, Michael Connolly, and Willie Soon, offers a meticulous examination of NOAA’s homogenization techniques. These researchers, known for their expertise in climate data analysis and critical evaluation of mainstream climate methodologies, gathered an extensive archive of NOAA’s GHCN dataset over more than a decade. Their research involved tracking over 1800 daily updates to analyze how NOAA’s adjustments to historical temperature records changed over time.

Their findings reveal a deeply concerning pattern of inconsistencies and unexplained changes in temperature adjustments, prompting renewed scrutiny of how NOAA processes climate data.

The study analyzed NOAA’s GHCN dataset over a decade and found that:

  • The same temperature records were being adjusted differently on different days—sometimes dramatically.
  • 64% of the breakpoints identified by NOAA’s Pairwise Homogenization Algorithm (PHA) were highly inconsistent, appearing in less than 25% of NOAA’s dataset runs.
  • Only 16% of the adjustments were consistently applied in more than 75% of cases, meaning the majority of “corrections” are shifting unpredictably.
  • Less than 20% of NOAA’s breakpoints corresponded to actual documented station changes, suggesting that many adjustments were made without supporting metadata.

In layman’s terms: NOAA is repeatedly changing historical temperature records in ways that are inconsistent, poorly documented, and prone to error.

What Is Homogenization Supposed to Do?

Homogenization is a statistical process meant to remove non-climatic biases from temperature records, such as changes in station location, instrument type, or observation time. NOAA’s PHA algorithm adjusts temperature records based on statistical comparisons with neighboring stations—without needing actual metadata to confirm whether an adjustment is necessary.

This method has been defended by NOAA researchers, who claim it effectively removes bias. However, the new study suggests it might be introducing arbitrary and inconsistent changes that could distort temperature trends.

If NOAA’s adjustments are inconsistent, how can we trust the long-term climate trends derived from them? Here’s why this matters:

  • Garbage In, Garbage Out: Climate models and policy decisions rely on adjusted temperature data. If those adjustments are unreliable, the conclusions based on them are questionable.
  • Artificial Warming or Cooling? The study did not specifically analyze whether these inconsistencies bias the data towards warming or cooling, but past research has shown that homogenization tends to amplify warming trends.
  • Lack of Transparency: NOAA’s daily homogenization updates mean that the past is constantly being rewritten, with little accountability or external validation.

The study’s authors argue that homogenization should not be done blindly without using actual station metadata. Instead, adjustments should be:

  1. Ground-truthed with station metadata whenever possible—not just assumed based on statistical models.
  2. Made transparent—users of temperature data should be informed about exactly when and why adjustments are made.
  3. Re-evaluated for bias—does homogenization systematically increase warming trends?

If NOAA’s temperature records are truly the best we have, they should be robust, reproducible, and verifiable. Instead, this study suggests they are a moving target, adjusted differently depending on the day, and often without a clear reason.

The question we must ask is this: Is the global temperature record a reliable dataset, or just a statistical house of cards?

We need transparency, accountability, and scientific rigor in climate science. Until then, every NOAA temperature dataset should be taken with a grain of salt.

No News is Good News on Polar Bear Day: Celebrate With 35% Off Polar Bear Evolution

Instead of asking whether polar bears will survive a bit of warming over the next few decades, ask yourself how they survived more than 100,000 years of unimaginable changes in Arctic climate (both much warmer and colder) before now?

From polarbearscience

In honour of International Polar Bear Day coming up on Thursday February 27, I’ve discounted the price of my Polar Bear Evolution book by 40% for the next month in order to encourage evolutionary thinking about polar bears (in all markets: see links at the end of this post). Instead of asking whether polar bears will survive a bit of warming over the next few decades, ask yourself how they survived more than 100,000 years of unimaginable changes in Arctic climate (both much warmer and colder) before now?

No News is Good News

Aside from the usual rhetoric we’ve been accustomed to hearing from polar bear specialists—Hudson Bay bears on the verge of extinction! A new model predicts catastrophe for polar bears due to climate change! Vanishing sea ice threatens polar bear food chain! Polar bears suffering painful ice balls on their paws due to climate change! —nothing much new has happened since my State of the Polar Bear Report last year.

Conveniently, no new subpopulation survey results have been published, so polar bear specialists would still have you believe there have been no changes in global population numbers over the last 10 years. No reports of starving bears (or their new-age equivalent, wandering bears); no invasions of small Arctic towns or fatal attacks on people, both of which have been routinely blamed on lack of sea ice and so we’ve been told to expect increases due to declines in summer sea ice.

Presumably, then, polar bears are just getting on with their lives, dealing with small-scale changes in sea ice as they did during earlier parts of the Holocene and other warm interglacial periods (some lasting over 10,000 years) over the entire 100,000 years or so of their existence.

Getting on with life in East Greenland

Which brings me to this incident in East Greenland, in June 2024: more than 68 polar bears gathered to feed at a whale carcass embedded in the sea ice, including a sow with three cubs of the year, and were photographed by rich eco-tourists on a cruise (lots more photos than these two are available at the link).

As the photos show, the sow with cubs appears to be in good condition but some others are quite thin. That’s usual for this time of year: most polar bears are in the worst shape of the year in late winter, which is why the boom of baby seals in spring is so important to their survival. Some young bears, who are not yet very good hunters and aren’t big enough to compete for scarce winter resources, routinely die of starvation: that the life of polar bears.1

See my video from 2018 on starving polar bears.

Apparently, the sea ice was so thick (up to 11m) off East Greenland in June 2024 that the ice-breaker the ecotourists were on couldn’t make it through to the little village in Scoresby Sound (Ittoqqortoormiit) the group had planned to visit:

Sea ice conditions in East Greenland at mid-June 2024 don’t look so bad but apparently the ice was far thicker than expected:

Polar Bear Evolution on Sale!

You can quote me: “Modern polar bears are essentially pre-adapted to survive extended periods with ice-free summers because they lived through at least two of these events since they became a unique species. One of these, the Eemian, lasted at least 10 thousand years.” [Susan Crockford, 11 June 2023, author of Polar Bear Evolution: A Model for How New Species Arise]

This comprehensive look at polar bear evolution provides critical insight into why we should expect Ursus maritimus to survive in a warmer world. Polar bear physiology and behavior have been fine-tuned by natural selection to adapt the species to the highly dynamic Arctic environment of the late Pleistocene, including interglacial periods when sea ice was much scarcer than it is today and lasted thousands of years at a time.

Highlights

  • We have known for a long time that polar bears evolved from a brown bear ancestor because of the close similarities between fossil bones of ancient bears and biological features of living animals.
  • Despite more than a dozen genetic studies and several new fossil finds, before now no one has been able to reconcile all the evidence regarding when and where this speciation event happened.
  • This book argues that polar bears almost certainly evolved off Ireland about 140 thousand years ago, during a very cold ice age.
  • Uniquely, this account also provides an explanation for how this happened, using a testable theory that explains exactly how a brown bear could have transformed into a polar bear within a few generations.
  • The same theory also explains how virtually all other species came to be, including domestic dogs, flightless birds, and dwarf island species.
  • More than the complete story of polar bear origins, this book is a big-picture account of how evolution works for most organisms.
  • Given their evolutionary history, polar bears must be pre-adapted to extended periods of ice-free summers, since we know they have survived at least two of these events, the first of which lasted at least 10 thousand years.

Polar Bear Evolution: A Model for How New Species Arise is available via Amazon marketplaces worldwide, in print and ebook formats. Read a sample by clicking on the Kindle or paperback icons.

USA https://www.amazon.com/dp/1778038328

UK https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1778038328

Canada https://www.amazon.ca/dp/1778038328

Australia https://www.amazon.com.au/dp/1778038328

Germany https://www.amazon.de/dp/1778038328