Day: March 7, 2025

‘Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past

One argument against the climate alarmism is the failed predictive record of the scientist-activists themselves. One salient example can be found in The Independent (March 20, 2000), “Snowfalls are now Just a Thing of the Past. The prediction belonged to David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (yes, of Climategate infamy).

From Master Resource

By Robert Bradley Jr.

“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”

– David Viner, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia (2000)

One argument against the climate alarmism is the failed predictive record of the scientist-activists themselves. One salient example can be found in The Independent (March 20, 2000), “Snowfalls are now Just a Thing of the Past. The prediction belonged to David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (yes, of Climategate infamy).

The Independent has deleted this article, but secondary sources have captured it for posperity. As in: never forget….

“Britain’s winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives,” the article began. Continuing:

Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain’s culture, as warmer winters – which scientists are attributing to global climate change – produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries.

Recent, anecdotal evidence was controlling.

The first two months of 2000 were virtually free of significant snowfall in much of lowland Britain, and December brought only moderate snowfall in the South-east. It is the continuation of a trend that has been increasingly visible in the past 15 years: in the south of England, for instance, from 1970 to 1995 snow and sleet fell for an average of 3.7 days, while from 1988 to 1995 the average was 0.7 days. London’s last substantial snowfall was in February 1991.

The UK’s global warming was winter-oriented:

However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

Back to (then) recent, anecdotal evidence:

The effects of snow-free winter in Britain are already becoming apparent. This year, for the first time ever, Hamleys, Britain’s biggest toyshop, had no sledges on display in its Regent Street store. “It was a bit of a first,” a spokesperson said.

Fen skating, once a popular sport on the fields of East Anglia, now takes place on indoor artificial rinks. Malcolm Robinson, of the Fenland Indoor Speed Skating Club in Peterborough, says they have not skated outside since 1997. “As a boy, I can remember being on ice most winters. Now it’s few and far between,” he said.

Michael Jeacock, a Cambridgeshire local historian, added that a generation was growing up “without experiencing one of the greatest joys and privileges of living in this part of the world – open-air skating”.

Winter warming would seem to have distinct benefits, from lower energy bills to fewer cold deaths. But not so, the article stated.

Warmer winters have significant environmental and economic implications, and a wide range of research indicates that pests and plant diseases, usually killed back by sharp frosts, are likely to flourish. But very little research has been done on the cultural implications of climate change – into the possibility, for example, that our notion of Christmas might have to shift.

The end of snow was considered a sure thing.

Professor Jarich Oosten, an anthropologist at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands, says that even if we no longer see snow, it will remain culturally important.

“We don’t really have wolves in Europe any more, but they are still an important part of our culture and everyone knows what they look like,” he said.

David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes – or eventually “feel” virtual cold.

Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. “We’re really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time,” he said.

The chances are certainly now stacked against the sort of heavy snowfall in cities that inspired Impressionist painters, such as Sisley, and the 19th century poet laureate Robert Bridges, who wrote in “London Snow” of it, “stealthily and perpetually settling and loosely lying”.

Not any more, it seems.

Like the Climategate emails, you cannot undo the words, sentences and paragraphs of this article.

Elsewhere, SkepticalScience was concerned about too much snow:

The 2009/2010 winter saw a number of dramatic, record-breaking snowstorms. Early February saw two “once in a 100 years” snowstorms hit Philadelphia, now being dubbed “Snowmageddon”. Does record snowfall prove that global warming isn’t happening? What do observations say? 2009 was the second hottest year on record. January 2010 was the hottest January in the UAH satellite record. Satellites data indicates last month was the second hottest February in the satellite record. Observations tell us that rumours of global warming’s death have been greatly exaggerated. 

Exaggeration Backfires

With plenty of snow and even record chills, we are told that “climate change” is the reason. Such a dodge is too little, too late. Chronic exaggeration creates a credibility problem, as documented in Michael Shellenberger’s Apocalypse Never, which referenced his Forbes column, Why Climate Alarmism Hurts Us All.

Bjorn Lomborg’s best-seller, False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet,” hits upon the same theme. And do not forget a 16-year-old piece by the then New York Times climate scribe Andrew Revkin, In Climate Debate, Exaggeration Is a Pitfall.

The last word belong to Fred Krupp, former head of the Environmental Defense Fund, who stated in 2011:

There has to be a lot of shrillness taken out of our language. In the environmental community, we have to be more humble. We can’t take the attitude that we have all the answers.”

The High Cost of Climate Scams — The Climate Realism Show #148

We’ve covered the climate grift in several recent episodes, but now it’s time for a deeper dive. This week, The Heartland Institute published a new paper titled The High Cost of Climate Scams: Assessing the Green Giveaways in the Inflation Reduction Act. This law was never meant to fight inflation—it was designed to funnel hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars into the pockets of politically connected “green” businesses and pop-up nonprofits. Did we say hundreds of billions? The real price tag is closer to $2 TRILLION.

From The Heartland Institute

We’ve covered the climate grift in several recent episodes, but now it’s time for a deeper dive. This week, The Heartland Institute published a new paper titled The High Cost of Climate Scams: Assessing the Green Giveaways in the Inflation Reduction Act. This law was never meant to fight inflation—it was designed to funnel hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars into the pockets of politically connected “green” businesses and pop-up nonprofits. Did we say hundreds of billions? The real price tag is closer to $2 TRILLION.

The Heartland Institute’s Anthony Watts, Sterling Burnett, Linnea Lueken, and Jim Lakely will dig deeper into the greatest scam in history. We will also cover the Crazy Climate News of the Week, including Bill Nye lying about how wildfires in South Carolina “didn’t use to be a thing,” Michael Mann suffering another humiliating loss in court, and why God hates wind turbines.

Join us LIVE at 1 p.m. ET on YouTube and Rumble and bring your questions—we’ll be answering them in the chat!

Some Climate History, Including on Cyclones Making Landfall as Far South as Brisbane

When it comes to extreme weather, cyclones are top of my list.   The most extreme cyclone to hit Queensland, Tropical Cyclone Mahina, was arguably the world’s most intense with a central pressure recorded at 880 hectopascals, a 12-metre storm surge, and 300 kilometre per hour winds.  It was named, by Queensland government meteorologist, Clement Wragge.   That was in 1899 – 126 years ago.

From Jennifer Marohasy

By jennifer 

When it comes to extreme weather, cyclones are top of my list.   The most extreme cyclone to hit Queensland, Tropical Cyclone Mahina, was arguably the world’s most intense with a central pressure recorded at 880 hectopascals, a 12-metre storm surge, and 300 kilometre per hour winds.  It was named, by Queensland government meteorologist, Clement Wragge.   That was in 1899 – 126 years ago.

Contrary to popular narratives cyclones are not becoming more intense, and their frequency is waning.  CSIRO research has confirmed a statistically significant downward trend in the annual number of tropical cyclones in the Australian region over the period extending from 1981/82 to 2017/18 that is during the satellite period.   The intensity of these cyclones is also in decline.

The number and intensity of cyclones crossing the Australian mainland is in decline but only considering the last 50 years.

This is perhaps some comfort to those watching the approach of Tropical Cyclone Alfred in southeast Queensland and northeast New South Wales.  TC Alfred has a central pressure of 978 hectopascals (1316 UTC 6th March 2025) and is sustaining winds near its centre of 95 kilometres per hour with wind gusts to 130 kilometres per hour already being experienced along the coast to Lennox Heads.

TC Alfred will pack a bad punch.  But southeast Queensland and northern New South Wales have sustained such low pressure and strong winds before.   The best idea is to make sure you have a stash of water, and also a gas cylinder.  There is nothing quite like being able to make a cup of tea on the camping stove when the mains electricity and water is not working.

In fact, during the period 1935 to 1974 every other year there was a cyclone making landfall as far south as Brisbane and into New South Wales.  There were two cyclones making landfall as far south as New South Wales in 1934: on January 30th and then again on February 19th.   Two cyclones also made landfall in New South Wales in 1959: TC Beatrice and TC Connie.   These four cyclones are listed in a journal article by J.L. Gray et al. entitled ‘On the Recent Hiatus of Tropical Cyclones Landfalling in NSW, Australia’ published in the Journal of Southern Hemisphere Earth Systems Science in 2020.

The climate follows cycles, and it is the case that there has been a hiatus of tropical cyclones making landfall near Brisbane.

There was a period of some decades during the first half of the twentieth century when cyclones were given numbers rather than names.  That was immediately following the formation of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the appointment of Henry A. Hunt as its founding director on 1 January 1907.

Headquartered in Melbourne, the first thing Hunt did was focus on consolidating ‘the disparate’ state services.  In fact, he immediately sacked Clement Wragge and some other first-class meteorologists with attitudes and also discontinued Wragge’s naming of cyclones.

Wragge was ahead of his time. Hunt did recognise the value of the white louvred boxes, now known as Stevenson screens, that Wragge began using in some parts of Queensland a good two decades before they were later installed, under Hunt’s directives in New South Wales and Victoria beginning only in 1908.  So, a reliable temperature record exists back to the late 1880s for parts of Queensland, a good twenty years before the southern states.

We know from the work of Clement Wragge, still denied by many particularly in Melbourne, that not only were the cyclones severe back in the 1890s it was also very hot sometimes.

It is a large system, a large cyclone, right now sitting just off shore from Brisbane.
It is definitely time to put the surf boards and paddle boards away.

SEC’s Climate Risk Disclosure Rule Would Compel Companies to Make Scientifically False and Misleading Disclosures

In March last year, the Securities and Exchange Commission issued its climate risk disclosure rule, called “The Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors.” 

From RealClearEnergy

By Stone Washington , William Happer

In March last year, the Securities and Exchange Commission issued its climate risk disclosure rule, called “The Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors.” 

It requires companies to report enormously costly and voluminous data on their carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. With this rule, the SEC seeks “to achieve the primary benefits of GHG emissions disclosure” for investors, including disclosure of “risks associated” with regulations such as President Biden’s “commitments to reduce economy-wide net greenhouse gas emissions … to reach net zero emissions by 2050.”

It will flood investors with pages upon pages of information. As to costs, the SEC’s own numbers found that the proposed rule would increase annual compliance costs from $3.8 billion to $10.2 billion, a $6.4 billion rise — more than all the accumulated SEC disclosure rules’ costs from SEC’s initiation in the 1930s to date – combined. Even though the final rule’s cost is less, the numbers indicate the order of magnitude. It may signal what the ultimate cost of future environmental disclosures would be, in addition to the ensuing fossil fuel divestment. 

The SEC assumes, like many, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claim the “evidence is clear that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the main driver of climate change,” including, the SEC asserts, “higher temperatures, sea level rise, and drought”, as well as “hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, and wildfires.”

However, the little-known accurate science is totally contrary to the SEC’s and IPCC’s premise.

Co-author William Happer, an emeritus physics professor at Princeton, explains below how carbon dioxide and other GHGs do not cause any increased climate related risks.

The SEC’s and IPCC’s claim is scientifically false. 

Thus, the SEC rule would compel companies to disclose scientifically false and misleading information about carbon dioxide and other GHG’s role in climate-related risks to investors. Accordingly, the SEC rule must be rescinded by the Trump Administration or ruled invalid by the courts, whichever is sooner.

Co-author Happer explains the accurate science in detail in a 28 page comment on the proposed SEC rule with Richard Lindzen, an emeritus physics professor at MIT.

The comment explains why there are no added climate related risks caused by carbon dioxide. (The other greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide are too small to have any significant effect on the environment). 

The SEC totally ignored and did not respond to the comment. Three of the many scientific reasons elaborated in the comment are:

First, Carbon Dioxide Now and at Higher Levels is a Weak Greenhouse Gas, So Reducing It to Net Zero Will Have a Negligible Effect on Temperatures

Carbon dioxide has two relevant properties, as a GHG and as a creator of food.

As a GHG, carbon dioxide’s ability to raise Earth’s temperature decreases rapidly as the atmospheric concentration increase. 

The science is complex, but the scientific conclusion is simple. At today’s level of about 400 parts per million (ppm) and higher, large increases of carbon dioxide will cause negligible warming of the Earth.

The well-established theory of atmospheric heat transfer allows computing what happens when carbon dioxide’s concentration in the atmosphere increases, for example, doubling from today’s approximately 400 ppm to 800 ppm. 

As to temperature, the result would be only a minuscule effect on temperature because carbon dioxide is now, and at higher levels, a weak greenhouse gas. Lindzen and Happer state:

“From now on … we could emit as much CO2 as we like, with little warming effect.” This also means that “our emissions from burning fossil fuels could have little impact on global warming. There is no climate emergency. No threat at all.” 

As to food, carbon dioxide creates more food when its level in the atmosphere increases. Doubling carbon dioxide from 400 ppm to 800 ppm would increase the amount of food available to people worldwide by roughly 40%, with a negligible effect on temperature.

Further, never mentioned, is that reducing carbon dioxide to Net Zero will reduce the amount of food available worldwide.

Second. The EPA’s MAGICC Model Confirms Carbon Dioxide Now and at Higher Levels is a Weak Greenhouse Gas, So Reducing It to Net Zero Will Have a Negligible Effect on Temperatures

The Environmental Protection Agency often uses a model for predicting temperature effects called the Model for Assessment of Greenhouse Gas-Induced Climate Change (MAGICC).

Our comment explains the MAGICC model confirms our conclusion:

“Reducing the current 40 Gigaton CO2 annual emissions worldwide and the 6 Gigaton annual U.S. CO2 emissions to ‘net zero’ would cause only tiny changes of … Earth’s surface temperature.”

Third. 600 Million Years of Carbon Dioxide Data Also Confirms Carbon Dioxide Now and at Higher Levels is a Weak Greenhouse Gas, So Reducing It to Net Zero Will Have a Negligible Effect on Temperatures

Our comment presents 600 million years of data on temperature and carbon dioxide levels that shows an inverse relationship most of the time. “For hundreds of millions of years, temperatures were low when CO2 levels were high, and temperatures were high when CO2 levels were low.”

“When CO2 was record high of about 7,000 ppm, temperatures were at a record low.”

Thus 600 million years of data also confirms carbon dioxide is now a weak greenhouse gas that cannot and does not drive climate change.

Finally, our comment details why the rule if adopted would help cause disastrous consequences for the poor, people worldwide, and future generations of Americans because it would reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the use of fossil fuels.

Therefore, science contradicts the SEC and IPCC’s premise that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases introduce climate-related risks. Such assumptions are scientifically false. Thus requiring companies to report their GHG data to investors interested in climate change would require them to report false and misleading information.

Accordingly, the new SEC leadership should immediately rescind its climate-related risks disclosure rule, or the courts should rule it invalid, whichever is sooner.

Finally, there are, of course, nature caused climate-related risks. For nature, the SEC explained, “it has required disclosure of certain environmental matters for the past 50 years,” including “disclosure of climate-related risks and their impacts on a registrant’s business or financial condition.”

Thus, the SEC has already taken care of them. Nothing else need be done.

Stone Washington is a research fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

William Happer is Professor of Physics, Emeritus at Princeton University.

Recent temperature spike and now downturn raise questions

The cumulative buildup of heat in the ocean is adding WV to the atmosphere, which is leading to distorted warming where the coldest, driest areas primarily in their winter seasons are skewing global temperatures up. The global temperature metric is misleading, as the better metric is wet bulb temps and better than that would be saturation mixing ratios. This would describe better what is going on, and would not be nearly as “alarming” to the hysterics.

From CFACT

By Joe Bastardi

The hypothesis is simple

The cumulative buildup of heat in the ocean is adding WV to the atmosphere, which is leading to distorted warming where the coldest, driest areas primarily in their winter seasons are skewing global temperatures up. The global temperature metric is misleading, as the better metric is wet bulb temps and better than that would be saturation mixing ratios. This would describe better what is going on, and would not be nearly as “alarming” to the hysterics (it’s not alarming to me even with temperatures and makes perfect sense given it looks like the MEWP)

As far as the source of the input I am not going to rehash fully my ideas, supported by Dr Arthur Viteriro and a whole host of peer-reviewed papers

Dr Wyss Yim’s work

So there is input and sadly we do not have enough data to prove my point. But those that say there is not enough, also do not have enough to prove its not. Simply saying there is not enough heat down there when the amount of input we have is laughable and there are references does not negate the hypothesis developed by having to deal with these hot spots and marine heat waves now or 35 years since the input started. And the result of each one of these is in a jagged fashion to leave the ocean warmer, with more water vapor input into the air and hence the warming the way it is observed.

For the kajillionth time

And now comes this, the drop-off

This is from Dr Roy Spencer’s site with my straight lines on it. Dr. Spencer, who I admire, does not agree with me, and I understand, and respect that, and also know he might be right, and I might be wrong.

The straight lines represent the leveling off in the wake of strong El ninos after a step up due to the El nino. This is classic Le Chatiliers, a simple principle that seems to be ignored in this day and age of Al Gore science. The El Nino being forced by the cumulative build-up of heat and the reaction to the warming that does occur ( creates the conditions for a La Nina base state in the atmosphere were western Pacific and Asian warming lead to increased low-level easterlies as a counter, until such time it has to flop back and must be countered by the heat build-up driven El Nino) The recent spike PROVED IT WAS NOT CO2, as it was the strong Nino aided by Tonga and now that the effects of Tonga are being absorbed I suspect a new plateau develops.

Or does it? What if the input is slowing down? There is some evidence that the cycle that has been opined as the cause in previous postings is nearing its end. It will be a simple test. Just like I opined before the spike had to be caused by non-made sources, if the input of geothermal slows, and the oceans cool (it will be relatively slow as there is a lag). then the hypothesis will have merit

If you forecast globally every day and have to put out seasonal ideas you understand the impact of the distorted feedback of all this where the increase in WV makes a much bigger difference where it is coldest and driest.  Winters are the easiest way to see that. More WV where its cold, more clouds, more low pressure, more wind and so temperatures are not as low. So the “boiling” is where its still frigid, not as frigid.

So, while total energy available to the system has to have increased, the DIFFERENCES POLE TO EQUATOR have to decrease A shot of the winter months shows wonderfully what I am saying the coldest driest areas warm most, skew the global temps and lead to the propaganda-based hysteria that guys like Gore shoot their mouths off with despicable ignorance.

Read this

Al Gore, speaking at Davos: “[Greenhouse gases are] now trapping as much extra heat as would be released by 600,000 Hiroshima-class atomic bombs exploding every single day.” “That’s what’s boiling the oceans… and creating the droughts, and melting the ice, and raising the sea level, and causing these waves of climate refugees, predicted to reach one billion in this century.” “Look at the xenophobia and political authoritarian trends that have come from just a few million refugees. What about a billion?” “We would lose our capacity for self-governance.”

This is wrong on so many levels. Comparing it to atomic bombs is lunacy. The ocean warming does it from non-man-made sources whether it is my idea or others. There is no way with the warming in the so-called climate migrant areas, where they are growing more food than ever, that you can detect throughout a generation an increase of that small number of temperatures. Climate migrants? We have had NOMADS for time eternal and in our country, during the Dust Bowl. In fact, snowbirds in Florida are down there fleeing the cold, are they climate migrants? But this is an example of the lunacy that hopefully the sane people now in office can put a stop too, not by silencing them, but by letting them talk and demonstrating how wrong they are, piece by piece.

Do you think for one minute Gore knows what saturation mixing ratios are and how they easily explain this?

Consider this. If this hypothesis proves to have merit the whole climate fight, which has been a waste of time and treasure and indirectly blood due to policies that have made our adversaries rich enough to wage war (another topic for another time) then a lot of people are out of business. If I am wrong, then so what, adapt. Either way, it leaves the input of CO2 into what is still as the Co2 coalition loves to remind us of because it’s true, in a co2 drought historically and has very little to do (most likely not measurable) with individual or large-scale weather events. And any more time and money spent on this is a waste.

Climate Annoying? Open the Mind Instead

Sammy Roth, climate columnist at the Los Angeles Times, might need an intervention from a loved one. He wants us all, like him, to annoyingly talk about climate change. I doubt many will take him up on it, and his next family get-together might hang in the balance.

From Master Resource

By Robert Bradley Jr.

“… talking to your friends and family [about climate change] … is a great place to start. You might be annoying. But you’ll be helping.” – Sammy Roth [1]

Sammy Roth, climate columnist at the Los Angeles Times, might need an intervention from a loved one. He wants us all, like him, to annoyingly talk about climate change. I doubt many will take him up on it, and his next family get-together might hang in the balance.

Roth states in Boiling Point: Want to fight climate change? Then talk about Climate Change (February 25, 2025):

When people ask me what they can do to support climate progress, one piece of advice I give again and again is to annoy their friends and family by talking about climate change constantly.

Here’s the thing: Large majorities of Americans understand that global warming is real, dangerous and caused by humans. Even so, it’s not a threat that most people prioritize in their daily lives.

Polls, polls. Ask the right questions to get the desired results. Roth continues:

For proof, see the latest edition of Climate Change in the American Mind, a twice-yearly poll from George Mason and Yale universities. Researchers talked with 1,013 adults, releasing the results this month. They found that 73% of Americans think global warming is happening. Sixty percent know it’s mostly human-caused.

Also illuminating: Nearly two-thirds of Americans are worried about climate change consequences. Between 61% and 77% think global warming is affecting problems such as electric outages, water pollution, reduced snowpack, air pollution, hurricanes, droughts, fires and extreme heat, the poll found. All that tracks with the science.

And then comes this statistic that Roth seizes upon:

Despite those concerns, 62% of Americans say they rarely or never discuss global warming with friends or family. Just 27% say they hear about it on social media at least once a month. Not even 1 in 3 consumers are, even occasionally, making purchasing decisions based on the steps companies have taken to reduce pollution.

He blames such passiveness with the myriad failures hitting the wind and solar industries:

It’s no wonder tech giants Microsoft and Meta are backing away from their renewable energy goals and rushing to build gas-fired plants to power artificial intelligence. If President Trump loves fossil fuels, and consumers don’t care, what’s the harm? Same goes for fossil fuel giant BP, which is planning to scrap its renewable energy goal.

Roth then conflates CO2 emissions with pollution, the latter being the criteria air pollutants, all declining with fossil fuels now being environmental products at the point of combustion.

It’s also no wonder the U.S. has made such slow political progress addressing oil and gas pollution. Polling has found that while voters know the climate crisis is real and dangerous, it’s relatively low on their priority list.

The grand consensus is unravelling. But Roth wants to reverse all this to the point of being a pest.

There’s no easy way to get more people to prioritize climate. Especially not when traditional media is less trusted than ever. Especially not when Trump and Elon Musk are working frantically to dismantle the federal government and undermine American democracy. It’s hard to pay attention to much of anything right now.

But talking to your friends and family? It’s a great place to start. Remind them that climate still matters. Send them articles and videos. Point out that even as democracy hangs in the balance, a planet ravaged by ever-deadlier heat waves, fires and storms isn’t a place any of us want to live.

He ends by all but refuting himself:

You might be annoying. But you’ll be helping.

Comment:

Climate alarmism is old, stale, and a turnoff. What if Sammy Roth had a family member or friend who set him straight with the economic and environmental case against climate exaggeration and forced energy transformation? Is his mind open? In California, he can easily get confirmation bias, but maybe even that state can get real and go free-market green.

——————–

[1] Mr. Roth has been the energy reporter of the Los Angeles Times since 2018. His bio states:

  • Cover the business and politics of the energy transition, in a climate context; key storylines have included gas industry opposition to electrification, rooftop solar panels vs. big solar farms and environmental consequences of renewables
  • Write Boiling Point, a twice-weekly climate and environment newsletter
  • Launched Repowering the West, an ongoing series exploring how California’s demand for renewable energy is affecting rural towns and sensitive landscapes
  • Regularly appear on TV and radio, and moderate climate and energy panels
  • Became The Times’ first-ever climate columnist in September 2023

The Gaping Holes in the BBC’s ‘Boiling Spring’ Story

Green Blob-funded Climate Central is celebrating a significant fearmongering coup having persuaded the BBC’s lead weather presenter Simon King to sub and publish its press release claiming that since 1970 the average UK spring temperature has increased by 1.8°C. It is said to be the fastest warming season in all the UK’s four nations.

From The Daily Sceptic

By Chris Morrison

Green Blob-funded Climate Central is celebrating a significant fearmongering coup having persuaded the BBC’s lead weather presenter Simon King to sub and publish its press release claiming that since 1970 the average UK spring temperature has increased by 1.8°C. It is said to be the fastest warming season in all the UK’s four nations. Alas, it is almost a shame to spoil such a good story by noting an obvious cherry-pick missed by King and the fact that the warming according to the Met Office was only 1.3°C. As the graph below shows, 1970 was a low point in the UK temperature record at a time when global cooling was all the rage. The rise from 1945 is just 0.8°C, a figure that happens to approximate with a 1°C rise in global temperature over the last century.

Needless to say, the longer-term trend is not such a good yarn and not one likely to appeal to Climate Central, a green billionaire-backed activist operation that produces custom-made climate catastrophe agitprop specially curated for unquestioning activists working in mainstream media. For Simon King, the ‘boiling’ spring story is another BBC classic, following hard on the heels of his suggestion that the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) “appears to be getting weaker”. This story was timed just days after an important paper in Nature inconveniently stated that the AMOC current that includes the Gulf Stream had shown no decline in strength since the 1960s.

Spot the difference

The average spring temperature for the UK has increased 1.8°C since 1970, making spring the fastest warming season for the UK as a whole.Climate Central Press Release

The average spring temperature has increased by 1.8°C since 1970, making it the fastest warming season for all four nations of the UK.Simon King, Lead Weather Presenter, BBC

Regurgitating pre-prepared, cherry-picked material does of course serve a useful purpose since the regular ‘Spring has Sprung Early’ story can be given its annual outing. King notes that data given to BBC Weather by Nature’s Calendar – a “citizen science” project by the Woodland Trust – are said to demonstrate how climate change is triggering natural events. Both bluebells and frogspawn are appearing earlier in March and April respectively, it is reported. Inevitably the disinformation Net Zero lecture follows: “And climate change is leading to more extreme weather which is also causing confusion among some species.”

On balance, a slightly warmer climate with longer growing seasons is almost certainly good for nature. But, as ever in the UK, the climate picture is mixed. March is the start of Spring but April is when it starts to really build. As the graph below shows, the average April temperature in the UK has actually fallen over the last 20 years.

Of course caution is required in taking Met Office temperature figures at their face value following recent revelations, covered extensively in the Daily Sceptic, about massive unnatural heat corruptions around measuring sites and the invention of figures at no less than 103 non-existent locations. Nearly 80% of Met Office weather stations across the UK are rated in junk classes 4 and 5 with internationally-recognised ‘uncertainties’ of 2°C and 5°C respectively. The Met Office has failed to preserve the integrity of its network, with sites commonly next to busy roads and car parks, airport runways, solar farms and electricity substations. The recent growth of urbanisation and the massive heat it generates across many Met Office sites has corrupted the data. Thus, it might be considered scientifically reasonable to knock off some warming when comparing recent temperatures to possibly more accurate measurements 80 years ago. Using current recordings, it can be observed that spring is on average 0.8°C warmer than around 1945, but the true figure could be closer to around 0.5°C, or even lower.

Climate Central has impressive form in spinning climate catastrophe tales to gullible boobies. It had great success with the Mirror in November 2022, which ran a load of hooey claiming that much of London would be under water within 80 years. Climate Central provides a flood predictor tool that activists can use to claim inundation in a location of their own choosing. Local landmarks well above sea level can be shown to be disappearing beneath the waves since the tool uses sea level increases over 30 times faster than current rises. Reporter Sam Elliott-Gibbs noted the existence of “terrifying new maps” of the UK that predict towns and cities “will be vanishing into the sea”.

Climate Central is a well-funded green propaganda operation based in Princeton, New Jersey. The group says it works with news outlets “to produce compelling and scientifically accurate stories”. No fewer than 33 foundations and “leadership donors” are listed with heavy backing thought to have been provided by Eric Schmidt, the former Chairman and CEO of Google. Among the activist academics involved is Michael Oppenheimer, Professor of Geoscience and International Affairs at nearby Princeton University. This chap is noted for once remarking: “We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialisation we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.” Perhaps he had Europe in mind as well, particularly the UK where the state-dependent broadcaster pumps out climate catastrophe copy that is used to provide cover for Net Zero-obsessed governing elites set on de-industrialisation, destroying food security and reducing living standards.

Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.

False Pretense of Energy Transition: Long on Facts, Short on Truth

While listing many of the barriers to abandoning fossil fuels for “green” energy, three writers in Foreign Affairs magazine skip over an important truth: the once ballyhooed but now moribund “energy transition” was and remains unnecessary and undesirable.

From Watts Up With That?

By Gordon Tomb

While listing many of the barriers to abandoning fossil fuels for “green” energy, three writers in Foreign Affairs magazine skip over an important truth: the once ballyhooed but now moribund “energy transition” was and remains unnecessary and undesirable.

Instead, the article’s title, “The Troubled Energy Transition: How to Find a Pragmatic Path Forward,” suggests (1) that the so-called transition has legitimacy and (2) that it still somehow should happen. Both are false.

The writers are distinguished men: Daniel Yergin, a Pulitzer Prize-winning energy historian; Peter Orszag, Chairman and CEO of Lazard; and Atul Arya, Chief Energy Strategist at S&P Global. Their 5,000-word essay discusses issues extensively, but the language is less than direct and misses the heart of many matters.

For instance, the authors compare the shift to “green” energy from fossil fuels with coal replacing wood beginning in the 18th century and culminating in the 1900s and with oil overtaking coal as a dominant fuel in the 1960s. Energy sources being supplanted, they note, continued to be used well into the transitions just as fossil fuels have remained in use – even growing in quantity – during today’s introduction of alternatives.

However, the article gives short shrift to energy density, or how much work can be extracted from a unit of an energy source. In past transitions, succeeding sources were required in far smaller quantities than forms being replaced to do the same amount of work – coal better than wood, oil better than coal, and uranium beating the pants off everything.

Regarding the supposed transition of today, the article simply says that “improved functionality and lower costs … are not yet present across much of the entire energy system.”

What that really means is that wind, solar, green hydrogen and so on are utterly useless for supplying large populations with reliable, affordable energy and that physics and chemistry offer no credible evidence of their ability to ever fill that role. Wind and solar, for example, require many times the land and material to produce the same amount of electricity as do coal and nuclear plants. Which is why green energy is failing even with massive subsidies.

About the difficulty of financing green dreams, the writers say, “Part of the problem is sheer costs: many trillions of dollars, with great uncertainty as to who is to pay it.” There is a lack of incentives for private investment, government-imposed carbon taxes are problematic, and the populations of neither rich nor poor countries can afford to pay for any of it.

Not stated is that previous transitions were driven by inventors, investors, engineers, mechanics and tradesmen who employed new fuels to work more efficiently with new machines and processes. New energy sources were developed organically, following the laws of nature and economics rather than the diktats of the deluded drunk on power derived from government sponsorship.

Boneheaded “climate” policies of national governments have made a mess of things. Energy has become more expensive and less available in places like Germany and California, resulting in predictable economic destruction. That is a truth that needs to be said loudly, over and over by more smart people.

The writers’ most fundamental failing is their pretense that moving away from fossil fuels to achieve “net-zero emissions” is a worthy mission only in need of “a pragmatic path forward.” Exactly the opposite is true.

Mountains of geologic and historical evidence and modern research of atmospheric physics show that:

  • Increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide since the Industrial Revolution have brought the gas to more optimum levels for plant growth. Crop production has improved, and global ecosystems have greened. We should be putting more CO2 into the air, not less.
  • Modern warming is neither unusual nor unprecedented. Vikings grew grain on Greenland 1,000 years ago, and Romans raised citrus in northern England 2,000 years ago. Today, it’s too cold in both places to do either.
  • Fearmongering about the “greenhouse” effect is based on exaggerations of the warming potential of CO2 and other gases and on flawed computer models that have been disproven repeatedly by real-world data. Because of a phenomenon of diminishing returns, even a doubling of CO2 from the current concentration would result in only modest, beneficial warming.

We won’t guess why such credentialed writers would overlook these well-established facts while perpetuating the false premise of a decades-long disaster in public policy. But there is no “pragmatic path forward” for a sham energy transition, and the authors should know better.

This commentary was first published at Real Clear Energy, April 24, 2023.

Gordon Tomb is a senior advisor with the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia.

The “Clean Energy” Collapse: Hedge Fund Manager Declares the Obvious

It’s finally happening. After years of government subsidies, media cheerleading, and financial markets propping up a house of cards, a hedge fund manager has come forward to say what many of us have known all along: the so-called clean energy sector is “dead for now.” Nishant Gupta, founder and chief investment officer at London-based Kanou Capital LLP, didn’t mince words when describing the dire state of solar, wind, hydrogen, and fuel cell investments.

From Watts Up With That?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-03-03/hedge-fund-built-on-energy-bets-says-clean-is-dead-for-now

It’s finally happening. After years of government subsidies, media cheerleading, and financial markets propping up a house of cards, a hedge fund manager has come forward to say what many of us have known all along: the so-called clean energy sector is “dead for now.” Nishant Gupta, founder and chief investment officer at London-based Kanou Capital LLP, didn’t mince words when describing the dire state of solar, wind, hydrogen, and fuel cell investments.

“The whole sector… is dead for now,” Gupta stated plainly​. This marks a turning point—when even those inside the financial world, who have long played along with the green energy narrative, admit that the numbers simply don’t add up.

It’s no secret that the clean energy sector has been in trouble. Over the past year, the S&P Global Clean Energy Index has plummeted by 20%, while the broader S&P 500 has gained 16%​. That’s a devastating underperformance, especially in an industry that was supposed to be on the cusp of taking over the world.

Gupta cites several reasons for the industry’s collapse, including high interest rates, supply chain struggles, and what he calls “political headwinds” in the U.S. The latter is a reference to the Biden administration’s green agenda losing steam, and with the Trump administration poised to undo climate-focused regulations, green investors are panicking​.

In simple terms, the entire “green energy revolution” has been built on a foundation of government intervention rather than market fundamentals. Now, as subsidies and mandates run into reality, the industry is showing just how weak it really is.

Gupta is not alone in his assessment. The market is making its judgment clear. Take Sunnova Energy, a solar company that just saw its stock price crash by a staggering 71%​. The supposed transition to green energy has hit a wall, with traditional green darlings like Orsted A/S also suffering major setbacks.

Even hydrogen, which was supposed to be the next big thing, is floundering due to persistently high costs. Turns out, running an economy on a fuel that takes more energy to produce than it provides isn’t the magic solution politicians claimed it would be​.

If green energy is failing, what’s next? According to Gupta, energy investments will continue, but not in the way climate activists might hope. His hedge fund is looking at supply-chain-related opportunities, particularly companies that focus on efficiency improvements rather than outright green energy production.

Gupta’s picks include Ingersoll Rand, a company specializing in energy-efficient air and gas compressors, and Legrand SA, which benefits from rising electricity demand driven by electric vehicle chargers and heat pumps​. In other words, while the climate policy crowd insists on windmills and solar panels, the real money is in companies that deal with the inefficiencies their policies create.

For years, climate activists, politicians, and corporate ESG warriors have been telling the world that fossil fuels were on their way out, and that renewables would take over. They created a fantasy land where economics, engineering, and basic supply-and-demand principles didn’t apply.

Now, reality is catching up. As investors pull their money from failing clean energy ventures, the only question left is how much taxpayer money will be wasted before the political class admits defeat.

Gupta’s declaration isn’t just a market insight—it’s a confirmation that the laws of physics and economics still apply, no matter how much wishful thinking governments engage in. The “clean energy revolution” may not be completely dead, but it’s certainly on life support. And as the world’s energy needs continue to grow, reliable and affordable energy sources—not politically driven experiments—will win the day.

Wrong, PBS, Real-World Data Doesn’t Show That a Climate Crisis Is Happening

The Public Broadcasting System (PBS) recently published article by Seth Borenstein of the Associated Press (AP), titled “Scientists say EPA just needs to look around the world to see the growing dangers of climate change,” which says that proof of catastrophic climate change is found in obvious “growing dangers” evident for all to see. This is false.

From ClimateRealism

By Heartland Institute

By Anthony Watts and H. Sterling Burnett

The Public Broadcasting System (PBS) recently published article by Seth Borenstein of the Associated Press (AP), titled “Scientists say EPA just needs to look around the world to see the growing dangers of climate change,” which says that proof of catastrophic climate change is found in obvious “growing dangers” evident for all to see. This is false. Borenstein’s story, which PBS didn’t bother to verify or even question, paints a false picture of an impending climate catastrophe, citing everything from worsening wildfires to supposed ocean acidification, all while conveniently ignoring the very real benefits of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide.

“As President Donald Trump’s administration looks to reverse a cornerstone finding that climate change endangers human health and welfare, scientists say they just need to look around because it’s obvious how bad global warming is and how it’s getting worse,” says the AP’s Borenstein.

Obvious in what way? It is certainly not obvious looking at the available data on weather trends or measurements of human welfare like lives lost to weather-related disasters and temperatures. PBS fails to acknowledge that the climate has always changed and there is little evidence to support the notion that human activities have altered climate in a way that is leading us toward disaster. Let’s break down some of the claims in the AP/PBS article and counter them with real-world data.

One of the most misleading claims in the PBS article is that climate change is “acidifying the ocean.” This is a classic case of alarmists misrepresenting basic chemistry to scare the public. First, the ocean is not turning acidic—it remains alkaline. The proper term would be a slight decrease in alkalinity, and even that is overblown.

Studies show that while atmospheric CO₂ has increased, ocean pH levels have not dropped anywhere near a level that would threaten marine life. In fact, the term “ocean acidification” is largely a misnomer used to create fear rather than inform. A study published in the journal Nature Geoscience reinforces the idea that marine ecosystems are not on the verge of collapse due to small changes in pH. The ability of marine life to evolve and adapt over time is a critical factor that climate alarmists often ignore.

Moreover, research compiled by Climate Realism demonstrates that phytoplankton, the foundation of the marine food web, are not in decline due to ocean pH changes. Instead, they have remained stable or even increased in some regions, contradicting claims that marine ecosystems are on the brink of collapse.

If the ocean were truly becoming inhospitable due to CO₂ levels, we would see significant disruptions in marine populations. Instead, fisheries worldwide continue to thrive, and coral reefs have shown remarkable resilience. The Great Barrier Reef, for instance, has experienced record-high coral cover in recent years.

Nor is climate change resulting in more deaths due to extreme weather or non-optimum temperatures. In fact, as Climate Realism has discussed when refuting dozens of other false articles, climate change, contrary to the AP/PBS report, is not causing an increase in human diseases or health complications. In addition, data clearly show that human mortality resulting from extreme weather events and other natural disasters has fallen by more than 99 percent over the past 100 years, as discussed in Climate Realism posts, here and here, for example. Extreme weather events killed nearly 500,000 people annually in the 1920s, but by 2021 only 7,790 deaths were attributable to extreme weather events. (See the figure)

Deaths related to extreme temperatures are also in decline as the Earth has modestly warmed, according to multiple large scale peer reviewed studies in top journals. For example, multi-country studies, covering multiple decades, published in The Lancet, show that cold temperatures kill far more people each year than hot temperatures. They also demonstrate that as temperatures have modestly warmed, the number of deaths tied to non-optimum temperatures have declined.

Concerning hunger and malnutrition, also mentioned in the PBS/AP article, research cited in more nearly 200 articles posted at Climate Realism show that as carbon dioxide levels have risen, crop production has boomed for almost every crop one cares to discuss, in nation after nation spanning all parts of the globe. As a result of this fact, hunger and malnutrition have declined more sharply in the latter part of the 20th and early 21st century than in any other time period in history.

In point of fact, while the AP and PBS fixate on the easily debunked perils of climate change, they conveniently ignore one of the most significant positive trends: the greening of the planet. Increased atmospheric CO₂ has led to a dramatic rise in plant growth worldwide, an effect known as global greening.

According to NASA satellite data, over the past several decades, the Earth has become measurably greener, with vegetation expanding across deserts and arid regions. This is due to the fertilization effect of CO₂, which enhances photosynthesis and allows plants to use water more efficiently.

Increased CO₂ has led to record-high crop yields, helping to feed a growing global population. Data from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) confirms that crop production has consistently set new records. Wheat, maize, and rice—staple crops that feed billions—have all seen significant increases in production over the past 50 years, thanks in part to higher CO₂ levels.

If PBS were truly interested in honest reporting, they would acknowledge that the net effect of more CO₂ has been a more food-secure world—not a climate apocalypse.

PBS also links to an associated article tying climate change to recent wildfires. Yet, in doing so, PBS ignores the fact that data from NASA and the European Space Agency show that total global area burned by wildfires has declined markedly in the United States and globally over the past century. To the extent that some areas have seen a spike in wildfires in recent years research cited at Climate at a Glance show that is largely driven by land management practices, not climate change. In the United States, decades of fire suppression policies led to excessive fuel buildup, combined with a sharp decline in logging and active forest management in recent years,  has made fires more intense when they do occur.

As for hurricanes and extreme weather, the data simply does not support claims that they are becoming more frequent or severe. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) itself acknowledges that there is no significant trend in global tropical cyclone activity. In fact, the United States has experienced long periods without major landfalling hurricanes, and the overall trend does not indicate an increasing crisis.

PBS argues that, contrary to what the Trump administration is expected to do, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should uphold its 2009 finding that carbon dioxide endangers public health and welfare. To support this they write, “[n]ew research and ever more frequent extreme weather further prove the harm climate change is doing to people and the planet, . . . [as a result] ‘There is no possible world in which greenhouse gases are not a threat to public health.” Yet, as evidence presented above shows, such claims are false.

To the contrary, with the assertions that weather and health trends are worsening being abjectly false, the EPA’s endangerment finding and the regulations that it has spawned are wholly unjustified now, as the finding itself was when the former President Barack Obama administration imposed it.

PBS follows a familiar script: cherry-pick extreme weather events, misrepresent ocean chemistry, and ignore the overwhelming benefits of CO₂, all to justify heavy-handed government intervention. PBS and AP may prefer their narrative of climate doom, but the data and facts tell a different story. The reality is that climate trends are far more nuanced than Borenstein, the AP, and PBS admit. Data suggest that CO₂ is not an existential threat but rather a net benefit for agriculture and ecosystems. Rather than stoking fear, we should be focusing on adapting to natural climate variations, improving energy efficiency, and embracing the undeniable positives of a CO₂-rich atmosphere.