Day: March 14, 2025

Fritz Vahrenholt: Germany- No change of policy in energy and climate policy

This fatal policy of replacing base-load electricity from nuclear and coal-fired power plants with more expensive and unreliable renewable energies is to be continued by the black-red coalition. For example, the exploratory paper calls for “the determined and grid-friendly expansion of solar and wind energy”. The fact that solar and wind energy need 20 billion euros in subsidies every year is not an issue. Solar energy and wind energy have never been grid friendly. On summer days (Hellbrise), the unchecked feed-in of solar power leads to frequency problems in the grid, so that entire regions will soon have to be switched off to avoid a “brownout”.

From KlimaNachrichten

By Fritz Vahrenholt

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,

as the chart below shows, global mean temperatures in February 2025 remained roughly the same as in the previous month. The deviation from the long-term average of satellite measurements is only 0.5 degrees Celsius. Temperatures are expected to continue to decline over the course of the year, even though the cold LaNina phase in the Pacific Ocean is coming to an end and neutral temperatures are setting in.

Today I will deal with the disappointing results of the exploratory agreement on energy and climate policy between the CDU and SPD.

No change of policy of the Red-Green energy policy

A revealing sentence by chancellor candidate Friedrich Merz is the appropriate summary of the momentous “business as usual” in energy policy by the black-red coalition:

“Almost everything we propose has already been presented by the Greens in the last legislative period.”

As a reminder: the serious mistakes of the nuclear phase-out by the Merkel and traffic light governments, the escalating CO2 pricing of energy in Germany, the premature decommissioning of coal-fired power plants, the €500 billion expansion of renewable energies and the equally high costs of grid expansion have led to a dramatic increase in electricity prices. Germany has the highest electricity price of all industrialized nations, and the energy-intensive industry is shrinking and leaving Germany as a result.

Black-Red continues the expensive energy transition

This fatal policy of replacing base-load electricity from nuclear and coal-fired power plants with more expensive and unreliable renewable energies is to be continued by the black-red coalition. For example, the exploratory paper calls for “the determined and grid-friendly expansion of solar and wind energy”. The fact that solar and wind energy need 20 billion euros in subsidies every year is not an issue. Solar energy and wind energy have never been grid friendly. On summer days (Hellbrise), the unchecked feed-in of solar power leads to frequency problems in the grid, so that entire regions will soon have to be switched off to avoid a “brownout”.

In winter, a lack of solar power leads to dark doldrums when there is no wind, which causes prices to explode and even sweeps away our neighbors and gets them into trouble. To bridge such times, a second power plant inventory of 20,000 MW of gas-fired power plants is to be built. However, according to the coalition partners, natural gas use is to be ended in 2045 (“We stand by the European climate targets”). Long-term gas contracts are no longer possible for gas-fired power plants, which may be connected to the grid from 2030. An annual subsidy of billions is looming here, because LNG gas is two or three times as expensive as pipeline gas. Its own gas production – Germany has enough of its own shale gas for the next 30 years – is not even mentioned. Shale gas production in Germany remains prohibited.

The fact that six to nine nuclear power plants could be brought back within 2 to 5 years is not addressed with a single sentence. During the election campaign, the CDU and also Friedrich Merz threw sand in the eyes of the citizens that they wanted to examine the return of the nuclear power plants. Even an examination is no longer mentioned in the exploratory paper. With the 20 billion subsidies for wind and solar energy in a single year, the revitalization of 6 reliable, inexpensive nuclear power plants could be achieved. As Boris Pistorius so aptly said: “We have them (the CDU/CSU, ed.) not allowed into our front yard for a second”.

Billions in subsidies instead of base-load power generation

The erosion of the German energy-intensive industry is not to be achieved by expanding base-load power plants, but by subsidizing the price of electricity. Electricity is to be subsidized by 5 €ct/kWh from taxpayers’ money. With 450 terawatt hours per year, this amounts to around €20 billion. They are divided into the reduction of electricity tax (about €7 billion) and the halving of grid fees (about €12.5 billion). This is not of great importance for energy-intensive industry, which has so far been significantly exempt from electricity tax and grid charges. However, this is essential for the survival of the manufacturing industry, it is true. We now know the price tag of the wrong energy policy: the relief from the costs of the energy transition will cost 80 billion over the next four years. That’s why you need special debts to finance it.

The CDU and SPD have agreed that CO2 capture (CCS), which has so far been banned in Germany, can be used in certain industries such as cement plants. However, this had already been initiated by the red-green coalition at the end of the traffic light. The CDU celebrates this as a success. But the crucial question of whether coal- and gas-fired power plants (instead of the unaffordable hydrogen power plants) will also be equipped with CCS is not to be found in the exploratory paper. The SPD did not let the CDU into its front yard, which was barricaded with ideological fences.

The CDU also sees the agreement on the promotion of fusion energy (“We want to promote fusion research more strongly”) on its meager credit side. In reality, however, it is a Social Democratic concern to promote fusion research, in particular the Wendelstein 7-X fusion device in Greifswald. Since Gerd Schröder, the federal government has been funding fusion research with €150 million per year. Only the Greens have repeatedly tried to abolish fusion research in the budget committee. But in the last traffic light government, fusion research was increased to €250 million at the insistence of the FDP. The CDU is selling the continuation of the traffic light policy as a groundbreaking success, because it wants to distract from the fact that nuclear energy research for the development of the inherently safe nuclear power plants of the 4th generation of nuclear power plants, which Merz raved about so much during the election campaign, could not be enforced against the SPD. How pathetic!

Industry in the stranglehold of climate policy

On the other hand, the creation of “lead markets for climate-neutral products” such as “quotas for climate-neutral steel” was full-bodiedly agreed. This swamp plant from the front yard of the Greens leads to nothing more than a significant increase in the price of green steel-based products in Germany. Green steel is twice as expensive. The struggling automotive industry or the construction industry are happy to pay for that.

We remember how the CDU already demanded the lifting of the ban on internal combustion engines (2035) during the European election campaign and also suggested to citizens in the Bundestag election campaign that the ban on internal combustion engines should be lifted. The SPD has not allowed any of this in its front yard. The position paper says cloudy and cheap: “We are committed to Germany as an automotive location and its jobs. In doing so, we rely on openness to technology.”

That’s a rather cryptic formulation. Technology openness in achieving the zero CO2 target for 2035 for motor vehicles, which is not in question, means CO2-free fuels. Not a word about it, no promotion of e-fuel, no research. Instead, the e-mobility of cars with batteries from China is to be promoted again with a purchase incentive. How many billions? In our electricity mix, every car with a battery made from coal-fired electricity from China emits as much CO2 as a diesel vehicle that has driven 100,000 km. The subsidy will therefore lead to global additional emissions in China. With German taxpayers’ money.

But it can get worse. The Greens are playing high stakes in order to give their clientele of climate NGOs, climate associations and the climate industry a fat chunk of the 500 billion euros in special infrastructure debts. And if things get really bad, there is not only an informal black-red-green government. After all, Robert Habeck would prefer to continue where he left off with the destruction of German prosperity. And he could live very well with this position paper as a minister at the cabinet table.

Yours

sincerely, Fritz Vahrenholt

Secretary Burgum: You have the legal authority to halt offshore wind

As promised, the Trump administration started on Day 1 to fix President Biden’s broken national energy policy. Chief among these “fixes” was issuing a presidential memorandum addressed to the Department of Interior, which ordered a complete reexamination of the purpose and need for offshore wind energy and whether current projects in federal waters should be amended or terminated.

From CFACT

By Collister Johnson

As promised, the Trump administration started on Day 1 to fix President Biden’s broken national energy policy. Chief among these “fixes” was issuing a presidential memorandum addressed to the Department of Interior, which ordered a complete reexamination of the purpose and need for offshore wind energy and whether current projects in federal waters should be amended or terminated.

The memorandum, which largely owes its language to the efforts of Rep. Jefferson Van Drew, New Jersey Republican, requires Interior Secretary Doug Burgum to take the lead in conducting two studies. The first is a “comprehensive review of the ecological, economic, and environmental necessity of terminating or amending any wind energy leases.” The second is “an assessment to consider the environmental impact of offshore wind projects on wildlife” and “the economic costs associated with the intermittent generation of electricity and the effect of subsidies on the viability of the wind industry.”

The memorandum halted any further leasing activity in federal waters. The question remains about its impact on offshore wind projects that are either under construction or have obtained the necessary permits to begin construction. Together, these projects would entail the installation of almost 1,000 wind turbines in federal waters off the east coast. The projects include Vineyard Wind, SouthCoast Wind and New England Wind off Massachusetts; Revolution Wind, Sunrise Wind, South Fork Wind and Empire Wind off New York; Atlantic Shores South off New Jersey; and Coastal Offshore Virginia Wind off Virginia.

It makes no sense for construction to continue on these projects until the studies mandated by the presidential memorandum have been completed and the findings have been absorbed into the policy objectives of the Trump administration. How can wildlife be protected, unnecessary additional costs be prevented, decommissioning expenses be avoided, and the clear intent of the memorandum be effectuated if offshore wind developers proceed with construction activity that may ultimately be amended or terminated? How can a complete reexamination of offshore wind be implemented if offshore wind construction continues unabated?

It can’t. The next question: Does the Interior Department have the legal authority to pause construction while the studies are conducted?

The answer is indisputably yes. Every developer for these offshore wind projects has entered into a binding contract with the Interior Department called a Construction and Operations Plan. Each plan governs the timing, methods and other conditions concerning the construction schedule applicable to the project. Every Construction and Operations Plan contains the following language: “The Department of the Interior (DOI) reserves the right to amend these conditions or impose additional conditions authorized by law or regulation on any future approvals of COP revisions.”

The language is clear. The Interior Department has contractual authority to unilaterally alter the terms and conditions of the Construction and Operations Plan, including the timing of construction. Indeed, the Interior Department, through its subsidiary agency, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, has invoked this authority to order a halt of construction on the Vineyard Wind project because of a catastrophic wind turbine failure that scattered fiberglass and other debris into the waters off Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket. Ordering a similar pause to construction on offshore wind project leases is supported by precedent and explicit contractual language in the Construction and Operations Plan.

Offshore wind project developers will object to any such pause, but they understand and agree that such an action lies totally within the legal discretion of the federal government for causes “authorized by law,” which applies to the presidential memorandum.

Offshore wind is objectionable on many levels: economic, environmental and even moral. The Trump administration has chosen to study and expose all these shortcomings. Wind developers that benefited from political favoritism must now reckon with the political risk they explicitly assumed when they entered a contractual relationship with the federal government.

Mr. Burgum has a clear mandate from President Trump and the legal authority to halt further offshore wind project development pending a review of the purpose and need for this questionable, inefficient, grossly subsidized and problematic mode of electrical generation.

Construction for some of these projects resumes May 1, so Mr. Burgum should act expeditiously.

This article originally appeared at The Washington Times

Obama’s Climate Agenda: R.I.P. — The Climate Realism Show #149

The Heartland Institute’s Sterling Burnett and Jim Lakely are joined by SPECIAL GUESTS Matthew M. Wielicki, Ph.D.—an earth science professor-in-exile from “official” academia at the University of Alabama—and Steve Milloy, who served in Trump’s EPA Transition Team in his first presidency.

From The Heartland Institute

The new EPA administrator, Lee Zeldin, dropped the Mother of All Bombs this week on the radical environmental agenda that has dominated Washington, DC since the start of the Obama administration. If it holds, the impact will be devastating.

The Heartland Institute’s Sterling Burnett and Jim Lakely are joined by SPECIAL GUESTS Matthew M. Wielicki, Ph.D.—an earth science professor-in-exile from “official” academia at the University of Alabama—and Steve Milloy, who served in Trump’s EPA Transition Team in his first presidency.

We’ll also dive into the Crazy Climate News of the Week and take your questions. Join us LIVE at 1 p.m. ET to participate in the chat, where we’ll share your comments and answer your questions.

The Independent is Wrong, Avocado Consumption Isn’t Causing Climate Change

The Independent published a story reporting on how British television presenter and gardening journalist Alan Titchmarsh urged UK citizens to stop eating avocados because of their alleged climate impact. This is nonsense. As islands, the United Kingdom imports a lot of their food, and, as a result, attempts to limit a carbon footprint are a waste of time and perhaps detrimental to nutrition.

From ClimateRealism

By Heartland Institute

By Linnea Lueken and H. Sterling Burnett 

The Independent published a story reporting on how British television presenter and gardening journalist Alan Titchmarsh urged UK citizens to stop eating avocados because of their alleged climate impact. This is nonsense. As islands, the United Kingdom imports a lot of their food, and, as a result, attempts to limit a carbon footprint are a waste of time and perhaps detrimental to nutrition. Certainly, the carbon footprint of avocado imports is miniscule relative to the UK’s and the globe’s total output. To pile more alarmism on, The Independent also suggests that avocado production is likely to decline due to climate change. This is refuted by available data.

The Independent’s post, “Why Alan Titchmarsh is urging Britons to eat Weetabix,” contextualizes Alan Titchmarsh’s claims that avocado consumption is bad for the environment. Titchmarsh, a regionally famous television personality, goes further advising that people should eat “traditional breakfast staples like Cornflakes, Weetabix, and Shreddies,” instead. According to The Independent Titchmarsh links deforestation to avocado production, and points to the carbon footprint associated with shipping and handling for avocados to reach the UK as contributing to dangerous climate change.

Part of the reasoning behind the grain-based cereal suggestion is that these are more often locally produced, or are at least produced a shorter distance away, as opposed to tropical avocados. But the “food miles” theory has lately been debunked, as discussed in the Climate Realism post “Thanks, WBUR, For Explaining “Eating Local” Has No Impact on Climate Change,” where recent data showed that locally farmed foods almost always had higher carbon footprints than food grown efficiently elsewhere. This might not hold true for a comparison between local mass-produced wheat versus distantly mass-produced avocados, but the formula is not as simple as “distance equals higher footprint.”

Importantly, wheat and avocados have different nutritional profiles so eating processed wheat doesn’t provide the same nutritional benefits as eating avocados and vice-versa.

Chasing carbon footprints is a waste of time anyway. Individual efforts do nothing at all to impact atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Even if the UK ceased imports of all avocados, the amount of carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere from shipping in general would not change. Most goods are shipped combined with other goods by sea and air freight, so picking on avocados alone is pointless on the carbon footprint front.

With regards to deforestation, if a UK consumer or importer is worried, a simple solution would be to select growers that do not practice mass deforestation to plant avocado trees. More importantly, they could advocate that the country stop demanding and importing palm oil for use as a “sustainable” fuel source and cooking oil, since copious research indicates it is responsible for widespread deforestation in some of the most biologically diverse and intact tropical forests on earth. Ending palm oil deforestation would do far more to benefit the environment than foregoing the occasional avocado toast with breakfast.

The Independent also suggests that climate change itself is also impacting “the largest avocado-producing countries.” They cite a study which predicts that Mexico could see avocado growing regions reduced by 31 percent by 2050 even if global warming is stopped. Despite global average temperatures already increasing to 1.5°C since pre-industrial times, data from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) indicate that avocado production has skyrocketed in Mexico. (See graph below)

Since just 1990:

  • Production increased 333 percent;
  • Yields increased 32 percent;
  • The most recent world record production was set in 2023.

The United Kingdom gets most of their avocados from Peru and Chile, according to The Independent. Luckily, as Climate Realism has already covered concerning Peruvian climate change, a recent regional drought in some parts of the country are highly localized and natural, having nothing to do with global warming. In fact, some local droughts are likely due to the very deforestation that Titchmarsh is concerned about. As importantly, for a clear understanding of the impact of climate change for avocado production and potential supply issues in the UK, during the recent period of slight warming, avocado production in both countries has boomed, increasing more than 348 percent in Chile between 1990 and 2023 and by more than 1017 percent in Peru. (see the graph below)

All in all, The Independent’s and Titchmarsh’s concerns are not well founded, as even a cursory look at available avocado data show. UK residents can happily enjoy their guacamole and avocado toast without worrying that they are contributing to climate change.

Towns and States Don’t Want Green Energy

Trump Administration actions to scale back renewable energy capture headlines, but citizens are also pushing back. Efforts to deploy wind and solar systems face a rising tide of opposition in towns, counties, and states. Mandates for electric vehicles and electric home appliances are being challenged. The combination of rising local opposition and Trump funding cuts threatens to end the transition to green energy.

From Watts Up With That?

By Steve Goreham

Trump Administration actions to scale back renewable energy capture headlines, but citizens are also pushing back. Efforts to deploy wind and solar systems face a rising tide of opposition in towns, counties, and states. Mandates for electric vehicles and electric home appliances are being challenged. The combination of rising local opposition and Trump funding cuts threatens to end the transition to green energy.

The green energy revolution in the United States has run almost unopposed for the last two decades. Driven by the fear of human-caused global warming, federal regulators enacted an expanding array of incentives for renewables in the form of mandates, tax credits, loans, and subsidies. States added incentives to push for the adoption of wind, solar, electric vehicles, heat pumps, green hydrogen, and carbon dioxide (CO2) capture systems.

Twenty-three states have laws or executive orders requiring Net Zero electricity by 2050. Power companies have been forced to comply with state mandates. Since 2000, wind and solar have grown from near zero to about 16% of US power generation in 2024, wind (10.5%) and solar (5.1%).

Twenty-two states have electric vehicle (EV) mandates, requiring all sales of new cars to be EVs by a future date, such as 2035. Tightening CO2 emission standards from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) force manufacturers to sell an increasing share of EVs. Plug-in EV sales grew from zero two decades ago to 8% last year.

Climate policy advocates want homeowners to switch from natural gas and propane appliances to heat pumps and other electric appliances. In 2019, Berkeley, California became the first city to prohibit natural gas in new residential construction. Cities and counties in seven states now ban gas in new construction, including a statewide ban in New York.

The wave of renewable energy programs promoted and subsidized included electric vehicle charging stations, CO2 pipelines, and green hydrogen production facilities. But it’s becoming clear that many towns, counties, and states no longer support the green energy movement. A rising tide of opposition threatens the deployment of renewables.

Last month, the State House of Arizona passed legislation that would prohibit construction of wind systems on more than 90% of state land. The legislation would force new wind projects to be at least 12 miles from any residential property. The bill is being considered in the Arizona Senate.

Oklahoma is the third largest generator of electricity from wind in the US. But attendees at recent rallies at the state capitol call for bans on new wind and solar projects. Local residents voice economic, environmental, and health concerns about renewable systems.

The opposition to wind and solar has been growing for more than a decade and recently accelerating. In 2009, North Carolina banned new wind projects in 23 counties. Kentucky enacted an effective statewide ban on new wind construction in 2014. Connecticut, Florida, Tennessee, and Vermont have established bans which are effectively statewide.

A 2023 study by USA Today found that the number of counties in the US with wind turbine restrictions or bans rose from two in 2008 to 411 in 2023. The number of blocking counties rose to over 500 in 2024 with Florida’s ban on wind systems offshore and within one mile of the coast. About 16% of US counties now ban or restrict wind systems. More than 100 counties restrict the deployment of solar systems. The number of counties that ban wind or solar is rising faster than counties which are deploying wind or solar for the first time.

Journalist Robert Bryce has developed a Renewable Rejection Database. The database shows a cumulative total of 800 of wind and solar project rejections in the US since 2015. It shows a rising trend in rejections, including an especially large jump in solar rejections in 2022, 2023, and 2024.

There are many reasons for rising opposition to wind and solar projects. Towns are concerned with the aesthetic impact of 600-foot-high turbine towers and acres of solar panels, the loss of farmland to sprawling wind and solar systems, low-frequency noise from wind turbines, and the impact on nearby property values. Retiring systems generate vast quantities of turbine blade and solar panel waste that fill up local landfills or must be shipped to landfills in other states.

Wind and solar require more than 100 times the land compared to coal, gas, or nuclear power generators for the same average electricity output. While traditional power plants are usually located near cities, utility-scale wind and solar systems are spread over wide areas, often on ridge lines and located far from population centers. Therefore, renewables require long transmission lines and two or three times the transmission towers compared to conventional power plants. Residents often oppose the construction of new transmission as well.

Some states have decided to overrule local opposition to wind and solar. A 2023 Illinois state law overruled restrictions or bans on wind and solar established by more than half of state counties. A 2023 Michigan state law also overruled local opposition from more than 20 counties. Local opposition can be bypassed in seven other states.

In 2024, electric vehicle sales grew only 7% in the US. California and ten other states currently mandate that 35% of new car sales must be EVs in the 2026 model year. With slowing consumer adoption of EVs, these goals are impossible for all states except California. At the end of 2024, Virginia cancelled their EV mandate. Look for other states to cancel as well.

As we mentioned, cities and counties in seven states have banned gas appliances in new construction, but in the last five years, 24 states enacted regulations prohibiting city and county bans on gas appliances. Most states want citizens and businesses to be able to choose the home energy that they prefer.

Utilities are rethinking plans for renewable electricity. The artificial intelligence revolution may require Texas, Virginia, and other states to double power generating capacity within the next decade. Wind and solar systems can’t meet this demand. Nuclear plants are being restarted, coal plant closings are being postponed, and more than 200 gas-fired power plants are in planning or under construction.

Carbon dioxide capture and green hydrogen projects are also being challenged. South Dakota just signed a law prohibiting the use of eminent domain to seize land for CO2 pipelines. CO2 capture projects in Louisiana face severe local opposition. And regional green hydrogen hubs are sure to be opposed.

With Trump funding cuts and escalating local opposition to renewables, 2025 may be the beginning of the end of the green energy transition in the United States.

Steve Goreham is a speaker on energy, the environment, and public policy and author of the bestselling book Green Breakdown: The Coming Renewable Energy Failure.

Originally published in RealClear Energy.

Smart meters forced on households by big energy firms

Energy companies are refusing to fit ‘dumb meters’ despite concerns about incorrect readings, as drive for net zero continues.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t Ian Magness

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/03/12/smart-meters-forced-on-households-by-big-energy-firms/

The Telegraph report:

“Households are being forced to fit smart meters by Britain’s biggest energy companies in a drive to meet net zero targets.

Four of the “big six” energy firms, including British Gas and Octopus, confirmed to The Telegraph that they no longer fit “dumb” meters when replacing equipment at the end of its life.”

But energy companies have consistently fallen short on their targets to fit the meters, with customers concerned that they provide incorrect readings. The big six suppliers are all facing investigation by Ofgem, the regulator, over last year’s installation figures.

There is nothing new here, but this comment is alarming:

“Smart meters can be switched into “dumb” or restricted mode by energy suppliers, meaning they do not send automated readings.

But Citizens Advice told The Telegraph that some suppliers are refusing customer requests to do this, despite rules saying households should have the option.

Energy retailers have been holding up the introduction of new rules to make it easier for households to put their own smart meters in dumb mode since 2021.

Two firms – Octopus and British Gas, which together supply electricity to 43 per cent of British households – told The Telegraph they no longer stock dumb meters to replace older models.”

Read the full story here.

Theories of Climate Change. Invitation to Zoom # 3

The history of science shows that failed scientific theories are only ever replaced (never disproven), which is why there is such a pressing need for a new theory of climate change.

From Jennifer Marohasy

By jennifer

Theories of Climate Change. Invitation to Zoom # 3

From Jennifer Marohasy

By jennifer 

I’ve been arguing with my husband.  Not about anything important.  Just about science, and in particular theories of climate change.  He agrees with Dennis Armstrong who wrote me, “We are not aware that there is a current theory of human induced climate change. There are assertions that the burning fossil fuels by humans generates CO2 emissions, which is causing climate warming/change.  … it can’t explain climate change past, present and future.”

In my next Zoom, Number 3, following on from interviews with Bill Kininmonth and Ivan Kennedy, I will explain why I disagree.  I will make the case as follows and with examples:

  1. The current theory has a focus on radiative balance that is perceived to be perturbed by increasing levels of carbon dioxide.
  2. The current theory dominates thinking including by scientists who are darlings of conservative politics who often tangle themselves within its strictures.
  3. The current theory has been disproven over and over, but it doesn’t go away because rebuttals never win.
  4. The history of science shows that failed scientific theories are only ever replaced (never disproven), which is why there is such a pressing need for a new theory of climate change.

I am allowing 2 hours, with perhaps 30 minutes for my opening remarks and the rest of the time for questions and discussion.

I am planning this as three sessions to variously fit in with friends across different time zones.

SESSION NO. 2.  CALLING LONDON

When: Mar 29, 2025 11:00 AM LONDON

Register in advance for this meeting:

https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/AEic7FtGR0-1pprt-EDz8w

SESSION NO. 3. CALLING HOUSTON

When: Mar 29, 2025 03:00 PM Central Time (US and Canada)

Register in advance for this meeting:

https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tHsbs5CmRYuR4pnrAXiKOg

SESSION NO. 1. CALLING HOME

When: Mar 29, 2025 12:00 PM Brisbane

Register in advance for this meeting:

https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/8G7Ze9hSRmG4x1MNbVCvvg

After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the meeting.

I have received requests for the audio/video of my interviews with Ivan Kennedy and Bill Kininmonth.  I am learning how to edit audio and how to develop this and other interviews, including one I did with Alex Pope, into a podcast series.   So, for everyone who did not attend previous webinars and meetings with Ivan Kennedy and Bill Kininmonth respectively, the information is not lost to you forever, but just until I launch my new podcast series that will perhaps be in July.

Thanks for your patience.

Angela Merkel ‘covered up report blaming China for Covid’

Angela Merkel as German Chancellor covered up an explosive 2020 intelligence report that found a high probability – 80-95% – that the COVID-19 virus came from a laboratory accident in Wuhan, China.

From The Daily Sceptic

Angela Merkel as German Chancellor covered up an explosive 2020 intelligence report that found a high probability – 80-95% – that the COVID-19 virus came from a laboratory accident in Wuhan, China. The Telegraph has the story.

A joint investigation by two German newspapers alleges that Angela Merkel, the then Chancellor, and her successor Olaf Scholz both turned a blind eye to the report, produced by Germany’s foreign intelligence agency, the BND.

According to Süddeutsche Zeitung and Die Zeit, the BND concluded in 2020 that an accident in a laboratory in Wuhan led to the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic.

The report, based on public records, data from the Wuhan Institute of Virology and a German intelligence operation known as ‘Saaremaa’, found an “80 to 95%” probability that COVID-19 came from Wuhan.

The BND presented the findings to Mrs Merkel, who chose to keep the information “under lock and key”, according to Süddeutsche Zeitung’s report.

The agency later presented the findings to Mr Scholz, when he took over as Chancellor in 2021. He ordered a review of the findings but did not share them with the public or Members of Parliament.

A spokesman for Mrs Merkel declined to comment when approached by Süddeutsche Zeitung. A German Government spokesman said it “does not publicly comment on intelligence affairs”.

It comes after the CIA announced in January that a laboratory leak in China was probably the cause of the pandemic rather than natural causes.

However, that review was based on a so-called low confidence assessment, meaning it lacked conclusive intelligence evidence.

Worth reading in full.

So, they covered up a key intelligence report while allowing the same claims found within it to be censored across social media as a ‘conspiracy theory’, and they wonder why no one trusts them.

Guardian Falsely Claims Climate Change is Intensifying Cyclones

It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong. – Richard Feynman.

Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

Australia total cyclones per year. Source Australian BOM.

Contradictory evidence is now “uncertainty”?

As Trump attacks US science agencies, ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred ushers in a fresh wave of climate denial in Australia

Adam Morton

…

In Australia, the past week has seen a fresh wave of climate denial as ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred approached and hit the southern Queensland coast. News Corp outlets, in particular, have run straw man arguments attacking people that have forcefully linked the storm to the climate crisis.

Some commentators have pointed out that southern Queensland has had cyclones before. Others have suggested there is uncertainty in the data about the pace and way in which they are changing, and that climate change didn’t “cause” Alfred. Well, yes. That’s all correct, of course, but hardly the point.

What they mostly haven’t said is that the ocean and atmosphere are demonstrably warmer than even just a few years ago. Or that this means the most intense storms formed in warmer conditions carry more energy and more water. Or that the conditions under which tropical cyclones can form are moving south as the planet heats up.

…

The evidence is that this is making tropical cyclones less frequent but more intense. There is data suggesting they also tend to last longer. Greater intensity plus time equals heightened risk of damage and casualties. It doesn’t mean that every cyclone or extreme storm will be more damaging than in the past. It does mean that when one comes, the potential for it to carry enough energy to wreak significant havoc is rising, not falling.

…Read more: 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/commentisfree/2025/mar/11/ex-tropical-cyclone-alfred-climate-denial-australia-trump-attacks-us-science-agencies

The graph at the top of the page shows both cyclone numbers and intensity are in long term decline. There is no “uncertainty”, this is reality.

It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong. – Richard Feynman.

The statement “this [ocean heating] is making tropical cyclones less frequent but more intense” is not supported by the evidence that tropical cyclones are declining both in frequency and intensity.

Why would anyone believe something which is so blatantly false? I don’t know why journalist Adam Morton holds this view, but the idea that models are more important than observations appears to be deep rooted in the climate community.

"People underestimate the power of models. Observational evidence is not very useful."

Are climate modellers putting the effect before the cause when it comes to long term cyclone frequency and intensity vs surface temperature? 

Because there is a very simple possible explanation for why atmospheric and ocean surface temperature is rising but cyclone frequency and intensity are decreasing – cyclone frequency and intensity likely have an inverse relationship with ocean surface and atmospheric heat content. Cyclones are powerful dissipators of surface heat, an uptick in cyclones would cause an immediate and sustained drop in surface temperature.

Bonus points for anyone who has a good theory for what causes more cyclones – I mean a theory which doesn’t contradict observations.

CFACT: Stop Offshore Wind!

One of the nation’s leading environmental organizations, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, has done their homework on the ecological harms of offshore wind turbines. This letter to Secretary Burgum of the U.S. Department of the Interior from David Wojick (CFACT) and David Stevenson (Center for Energy & Environment, Caesar Rodney Institute) follows.

From Master Resource

By Robert Bradley Jr.

Ed note: One of the nation’s leading environmental organizations, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, has done their homework on the ecological harms of offshore wind turbines. This letter to Secretary Burgum of the U.S. Department of the Interior from David Wojick (CFACT) and David Stevenson (Center for Energy & Environment, Caesar Rodney Institute) follows.

A previous post, Whales and Offshore Wind: Trump Time (Wojick has built a case), detailed the forty-one (!) posts of David Wojick on this issue. The latest is to put the evidence into political action now that look-the-other-way Podesta-Biden-Harris (and a lot of hypocritical ‘environmental’ groups) has been replaced by a new Administration. The letter and accompanying information follow.

RE: Reviewing legitimacy of Offshore Wind Project approvals

Dear Secretary Burgum,

It is with a sense of real urgency we are writing to you today. We much appreciate President Trump’s Emergency Order for temporary withdrawal of all areas on the outer continental shelf from offshore wind leasing. We count twenty-two projects that have been paused. However, eleven projects have already received approvals with four of those under construction. Leasing and permitting will be reviewed for these approved projects but may take time.

In the meantime, we expect the review will find serious problems with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Letters of Authorization (LOA) for Incidental Take of endangered and threatened species. Those improperly approved LOAs impact dozens of species and thousands of animals, none more so than the North Atlantic right whale. By our count the LOAs authorized cumulative Take of 548 individuals from a population of around 338. A summary of concerns about the LOAs follows along with a list of projects with LOAs.

We recommend the Interior Department work with NMFS to immediately revoke the Letters of Authorization and order an immediate cession of construction until a review is complete.

Thank you for your consideration.

——————————-
List of projects with approvals that have begun construction:

Momentum Wind; Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind; Vineyard Wind 1; Revolution Wind; Sunrise Wind

List of projects with approvals that have not begun construction:

South Coast Wind; New England Wind; Empire Wind 1; Empire Wind 2; Atlantic Shores South; Marwin Wind; Momentum Wind

Offshore wind permits deficiency analysis: The Dominion example President Trump’s Executive Order pausing the permitting of wind projects is based on this finding: “In light of various alleged legal deficiencies underlying the Federal Government’s leasing and permitting of onshore and offshore wind projects, the consequences of which may lead to grave harm…”

In the past CFACT has criticized numerous cases of offshore wind permitting as being deficient by omitting key issues hence being incomplete. Below is a listing of some of the worst cases using Dominion’s CVOW as an example many of these critiques were not specifically directed at Dominion and all permitted projects to date likely suffer from similar deficiencies.

In each case there are a number of formal documents required for each approval. These are the MMPA Incidental Take Authorization, the ESA Biological Opinion, the Final NEPA EIS, and the approved COP. One or more of these permitting documents is deficient in each case because it ignores a critical issue.

Here are some of the worst deficiencies in permitting identified to date by CFACT:

  1. No EIS for the NMFS Incidental Take Authorization
    Perhaps the most glaring deficiency is the lack of an EIS for the NMFS harassment taking
    authorization. In Dominion’s case just under 60,000 takings by acoustic harassment are
    authorized during project construction. The authorization document says there must be an EIS
    under NEPA for this action. It then says that the overall Dominion project EIS provides that
    harassment EIS, but the project EIS never mentions the taking. Thus, the required EIS was never
    done
  1. No consideration of the impact of harassment in the Biological Opinion including
    cumulative impacts
    In the Biological Opinion the same argument applies albeit not so simply. While the project EIS
    does not even mention the harassment authorization the BiOp devotes just a brief section to it.
    They just list the harassment numbers by endangered whale species and say that all the practical
    mitigation is planned. What is missing is any assessment of the adverse impact of harassment
    which is what the whale death issue is specifically about. The permit documents never address
    this crucial issue of harassment induced death as well as the cumulative impact of harassment
    caused by other permitted offshore wind projects.
  2. No harassment authorization for the turbine installation ship
    Another harassment case is that the pile driving ship Orion, which has been installing
    Dominion’s monopile foundations, uses multiple thrusters to maintain position. The thruster
    noise has been measured, and it exceeds the threshold for harassment. But that noise was not
    included in the harassment application so has not been authorized. This will likely be true for any
    monopile installation ship and for tower, turbine and blade installation as well. The Dominion
    project harassment authorization needs to be revised to include all the projected installation
    vessel noise as do all other similarly situated projects.
  3. No consideration of using suction caissons instead of pile driving
    Suction caissons are a wind turbine foundation design that eliminates the need for the incredibly
    loud giant monopiles. Of all the ways that offshore wind threatens whales monopiles are the
    worst, while suction caissons are benign. The Dominion COP, the BOEM EIS and the NMFS
    harassment take authorization all go into great lengths regarding minor mitigation policies to
    reduce the threat of construction to endangered whales. But none considers using suction
    caissons instead of pile driving.
  4. Violation of the critical MMPA “small numbers” rule
    The Marine Mammal Protection Act stipulates that incidental take authorizations are to be
    limited to small numbers of protected mammals. Dominion’s acoustic harassment take
    authorization is for more than 50,000 dolphins, which clearly is not a small number. The
    authorized take of the severely endangered right whale is 5% of the entire population so very far
    from a small number. If this amount of taking is allowed per MW for every leased project the
    total taking would be several times the population.
  5. No consideration of sediment plumes from ocean currents flowing through wind facilities. There is now sizable scientific literature on the fact that ocean currents flowing through a standing wind array will create an ongoing sediment plume which is a potentially severe environmental impact. The Dominion Biological Opinion only considers the transient sediment plumes generated by cable trenching. There is no consideration of the operational sediment plume that could last as long as the project stands in the ocean.
  6. Failure to assess the project’s contribution to the overall effects of multiple projects. Compared to the simpler aggregate of the individual initiatives, the cumulative impact can be far larger. Avoiding project combinations, for example, can greatly lengthen the amount of time spent in regions with a lot of ship activity or fishing. Cumulative impact should be covered in all the key Dominion project evaluation documents, but none do this.
  7. Continuous operating noise is not considered According to several studies, the massive turbine array’s operating noise will be higher than the acoustic harassment threshold and can last for twenty years. This noise is not covered by the Dominion harassment authority. This impact lasts the life of the project and must be included in the assessment.
  8. Physical presence-based harassment is not considered Only acoustic harassment is covered by the Dominion harassment authorization. Harassment is defined by the MMPA as any activity altering behavior of protected species. Avoiding the 150 square mile array of turbines is a significant behavioral shift that could have negative or deadly effects. As a result, the project’s physical presence itself creates harassment.