Month: July 2025

A case for ‘Climate Humility’: Analyzing the DOE’s ‘A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate’

Yesterday’s release of the DOE’s A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate is a watershed moment in the ongoing debate over climate policy in America. Why? Because for the first time, a major U.S. government agency—on official letterhead and with a blue-ribbon cast of authors (John Christy, Judith Curry, Steven Koonin, Ross McKitrick, and Roy Spencer)—has published an open challenge to the central claims, data handling, and even the motivations behind mainstream climate science and policy.

A split image showcasing two coastal scenes; on the left, a sunny beach with gentle waves under a clear blue sky, and on the right, a dramatic coastline with overcast skies and waves crashing against the shore.

From Watts Up With That?

By Anthony Watts

Honestly, I never thought I’d see the day. To quote Mr. FOIA from ClimateGate, “A miracle has occurred.”

Yesterday’s release of the DOE’s A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate is a watershed moment in the ongoing debate over climate policy in America. Why? Because for the first time, a major U.S. government agency—on official letterhead and with a blue-ribbon cast of authors (John Christy, Judith Curry, Steven Koonin, Ross McKitrick, and Roy Spencer)—has published an open challenge to the central claims, data handling, and even the motivations behind mainstream climate science and policy.

This isn’t just another technical report. It is a systematic rebuke of accepted climate “wisdom,” and it does so with unusual clarity, scientific rigor, and (at times) a sense of humor often absent in climate documents. Most importantly, it directly confronts the exaggerated and politicized rhetoric that has dominated headlines for decades.

The Executive Summary from the DOE web page:

This report: 

  • Reviews scientific certainties and uncertainties in how anthropogenic emissions of CO2 and other GHGs have affected, or will affect, the Nation’s climate, extreme weather events, and metrics of societal well-being.
  • Assesses the near-term impacts of elevated concentrations of CO2, including enhanced plant growth and reduced ocean alkalinity.
  • Evaluates data and projections regarding long-term impacts of elevated concentrations of CO2, including estimates of future warming.
  • Finds that claims of increased frequency or intensity of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and droughts are not supported by U.S. historical data.
  • Asserts that CO2-induced warming appears to be less damaging economically than commonly believed, and that aggressive mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than beneficial.
  • Finds that U.S. policy actions are expected to have undetectably small direct impacts on the global climate and any effects will emerge only with long delays.

What Makes This Report Unique?

  1. Official Status and Author Independence
    Unlike think tank white papers or “dissenting” journal articles, this report comes from within the federal government, under the Trump administration’s DOE. Yet the authors assert full independence—no editorial oversight, no political vetting. It’s rare to see scientists of this caliber (with backgrounds at NASA, IPCC, and major universities) allowed to directly challenge prevailing policy narratives with government resources behind them.
  2. Comprehensive Critique, Not Just a Narrow Rebuttal
    Rather than focusing on a single point of controversy, the report systematically evaluates everything from CO2’s physiological role in plant growth, to climate sensitivity estimates, to the track record of climate models, to the real-world impacts (or lack thereof) on extreme weather and U.S. agriculture. Each chapter is loaded with extended quotes from peer-reviewed literature and clear explanations of scientific uncertainty and model error.
  3. Explicit Address of Policy Missteps and Economic Risks
    Most uniquely, the report doesn’t stop at “science.” It details the economic costs of climate policy—especially the social cost of carbon modeling games and the virtually undetectable impact U.S. mitigation will have on the global climate. This is a rarely admitted fact, buried in most government assessments but here discussed openly and at length.
  4. Direct Critique of Media, IPCC, and U.S. National Climate Assessments
    In one chapter after another, the report highlights the misuse of worst-case scenarios (RCP8.5), the prevalence of “publication bias” in alarming ocean acidification studies, and the outright neglect of positive CO2 impacts like global greening. The report does not hesitate to call out “systemic misuse of scenarios in climate research” and points to specific agencies and news outlets responsible for propagating misleading claims.

My List of the Eight Most Important Findings in the Report

  1. CO2 Is Not a Conventional Pollutant and Has Direct Environmental Benefits
    Unlike actual pollutants, CO2 has no toxic effect at ambient levels, is essential for plant life, and has caused global greening—a fact barely acknowledged in IPCC summaries.
  2. “Ocean Acidification” Fears Are Overblown
    Oceans are still alkaline, and changes in pH are within natural variability; most ocean life evolved under much lower pH. The report exposes publication bias and lack of reproducibility in many alarming acidification studies. The Great Barrier Reef is currently thriving.
  3. Climate Models Consistently Overestimate Warming
    Most climate models run “hot,” overstating recent warming at the surface and in the troposphere. Data-driven climate sensitivity estimates are lower and more constrained than model-based ones, challenging the high ECS values used to justify drastic policy measures.
  4. No Evidence for Increases in Most U.S. Extreme Weather
    U.S. historical data shows no long-term upward trend in hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, or droughts. Claims of worsening disasters are unsupported by observations; fire trends are largely due to land management, not climate change.
  5. Sea Level Rise Is Not Accelerating Dangerously
    Global sea level has risen about 8 inches since 1900, but regional U.S. sea level trends are dominated by local land movements, not acceleration from climate change. Tide gauges do not show alarming acceleration.
  6. Attribution of Warming to CO2 Is Far Less Certain Than Claimed
    Natural variability, incomplete data, and significant model uncertainties make attribution of observed warming and extremes to human CO2 emissions tenuous. Solar variability may be underestimated in mainstream assessments.
  7. The Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) Is Largely Arbitrary
    SCC estimates, which drive regulatory costs, are shown to be highly sensitive to model assumptions, with no robust economic basis. The report demonstrates that realistic ECS values and updated economic inputs lead to much lower SCC estimates.
  8. U.S. Emission Reductions Will Have Negligible Impact on Global Climate
    Even extreme U.S. policy actions will produce climate changes too small to detect for generations—an inconvenient truth almost never discussed in mainstream policy or media reports.

Here is a Breakdown of How the Report Challenges Mainstream Climate Science

CO2: Pollutant or Plant Food?

The DOE report begins by demolishing the notion that CO2 should be treated as a conventional pollutant, as regulated under the Clean Air Act. It cites OSHA exposure limits (5,000 ppm—orders of magnitude above outdoor levels) and presents robust evidence from plant physiology showing that rising CO2 enhances growth, improves water use efficiency, and has led to the global greening phenomenon observed by satellites.

Notably, the report details how IPCC assessments downplay or omit this global greening effect, despite its direct connection to rising CO2. Even the IPCC’s own Special Report on Land concluded “with high confidence” that greening has occurred, yet this is absent from summary reports intended for policymakers and the public.

Ocean “Acidification”: A Manufactured Crisis?

The report’s treatment of ocean acidification is a case study in scientific skepticism. It points out that “acidification” is a misnomer—oceans remain alkaline, and pH fluctuations are within historic norms. Life in the ocean evolved under a much broader range of pH conditions. More importantly, the DOE authors highlight the growing recognition of “publication bias”: studies with null or minimal impacts from declining pH are difficult to publish, leading to a skewed scientific record.

A meta-analysis cited in the report finds a strong “decline effect” in ocean acidification impacts on fish behavior: early alarming results are rarely replicated by later, larger studies, which usually show negligible impacts. In short, the “crisis” has been grossly exaggerated in the literature and the media.

Model Failure: The Emperor Has No Clothes

The centerpiece of the DOE critique is the performance of global climate models. The report notes that despite decades of effort and billions spent, model projections have failed to narrow the uncertainty in equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS). In fact, the spread of ECS in the latest (CMIP6) models has grown wider, not narrower, and the majority of models produce too much warming compared to observations—both at the surface and throughout the troposphere.

Crucially, the report provides detailed side-by-side comparisons of model projections versus observed data (see page 33–37). It notes that only models with the lowest ECS values match the actual temperature record since 1979. The majority of models overestimate warming, in some cases by more than a factor of two.

The report also skewers the widespread misuse of “worst-case” emissions scenarios (RCP8.5) in research and media. It cites analysis showing that the vast majority of climate impact papers used RCP8.5 as a business-as-usual baseline, despite the scenario being grossly implausible and far above observed emissions trends.

Attribution and Natural Variability

The report spends several chapters dissecting the uncertainties around attribution—the attempt to link observed warming and extreme events specifically to human GHG emissions. The authors document the wide range of natural variability (including the still-uncertain role of solar variation), and show that statistical “fingerprinting” methods are often inconclusive or circular. In some key cases, model simulations of vertical temperature profiles and the geographic distribution of warming simply fail to match real-world data—a fact not honestly conveyed in mainstream summaries.

The Social Cost of Carbon: An Economic Mirage

One of the most policy-relevant chapters debunks the “social cost of carbon” (SCC) calculations used by regulatory agencies to justify massive economic interventions. The DOE report shows that SCC values are essentially “made up,” highly sensitive to a few subjective assumptions about climate sensitivity, discount rates, and economic damages. When updated with realistic parameters and best-estimate ECS values, the SCC drops dramatically, sometimes to near zero or even negative (i.e., net benefits from CO2 emissions due to agricultural gains).

U.S. Policy: All Pain, No Gain

Perhaps the most striking section (and one likely to cause heartburn in certain policy circles) comes at the end: the scale of the U.S. impact on the global climate. The report quantifies just how little effect even the most aggressive U.S. mitigation policies will have—using the very models and assumptions of mainstream climate science. The answer: “undetectably small” impacts, appearing only after centuries, if at all. This fact is never honestly presented in the typical policy debate.

Of course, the Media is Panning It

Predictably, the release of the DOE report has drawn fire from mainstream outlets and climate advocacy groups. For example, the ever angry and alarmed, The Guardian wrote:

“Climate scientists have condemned the DOE’s new report as ‘dangerous disinformation,’ claiming it was designed to mislead the public about the risks of greenhouse gas emissions and to justify a rollback of U.S. climate policy. Several experts criticized the report for cherry-picking studies and downplaying the consensus on climate risks.”

LOL. Let’s address these lightweight claims, point by point:

Claim: The report is “disinformation” and “cherry-picks” studies.
Pushback: The DOE report is authored by respected scientists with deep experience in climate modeling, attribution, and atmospheric science—many of whom have published widely in peer-reviewed journals. The report is overwhelmingly referenced, including citations from the very IPCC reports it critiques, and in fact spends entire chapters reviewing both sides of contested issues. The presence of extended quotations from mainstream literature, including detailed reviews of opposing arguments, refutes the idea that it is simply “cherry-picking.”

Claim: The report “downplays the consensus” on climate risks.
Pushback: The DOE report does not deny climate change or human influence. It argues, with substantial evidence, that the level of risk is greatly overstated, that models exaggerate sensitivity, and that the costs of mitigation policies are vastly underestimated. It is not “disinformation” to present documented, peer-reviewed evidence that calls into question apocalyptic scenarios—especially when such scenarios are contradicted by the data.

Claim: The report is designed to justify policy rollbacks.
Pushback: The report’s authors explicitly state their independence and reject any suggestion of political vetting or pressure. They also include dissent and debate within the team. The report’s focus is on evidence, not policy prescription. The fact that it challenges established policy is a sign of its intellectual independence, not its bias.

Gavin Schmidt’s “RealClimate” website barely managed a whimper, starting an open thread, saying:

The EPA, along with the “Climate Working Group” of usual suspects (plus Judith Curry and Ross McKitrick) at DOE, have just put out a document for public comment their attempt to rescind the 2009 Endangerment Finding for greenhouse gas emissions.

I got a real laugh out of one of the four comments so far:

Secular Animist says

29 Jul 2025 at 4:35 PM

The proposed rule to rescind the 2009 Endangerment Finding is an ACT OF WAR against the human species by the fossil fuel industry.

LOL, bring it, you anonymous dork.

My Cold Hard Facts Conclusion

The DOE’s A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate stands out as a landmark challenge to the status quo in climate science and policy. It is a detailed, referenced, and balanced review—one that will make uncomfortable reading for those invested in climate alarmism or rigid consensus. It doesn’t offer certainty; it offers scientific humility, transparency, and an honest assessment of the uncertainties and limitations in current climate science.

The real “dangerous disinformation” isn’t in this report—it’s in the repeated failure of the mainstream media and science to confront inconvenient evidence, model errors, and the economic reality of climate policy. It’s long past time for the climate debate to embrace the kind of open, skeptical, and evidence-based assessment represented in this DOE report.

REFERENCES:

DOE Report (Main Document)

Key Peer-Reviewed and Official References Used in the DOE Report

1. IPCC Assessment Reports

2. Climate Model Performance and Sensitivity

3. CO₂, Global Greening, and Fertilization

4. Ocean “Acidification” and Coral Reefs

5. Extreme Weather Data

6. Solar Influence and Natural Variability

7. Social Cost of Carbon and Economic Analyses

8. Emissions Scenarios Critiques

Official & U.S. Government Data

Additional Useful Reports for Context

WINNING — EPA to end “endangerment finding”

CFACT’s Marc Morano said, “by removing the CO2 endangerment finding from our lives, it removes the basis for all of the climate nonsense that we’ve had to endure for the last several decades. Everything from gas-powered appliance bans, gas-powered car bans, to restrictions on agricultural, meat, power plants, travel, ceiling fans, pizza ovens, energy mandates, subsidies, and thermostat controls.”

A serene garden path lined with fruit trees bearing colorful apples and peaches, a rustic wooden bench in the background beside a white picket fence.

From CFACT

By Craig Rucker

A worker tending to a large, artistic representation of a leaf with expressive eyes made of colorful foliage, set in a vibrant garden environment.

CFACT researched it, CFACT advocated for it, and now it’s happening.

EPA announced that it is ending its disastrous “endangerment finding.”

The Wall Street Journal declared it “liberation day from climate imperialism.”

CFACT’s Marc Morano said, “by removing the CO2 endangerment finding from our lives, it removes the basis for all of the climate nonsense that we’ve had to endure for the last several decades. Everything from gas-powered appliance bans, gas-powered car bans, to restrictions on agricultural, meat, power plants, travel, ceiling fans, pizza ovens, energy mandates, subsidies, and thermostat controls.”

The “endangerment finding” is a glaring bit of regulatory overreach, whereby EPA sought to force climate policy that had no hope of passing Congress. The Clean Air Act does not grant EPA the power. Climate campaigners tried various ways to bypass Congress via lawsuits and eventually bare-knuckle bureaucratic rulemaking.

As EPA explains in its official release (read it at CFACT.org):

The Endangerment Finding is the legal prerequisite used by the Obama and Biden Administrations to regulate emissions from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines. Absent this finding, EPA would lack statutory authority under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to prescribe standards for greenhouse gas emissions. This proposal, if finalized, is expected to save Americans $54 billion in costs annually through the repeal of all greenhouse gas standards, including the Biden EPA’s electric vehicle mandate, under conservative economic forecasts.

If finalized, this proposal would remove all greenhouse gas standards for light-, medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and heavy-duty engines, starting with EPA’s first greenhouse gas set in 2010 for light-duty vehicles and those set in 2011 for medium-duty vehicles and heavy-duty vehicles and engines—which includes off-cycle credits like the much-hated start-stop feature on most new cars.

Marc Morano reports that the Administration’s current approach stands to grant us permanent relief from the horrific burdens of heavy-handed climate and energy regulation.  Let’s hope he’s right.

CO2, the invisible, odorless gas you just exhaled, is not a pollutant. It is certainly not what Congress intended when it enacted the Clean Air Act.

Claim: Young people are growing tired of climate alarmism

“… while climate change remains a concern, it increasingly shares space with other anxieties — housing, economic insecurity, mental health, artificial intelligence and war. …”

A group of young people happily interacting outdoors, smiling, and wearing casual clothing, with colorful balloons in the background.

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by  Eric Worrall

“… while climate change remains a concern, it increasingly shares space with other anxieties — housing, economic insecurity, mental health, artificial intelligence and war. …”

Young people growing tired of climate alarmism

By Perry Kinkaide

…

For years, climate change has dominated the worldview of many young people, instilling a sense of urgency, fear and moral responsibility.

…

However, after decades of apocalyptic messaging, something is shifting.

What was once explosive passion is giving way to fatigue, confusion and competing priorities.

…

Surveys now show that while climate change remains a concern, it increasingly shares space with other anxieties — housing, economic insecurity, mental health, artificial intelligence and war.

…

In school, they’re taught to recycle and reduce emissions, but they also see the wealthy flying private jets and governments approving new oil and gas projects — even as Canada pledges to cut emissions.

…Read more: https://www.producer.com/opinion/young-people-growing-tired-of-climate-alarmism/

What kid wants to be involved in the movement their parents cared about? Can you imagine anything more demoralising than showing up to a climate protest, and suddenly realising you’re standing next to your school teachers? What if they ask you about your homework? While on the other side – that’s mum waving and smiling, watching you desperately trying to get the attention of the hippie girl standing next to you.

No wonder kids are looking for something fresh and new. Being a climate alarmist today is like trying to be a flower child – no longer the vibrant movement of the age, more a retirement club for people who can’t let go of the past.

If any of the promised climate disasters had actually happened it would have been different, but even the dumbest kids are waking up that what is left of the climate movement is a grownup exercise in hypocrisy.

133 Years of Texas Hill Country Heavy Rainfall Data Show No Trends

…and for floods across the U.S. and the world, the “scientific consensus” agrees.

A flooded street in a residential area, with debris and muddy water flowing past houses and parked cars under a cloudy sky.

From Roy Spencer, PhD

…and for floods across the U.S. and the world, the “scientific consensus” agrees.

A flooded river with strong currents, surrounded by trees and vegetation, under a cloudy sky.
This photo provided by the National Weather Service shows flooding in the Guadalupe River in Texas on July 17, 1987. (NWS via AP)

The catastrophic flooding of July 4, 2025, in the Texas hill country has left at least 130 dead. Many news outlets (predictably) have invoked climate change as a contributing cause, for example CNN, NPR, ABC News, The Texas Tribune, et al. As others have documented, there were more than adequate flash flood watches and warnings from the National Weather Service, and there was no shortage of either NWS staff or weather data.

It has long been known that this region is considered “Flash Flood Alley“, where the local topography and little soil covering the rock underneath leads to large amounts of runoff into the Guadeloupe and other nearby rivers in the event of heavy thunderstorms.

Clearly, one weather event is not evidence of climate change. We need to examine long-term weather statistics to evaluate claims that severe weather, of any type, is getting worse. This is especially true of heavy rainfall events, which are notoriously sporadic, with long-term statistics which are not well-behaved.

Flash floods require more than just heavy rainfall; they also require (1) rain to accumulate over a very short period of time, (2) the storms need to stay over the same area, and (3) the geography and hydrology features (little soil, sloping terrain) need to rapidly funnel most of the water into streams and rivers. The Flash Flood Alley region of Texas can deal with, say, 5 inches of rain if it falls steadily over 2 days. But if it falls in only 6 hours, flash flooding is much more likely. As is the case with tornadoes, a catastrophic flash flood requires specific ingredients that seldom occur all at the same time and location. There is a large element of randomness involved.

The Catastrophic Floods of 1978

While the 1987 flood (pictured above) was also severe, it has been nearly 50 years since a flood of similar magnitude to the July 4th flood occurred, and that was in 1978. This San Antonio Express-News article is a fascinating read regarding that event. Like this year’s disaster, the cause was a dissipating tropical storm (Amelia in 1978, T.S. Barry this year). That flood killed 25 people in the Hill Country. What I find especially interesting is that the flood uprooted ancient cypress trees, up to 6 ft. in diameter, estimated to be several hundred years old.

133 Years of Heavy Rainfall Events in the Texas Hill Country

John Christy (UAH) provided me some heavy rainfall statistics for several stations in the Kerrville, TX area. For years John has been going through old daily weather summary forms that were never digitized, extending observational records back into the late 1800s. This is tedious and time-consuming work, but necessary if one has any hope of examining long-term trends in heavy rainfall events.

From those data, here are the last 133 years of the heaviest 2-day rainfall events in each year at Kerrville, TX (since 1893).

Line graph depicting heavy rainfall in Kerrville, TX from 1893 to 2025, showing annual measurements in inches, significant flood events labeled for 1978 and 2025, and atmospheric CO2 levels over the years.

Clearly, there has been no long-term change in heavy rain events at Kerrville, Texas in spite of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations (also shown in the above plot). Even the EPA shows maps for the 50-year period 1965-2015 that indicate slight downward trends in river flooding magnitude and frequency over most of Texas, as well as the rest of the U.S.

From the Kerrville plot above you might wonder, why did the 2025 flood have so little rainfall at Kerrville? This is because most of the rain occurred upstream of Kerrville. Flash floods can occur at locations where no rain has fallen, as the water flows downstream from where the heavy rainfall occurred. Because of this effect, not all of the heavy rainfall peaks shown in the above plot produced serious flooding, and some of the documented flood events at Kerrville had only modest rainfall amounts.

Instead, the rainfall statistics at Kerrville should be viewed as evidence to address the question, are heavy rainfall events in Texas Hill Country getting worse? At Kerrville, at least, the answer is “no”.

But that’s just one station. John Christy also provided me data for 3 other nearby stations: Boerne, Fredericksburg, and Hondo Texas (not shown). For the same period (1893-2025) the trend lines for those stations are all essentially flat to slightly downward.

Climate Change, Heavy Rainfall, and Flooding: What Is The “Scientific Consensus”?

As we document in our Department of Energy report released yesterday entitled, A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate, when one looks at rainfall statistics across the U.S. extending back to the mid- to late-1800s, there is little evidence for anything that might be considered related to human-caused climate change.

And don’t take just our word for it.

For flooding, the most recent IPCC report (AR6) said there is “low confidence for observed changes in the magnitude or frequency of floods at the global scale.”

For the U.S., the 4th National Climate Assessment stated that “trends in extreme high values of streamflow are mixed” with both increases and decreases, and there is no “robust evidence” that any trends are attributable to human influences.

So, for the usual suspects trashing our report to the media (Michael Mann, Andy Dessler, and Zeke Hausfather), maybe they should look at what we actually wrote, and the “consensus” sources we relied upon.

The public has been misled on climate science, and we are trying to set the record straight.

US Carbon Dioxide Endangerment Finding Axed

The Trump administration has announced a plan to scrap a landmark finding that greenhouse gases are harmful to the environment, severely curbing the federal government’s ability to combat climate change.

A dramatic illustration of a crumbling stone structure with the words 'CLIMATE SCAM' prominently displayed on the top, surrounded by flying debris and dust.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

Excellent news from the US:

BBC News headline about the US decision to scrap a significant finding related to carbon emissions limits.

The Trump administration has announced a plan to scrap a landmark finding that greenhouse gases are harmful to the environment, severely curbing the federal government’s ability to combat climate change.

Known as the “Endangerment Finding”, the 2009 order from then-President Barack Obama allowed the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to create rules to limit pollution by setting emissions standards.

The US is a major contributor to global climate change, and ranks second only to China which emits more planet-warming gases like carbon dioxide – and the US still emits more per person.

Experts have warned that the move could have a devastating impact on the environment.

President Donald Trump has long argued that climate regulations stifle US economic growth, and on his first day back in office in January ordered that the EPA submit recommendations “on the legality and continuing applicability” of the Endangerment Finding.

The Endangerment Finding stemmed from a 2007 Supreme Court case in which the court ruled that greenhouse gases are “air pollutants” – meaning that the EPA has the authority and responsibility to regulate them under the US Clean Air Act.

In 2009, the EPA made an official decision, the Endangerment Finding, which found that greenhouse gas emissions from sources such as cars, power plants and factories cause climate change and could pose a public health risk.

The decision forms the core of the federal government’s authority to impose limits on carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases.

In a statement, the EPA said that, if finalised, the move will save Americans $54bn (£40bn) in costs annually through the repeal of greenhouse gas standards, including an electric vehicle mandate passed by the Biden administration.

Speaking in an episode of the conservative “Ruthless” podcast released on Tuesday, EPA administrator Lee Zeldin said the move was “basically driving a dagger into the heart of the climate change religion”.

Zeldin said that emissions standards were a “distraction” and that the policy change was “an economic issue”. “Repealing it will be the largest deregulatory action in the history of America,” he said.

Blackout Australia Doubles Down on Net Zero

Aussie Government plans an ambitious 30 minutes of battery capacity to stabilise the grid.

A group of kangaroos in a grassy field with wind turbines in the background during sunset.

From Watts Up With That?

By Eric Worrall

Aussie Government plans an ambitious 30 minutes of battery capacity to stabilise the grid.

Albanese government substantially expands renewable energy scheme amid 2030 target concerns

Chris Bowen says Labor will increase size of its main climate and energy program by 25% to capitalise on falling cost of solar panels and batteries

Adam Morton Climate and environment editorTue 29 Jul 2025 12.26 AEST

The Australian government will substantially expand a renewable energy underwriting scheme as it aims to capitalise on the falling cost of solar panels and batteries and combat concerns it may struggle to meet its 2030 climate target.

The climate change and energy minister, Chris Bowen, said the government would increase the size of its main climate and energy program – known as the capacity investment scheme – by 25%.

It means Labor plans to underwrite the construction of 40 gigawatts of large-scale solar, wind and storage by the end of the decade. In capacity terms, this is nearly twice as much energy infrastructure as the country’s existing coal-fired power fleet.

…

He announced the government would add 5GW of dispatchable capacity, which typically means large-scale batteries and 3GW of large-scale wind and solar generation to its underwriting program. In total, the government has promised to underwrite 26GW of generation and 14GW of storage or clean dispatchable capacity that can be called on when needed.

…Read more:

 https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/jul/29/australia-expands-renewable-energy-scheme-2030-target

None of this comes close to meeting Australia’s energy needs. 14GW of “storage or clean dispatchable capacity” covers half of Australia’s 35GW of peak demand. When a 35GW peak occurs during one of our wind droughts, and there is only 14GW of storage while demand shoots up to 35GW, after a few minutes the electricity will fail.

Night Time Wind Power Fails Across the Entire Continent of Australia

But what else would you expect from the engineering dyslexics who currently run Australia?

Chris Bowen isn’t having any of Uhlmann’s ‘wind doesn’t always blow’ rhetoric.

“the rain doesn’t always fall either, but we manage to store the water – we can store the renewable energy if we have the investment”#auspol pic.twitter.com/LjJkEr3zJy— Squizz (@SquizzSTK) June 16, 2022

Of course, even the Bowen / Albanese government will soon realise they have to continue playing the green hypocrisy game even with this additional capacity, and splurge taxpayer’s money on paying for a second set of real dispatchable power to remain on hot standby. Ready to step in when the fake renewable power system fails us.

The saddest part of this, by hamstringing Australian energy like this, we have no hope of participating in the AI revolution, except by proxy using AI installations located in other nations. Australia is stumbling and falling right at the start of the game due to our own national stupidity. But fumbling the ball has been our thing for at least the last half century.

The DOE Scientific Report Underpinning the EPA’s Decision to Reconsider the 2009 Endangerment Finding on CO2

Around 3 p.m. ET today, 29 July 2025, a Department of Energy report entitled “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate” will be made available here. This is the report providing the scientific basis for today’s announced decision by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin to reconsider the 2009 CO2 Endangerment Finding.

A tranquil stream flows through a lush green forest, with vibrant leaves and a carpet of brown leaves lining the banks.

From Roy Spencer, PhD

July 29th, 2025, by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Department of Energy report cover titled 'A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate' dated July 23, 2025, featuring the Department of Energy seal.

A Note to Journalists: Please take few minutes to read some of this so that maybe you can skip asking me for an interview.

Around 3 p.m. ET today, 29 July 2025, a Department of Energy report entitled “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate” will be made available here. This is the report providing the scientific basis for today’s announced decision by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin to reconsider the 2009 CO2 Endangerment Finding.

The report has 5 authors: John Christy, Judith Curry, Steve Koonin, Ross McKitrick, and myself.

We were asked by DOE Secretary Wright a few months ago to produce this report. As the first few pages of the report will explain, we had no pressure to come to any conclusions; we asked for complete autonomy.

Also, we had no knowledge through the whole process of what the decision-makers at the EPA were going to do regarding energy policy. We suspected the Endangerment Finding would be the topic of greatest interest, but we also knew that the EPA’s strategy for rescinding that could take a mostly legal approach, with little need for science arguments… for now.

Even today, I have no idea how much recent court rulings vs. updated (and less biased) science figured into the EPA’s decision.

Why a DOE Report to Support an EPA Decision?

My understanding is that the Trump Administration and all of its Executive Branch agencies have been very busy on myriad issues. Only one of the executive-level appointees in the Administration had the background knowledge and interest to invest in making this science report happen: Energy Secretary Chris Wright. I suspect (this is my reading between the lines) that it was agreed between the White House, EPA, and DOE that Sec. Wright would take the lead on the science document.

Chris called me at home and asked me if I would participate, and he asked who I would recommend for other authors of the report. He had been following my research for many years. He also had on his list of potential contributors the others who now appear on the report with me.

During preparation of the report we decided to avoid any engagement with the press on what we were doing. It would have only been a distraction, and we had little time to accomplish what the Obama Administration spent years and millions of dollars to produce as the original Technical Support Document (TSD) for the 2009 Endangerment Finding.

Our report has 141 pages, 350 references (most if not all peer-reviewed), 6.6% of which were studies we authored or co-authored. The report could not address every claim made in the 2009 Endangerment Finding’s Technical Support Document. Instead, we focused on some of the central claims, the science underpinning them, and especially on the National Climate Assessments, especially NCA4 and NCA5 (the latest), which are relied upon by the U.S. Congress to assist in the making of laws and apportioning research funds.

One thing I learned through this process is how prolific and smart a researcher Ross McKitrick (U. of Guelph, Ontario) is. He was indispensable to our effort. But everyone brought their own experiences and opinions to the process, and we often had disagreements… but none that could not be quickly resolved.

Another thing I learned was just how poorly the science of climate change has been communicated to the public. For example, if you follow Roger Pielke, Jr’s research you will know that most of what the public has been told about climate change and severe weather has been a lie — and Roger still considers human climate change to be an issue worth addressing. It’s just not a “crisis”, and nothing we see in severe weather has been tied to human greenhouse gas emissions.

And that’s not a skeptical talking point; it’s according to the IPCC (!)

AI revolution drives huge gas plant build-out, including Memphis site

A boom in artificial intelligence (AI) investments now drives the United States electricity market. New data centers and upgrades to existing data centers are creating a vast demand for power. However, major AI firms are opting for natural gas plants to provide electrical power, rather than renewable energy.

A futuristic data center with glowing blue technology elements and server racks, set against a dark, starry background.

From CFACT

By Steve Goreham

A boom in artificial intelligence (AI) investments now drives the United States electricity market. New data centers and upgrades to existing data centers are creating a vast demand for power. However, major AI firms are opting for natural gas plants to provide electrical power, rather than renewable energy.

Since ChatGPT released their conversational AI chatbot in November of 2022, the world of artificial intelligence has exploded. ChatGPT showed that machines can learn the complexities of human language and interaction. Within five days, the chatbot had attracted over one million users. ChatGPT ushered in the modern AI revolution, producing trillions of dollars of investment in the U.S. and around the world.

Artificial intelligence uses vast amounts of computing power and databases with trillions of parameters to solve problems and make predictions. Generational AI can create text, images, music, and videos. These capabilities require enormous data centers filled with thousands of servers using high-speed graphics processing units (GPUs).

Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft, Tesla, and other firms are investing billions to build new data centers and to upgrade existing facilities. According to USA Datacenters, America had fewer than 2,700 data centers at the start of 2024. Now, about 3,900 data centers are operating, an increase of more than 40 percent in 18 months.

Data centers traditionally support the internet and cloud storage. At the start of 2024, data centers consumed about 4% of U.S. electricity. But when servers are upgraded with thousands of high-speed GPUs to deliver generational AI, they use six to ten times as much power. It is estimated that by 2030, U.S. data centers will consume 20% of the nation’s power. And the overwhelming majority of electricity for these AI facilities will come from new natural gas power plants.

Green energy advocates want renewables to power the AI data centers, but wind and solar systems fall far short. AI computers operate 24-hours a day, which can’t be supported by the 30% capacity factor of wind or the 15% capacity factor of solar. Gas plants are designed to deliver their rated output over 90% of the time.

Nuclear plants may be able to power AI in some cases. Retired nuclear facilities in Palisades, Michigan, and Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania are being restarted to drive AI. But a start-up nuclear plant costs up to 10 times as much as a gas-fired power plant. It can take more than five years to bring a nuclear plant on-line, compared to 1-2 years for a gas plant. Small modular nuclear reactors promise breakthroughs in cost and cycle time, but these remain unproven technologies.

Wind and solar also suffer from transmission costs and delays. These systems are scattered over wide areas, requiring new transmission towers and lines to be built across the countryside to aggregate enough power for a large data center. In contrast, gas plants provide concentrated generating power that can be built near the data center and existing transmission lines.

Elon Musk’s Tesla is a leading provider of solar systems and grid-scale batteries. But Tesla chose 35 on-site gas turbines to supply electricity for its Colossus xAI supercomputer facility in Memphis, Tennessee. Colossus was built and expanded to 200,000 GPUs in less than six months in 2024 and claims to be “the most powerful AI training system yet.”

The Colossus build is an example of BYOP, or “bring your own power.” Rather than using electricity from the grid, leading technology firms are building their own natural gas plants on-site to power data centers.

AI data centers are huge facilities. EdgeConneX plans to build two data centers in New Albany, Ohio, to be completed by the fall of 2027, using existing warehouse space and new construction. The facilities will total 1.2 million square feet, covering an area larger than 20 football fields. These data centers will be powered by on-site gas plants.

More than 100 gas-fired power plants are planned for deployment in Texas, including 108 new plants and 17 expansions. The projects will provide 58 GW of electrical power. Sixty percent of the projects aim for completion by the end of 2028. These new facilities, if completed, will deliver more than three times as much electricity as all of the wind systems currently operating in Texas, the leading U.S. wind state.

Earlier in July, President Trump joined state senator Dave McCormick at the Energy Innovation Summit in Pennsylvania. At the conference, they announced private investments of more than $90 billion in AI data centers and new or expanded power-generating systems. Amazon, Blackstone, CoreWeave, Pennsylvania Data Center Partners, PowerHouse Data Centers, and other firms will build AI infrastructure in Carlisle, Lancaster, Pittsburgh, and other Pennsylvania locations.

Pennsylvania is one of the largest producers of natural gas. Recently, the price of gas in Pennsylvania has been too low for local firms to make a profit. But most new AI installations will be powered by gas plants, to be constructed by PPL Corporation, Frontier Group, and others, providing new high-demand customers for gas producers. Westinghouse Electric also plans to build ten new nuclear reactors in the state, to be on-line by 2030.

Meta claims to be building the largest data center in the Western Hemisphere. The facility will be located in Richland Parish in northeast Louisiana, 250 miles north of New Orleans, and will cover 3.5 square miles or 2,250 acres. When completed in 2030, the installation will use twice as much electricity as the city of New Orleans. Entergy Louisiana is building three large gas-fired power plants at the Meta site at a cost of more than $3 billion.

The artificial intelligence revolution now drives the U.S. electricity market. Most new AI data centers will be powered by newly constructed natural gas facilities. The net-zero electricity transition is being left in the rear-view mirror.

This article originally appeared at Tristar Daily

Skeptics Win, Endangerment Finding Axed – Truth Finally Prevails in The Climate Wars

Today’s decision by the Environmental Protection Agency to remove the Carbon Dioxide Endangerment Finding represents a pivotal shift in America’s approach to climate policy—one rooted in evidence, not ideology. For years, this “finding” has served as the legal justification for an array of costly, far-reaching regulations targeting everything from our nation’s power plants to the cars we drive and the energy bills we pay. Its removal is a direct response to mounting evidence that the basis for this rule was always more about speculative modeling and political maneuvering than sound science.

An illustration depicting the collapse of a symbolic structure labeled 'Climate Agenda,' surrounded by four shocked individuals holding papers with alarmist graphs, conveying a sense of chaos and disbelief.

From Watts Up With That?

By Anthony Watts

Today is a monumental win for climate skeptics

Today’s decision by the Environmental Protection Agency to remove the Carbon Dioxide Endangerment Finding represents a pivotal shift in America’s approach to climate policy—one rooted in evidence, not ideology. For years, this “finding” has served as the legal justification for an array of costly, far-reaching regulations targeting everything from our nation’s power plants to the cars we drive, and the energy bills we pay. Its removal is a direct response to mounting evidence that the basis for this rule was always more about speculative modeling and political maneuvering than sound science. Watch the announcement here:

The Carbon Dioxide Endangerment Finding, first enacted in 2009, rested on claims that rising levels of CO2 posed a dire threat to public health and welfare. These claims, trumpeted by alarmist voices in the media and bureaucracy, relied heavily on computer models that have since proven to be chronically inaccurate, consistently forecasting more warming than actually observed. In the years since, we’ve witnessed a remarkable gap between dire projections and reality: global temperatures have not followed the “runaway” path predicted, and extreme weather events—despite breathless coverage—remain well within the range of historical variability.

Yet while the U.S. was tying itself in regulatory knots, China and other major emitters continued to expand their coal-fired power generation, wiping out any hypothetical benefit of America’s self-imposed restrictions. According to multiple independent sources, China has increased its annual CO2 emissions by over 70% since 2005 and now burns more coal than the rest of the world combined. The idea that the U.S. could “lead by example” and coax the rest of the world into similar sacrifices has been thoroughly debunked by the facts on the ground.

The real-world effects of the Endangerment Finding were felt not in the climate, but in American households and businesses. Energy prices rose, manufacturing jobs fled overseas, and everyday citizens bore the burden of expensive, symbolic gestures that did nothing to alter the climate trajectory. The American people deserve policies that produce measurable results, not more of the same costly theater.

By removing the Endangerment Finding, the EPA is signaling a long-overdue return to rational, evidence-based policy. This action acknowledges that CO2 is not a pollutant in any meaningful scientific sense but a fundamental component of life on Earth—one that, at current atmospheric concentrations, has proven benefits for plant growth and agriculture. The change is not about neglecting environmental stewardship; rather, it’s about discarding unproductive policies and focusing on real solutions grounded in evidence, innovation, and economic reality.

The Role of WUWT and Climate Skeptics Over the Past 25 Years to Reach This Point

Today’s announcement did not happen in a vacuum. It is, in many respects, a testament to the perseverance and integrity of climate skeptics who have spent decades challenging the so-called “consensus.” For over 25 years, voices from outside the mainstream—scientists, meteorologists, engineers, and informed citizens—have raised legitimate questions about the certainty and direction of climate science and the wisdom of policies derived from it.

Watts Up With That (WUWT), which I founded in 2006, has played a key role in this effort. WUWT has provided a public platform for data-driven scrutiny, extended quotes from source material, and open debate on climate claims that were often presented as “settled science.” Over the years, millions of readers have turned to WUWT as a resource for honest analysis and transparent discussion, rather than alarmist dogma and political posturing. Through its detailed posts and vigorous comment sections, WUWT has empowered a generation of climate realists to ask tough questions, demand accountability, and resist the intimidation tactics of those invested in the status quo.

Perhaps nothing better illustrates the necessity of this skepticism than the Climategate scandal of 2009, where a trove of emails from prominent climate scientists exposed a charade disguised as science. The communications revealed attempts to manipulate data, suppress dissenting views, and stonewall requests for transparency—all in the service of defending a narrative rather than advancing understanding. Climategate confirmed what many skeptics had long suspected: that the so-called consensus was enforced through politics, not evidence, and that open inquiry was often treated as a threat rather than a requirement of science.

From the outset, climate skeptics were dismissed as “deniers” and painted as outliers, even as they brought forth data and analysis that contradicted the doomsday narratives dominating headlines. They questioned the overreliance on models with poor track records, the manipulation and cherry-picking of temperature datasets, the politicization of research funding, and the relentless conflation of weather with climate. These challenges were often met not with scientific debate but with ad hominem attacks and attempts to silence dissent.

Yet it is precisely this skepticism—this refusal to bow to groupthink—that has preserved scientific integrity and prevented far worse policy mistakes. The tireless work of independent analysts, bloggers, and organizations like The Heartland Institute has revealed errors in climate data handling, exposed conflicts of interest, and demanded transparency in the review and publication of climate research. Skeptics have consistently pointed out that climate is an immensely complex, poorly understood system, not a simple machine governed by one trace gas.

Over time, many of the arguments made by skeptics have proven prescient. The failure of climate models to accurately predict temperature trends, the non-materialization of the “hockey stick” catastrophe, the persistent downward adjustments to estimates of climate sensitivity to CO2—these have all vindicated a more cautious, critical approach to climate science. Importantly, the skeptical community’s insistence on open data and reproducibility has forced a grudging shift toward greater transparency in mainstream climate research.

Today, as the EPA walks back one of the foundational rules of American climate policy, the importance of these skeptical voices can no longer be ignored. Policymakers are beginning to realize that real progress requires confronting inconvenient facts, not suppressing them. The narrative has shifted from unquestioning acceptance of alarmist predictions to a more mature, data-driven conversation about climate and energy. The very arguments once ridiculed as “fringe” are now being echoed in the halls of government and public policy.

None of this would have been possible without those who dared to speak up and challenge the narrative, often at great personal and professional cost. I am proud to be one of the many who stood up and actively worked against it. I am thankful for the words of encouragement and the pledges of support to WUWT through donations and subscriptions, plus the support of generous private donors (you know who you are) that allowed us to continue the fight. The removal of the Endangerment Finding is, in many ways, a victory for those who believe in scientific rigor, open debate, and policies that serve the public interest—not just political expediency.

As we move forward, it’s crucial to remember that skepticism is not the enemy of science; it is its engine. Only through open inquiry, constant questioning, and a willingness to confront dogma can we ensure that climate policy remains grounded in reality and truly serves the nation’s needs.

I will have a follow-up post for tomorrow. For now, Charles and I are taking the rest of the day off. We’ve earned it – Anthony

Oh, one last thing; a personal message to Dr. Michael Mann:

A close-up of a person with a helmet, shouting energetically with an intense expression. The text overlay reads 'UP.....YOURRRSSSS!'

No Right to a Stable Climate

Not seeing much of that nuance from judges blindly following IPCC nostrums.  The right to a stable climate ignores the fact the modern era is full of both warm and cool periods, including many times without any possible human influence.

A courtroom scene featuring a stern judge and an audience of green-skinned, skeletal figures dressed in suits, reflecting a surreal and eerie atmosphere.

From Science Matters

By Ron Clutz

A black and white image featuring a man in a suit, holding a cigarette, standing next to a vintage television set. The screen displays text that reads, 'Imagine, if you will... A world where people believe that the temperature of the planet can be controlled by giving more money to the government.'

Judges in high courts are all claiming a “Human Right to a Stable Climate,” as though any court, parliament or government can make it happen.  The latest proclamations come from the International Court of Justice and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ( IACtHR )

The 234-page IACtHR advisory opinion sets out the court’s perspective on the climate emergency and human rights, recognizing that states have legal obligations under international law to protect current and future generations from the impacts of climate change, to take “urgent and effective” action to cut greenhouse gas emissions, to adapt, to cooperate, and to guard against climate disinformation and greenwashing.

Question to perplexity.ai: Could courts’ emphasis on human activity overlook natural climate variability evidence?

Answer: (my bolds) Courts’ emphasis on human activity as the primary driver of recent climate change is based on the strong scientific consensus reflected in assessments by bodies like the IPCC, and courts have generally accepted these conclusions as beyond reasonable dispute when adjudicating climate law cases23. This approach often involves taking “judicial notice” of mainstream climate science, meaning courts regard anthropogenic climate change as an established fact, obviating the need to litigate scientific basics repeatedly23.

However, this legal methodology can, in practice, result in
underweighting evidence of natural climate variability:

  • The dominant legal standard centers on whether human-caused disruptions introduce new or heightened risks to rights, rather than parsing the specific historical roles of natural versus anthropogenic drivers6. Thus, courts sometimes set a lower bar for causal linkage, assuming risks to rights where types of harm are deemed foreseeable consequences of climate change, even if local variability or confounding natural factors exist65.
  • Defense arguments in litigation, such as those in Juliana v. United States, have challenged the ability of current science to disentangle anthropogenic from natural variability (especially for region-specific impacts), but such arguments are usually overruled or considered less compelling compared to the broader trend evidence53.
  • Some court rulings have acknowledged the complexity and multiple contributors to climate outcomes, yet uphold state obligations for mitigation and adaptation, reasoning that even where natural variability exists, the unprecedented pace and scope of human forcing is sufficient to establish state duties under rights frameworks6.

In summary, while courts do not categorically ignore natural climate variability, their emphasis on human activity is guided by prevailing scientific consensus and the precautionary principle. This can lead to less rigorous scrutiny of the full extent of natural variability’s contribution, particularly where the focus is on the foreseeability and scale of rights-endangering risks from ongoing anthropogenic change. Legal recognition of these risks typically does not require natural and human factors to be weighed equally—potentially overlooking specific nuances of natural variability in individual cases653.

Caveat: There are exceptions, and courts have dismissed some claims where causal links to human activity were too indirect or not supported by sufficient evidence, especially in jurisdictions with stricter standards for standing or causation6. However, the overarching trend is to defer to consensus science prioritizing human-driven change as the principal legal concern.

Question to perplexity.ai: Could ignoring natural variability lead to misjudging climate damage extent?

Answer: (My bolds)

Ignoring natural climate variability in assessing climate damage could indeed lead to misjudging the extent and nuances of that damage. Scientific and assessment literature on climate impacts and natural resource damage emphasizes that both natural variability and human-driven climate change influence climate-related hazards and ecosystem responses, and failing to account for natural variability can complicate accurate attribution and magnitude estimation of damage.

Key points synthesized from relevant sources include:

  • Baseline Challenge and Detection Difficulty: Climate change increases variability and the frequency of extreme events such as droughts, floods, and storms, but natural variability also influences these patterns. This complicates establishing a stable baseline for comparison. Ignoring natural fluctuations can lead to an under- or overestimate of true climate-related damages, as it is harder to detect how much harm is caused specifically by human activity versus natural cycles5.
  • Attribution Complexity: Natural variability introduces uncertainty when attributing specific events or damages to human-caused climate change. Explicitly considering natural variability in event attribution studies increases uncertainty ranges but still supports the conclusion that human activity raises the likelihood and severity of some events. Neglecting natural variability risks oversimplifying cause-effect relationships and could distort the assessment of climate risks and damages6.
  • Changing Reference Conditions: The selection of appropriate reference or baseline conditions for assessing injury to natural resources needs to factor in both long-term trends and natural fluctuations altered by climate change. Static references ignoring natural variability may mischaracterize damage extent or recovery needs5.
  • Implications for Risk and Damage Assessment: Failure to incorporate natural variability may lead to misjudging vulnerabilities, underestimating risk likelihoods, and misguided policy decisions. Accurate modeling and impact assessment require analysis frameworks that integrate historical variability alongside anthropogenic warming influences27.

In summary, rigorous climate damage and risk assessments seek to integrate natural variability to improve accuracy and avoid misjudging the scale or cause of damage. While natural variability is not a reason to dismiss anthropogenic climate impacts, acknowledging it refines understanding and strengthens attribution and legal or policy responses.

This nuanced view aligns with the legal and scientific approaches courts rely upon when considering climate damage claims: they defer to comprehensive scientific consensus but remain mindful of uncertainties introduced by natural climate variability.

Collage-style image featuring cut-out letters that convey a humorous yet urgent message about climate change, demanding trillions of dollars in response to potential natural disasters like storms, floods, droughts, and pestilence.

My Comment:

Not seeing much of that nuance from judges blindly following IPCC nostrums.  The right to a stable climate ignores the fact the modern era is full of both warm and cool periods, including many times without any possible human influence.

Infographic illustrating the historical changes in Eastern European alpine glaciers during the Holocene period, showing tree lines, glacier extent, and summer temperatures over thousands of years.
Graph illustrating the approximately 250-year lag time between temperature anomalies and CO2 levels during the Little Ice Age, showing different moving averages and historical data points.
Graph showing the correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperature anomaly from 1960 to 2021, with CO2 levels indicated in red and temperature anomalies in blue.
A coincidental positive correlation is considered evidence of human causality, ignoring periods of weak or negative correlation.

See Also

Our Weather Extremes Are Customary in History
IPCC Guilty of “Prosecutor’s Fallacy”
How Do We Know Humans Cause Climate Change?